Relativity+

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Today's threat level is HIGH.

[insane_alien]

Note: Quacks come in slightly different levels of sophistication in math: The worst use only words, and no numbers whatsoever, but lots of pictures.

 

from the article linked to by molotov. this seems particularly relevant here don't you think?

[MolotovCocktail]

Compare these:

 

From site: You have to spend some time studying my theory.

 

 

You didn't quite get round to reading MASS EXPLAINED did you?

 

and

 

Oh get out of it. You're the one full of assumptions. So full you can't be bothered to actually read the essay' date=' and you drum up any old stuff to try to demonstrate a hatchet job on something you don't understand, and don't want to understand. That's what I meant when I said I understand people. I understand your psychology of belief. You don't.

[/quote']

 

:rolleyes:

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Let's not let this get out of hand.

[MolotovCocktail]

Alright, Alright...

[Edtharan]

All: I've just read Edtharan's post. This rather stands out:

And taken out of context too.

 

That was (if you had read the post that it was a response to) was a discussion about the relevance of the analogies that Farsight had used in his essays. I was endeavouring to explain that the over use analogies will be seen as an unscientific attempt at a theory. Even if the theory as correct, just using analogies will not allow the reader to make any meaningful conclusions with the theory, which, in a scientific work makes them next to useless.

 

You suffer from the psychology of disbelief, which so utterly convinces you that you're right, that you dismiss new ideas, you disqualify evidence that threatens your current model, and you pay only lip service to scientific principle.

If disbelief is paying lip service to the Scientific principle, then every scientist in the world is only paying lip service to the Scientific principle.

 

The whole point about the scientific principle and the reason it works as well as it does is because of disbelief.

 

I've read some history, and seen the things Einstein said long after he did GR.

That doesn't mean he was right.

 

Einstein made one of the biggest contributions to Quantum Mechanics with his photoelectric effect. Yet even to his deathbed he refused to accept QM. So because he didn't accept QM as being correct, after he discovered the Photoelectric effect, does that make QM wrong?

 

No, just because he made various statements later in life does not make his earlier work obsolete.

 

It is a false argument to use this. Sure, you might use it to initiate investigations, conduct experiments, but unless those experiments disprove his earlier work the comments made do not mean that we have to change current theories.

 

Wrong. You cannot move through time.

That is an axiomatic argument right there. Please prove this claim (or disprove the counter claim that we are moving through time). You accuse us of making axiomatic claims, well you are just as guilty it seems.

 

Would you like to prove me wrong? Easy. OK I've just hopped back back a metre. Now you hop back a second.

Ok. Jump 1 meter out of a spaceship orbiting the moon. Now jump back 1 meter. You can't can you.

 

So this would be exactly the same as us trying to jump back 1 second in time (actually to jump back 1 second would really be like us having to jump 300,000,000 metres).

 

Or cross over the event horizon of a black hole. Now cross back out. Again. You can't can you.

 

So, by these arguments (not being able to freely move in space) we can conclude that space is just an illusion and does not exist. Wow, what a relief, now I don't have to get up to get my dinner from the kitchen.

 

There's another illusion going on with your concept of time,

Yet another axiomatic argument. One day I might just keep a running total.

 

All they've done is repeated the same old tired old stuff. It goes like this: "Farsight, you're wrong about time because time is a dimension just like the dimensions of space, it does flow, it does have length and we can travel in it, so QED I've proven you wrong".

you know. If that is how you have been reading our posts. No wonder you don't think we have actually been posting science. We have been wasting out time taking the time to explain our reasoning behind those claims, we have wasted time by referring to experiments that have been carried out.

 

Who is being dishonest here. You deliberately did not acknowledge all the explanations, the maths, the references, etc that we have put in. What if we just summed up you essays as "Time doesn't exist" (or better yet: "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so" - and if you can get the reference 10 points). You have discarded much more in the way of content to arrive at that post about us.

 

I have never just stopped at saying "Time is a dimension, there fore you are wrong: QED". The fact that you have posted this about us is a gross misrepresentation of our arguments.

 

You suffer from the psychology of disbelief

and

All you can do is repeat the mantra that you've been taught from an early age. This ppsychology of belief is why we have suicide bombers, and it's actually more prevalent thank you might think.

We are damned if we do and Damned if we don't.

 

So our problem is that we believe and disbelieve. No wonder I am suffering from a migraine at the moment (and I really am so apologies for any incoherence ).

 

There are some unpleasant similarities with religious dogma.

Actullay your attitudes through all thses discussions is much more like religious dogma. We have been interested in questions and learning. We have requested that evidence be presented (and if it ever is we will acknowledge it and if it is reliable then we will change our accepted theories.

 

However, your responses were positive to anyone who agreed with you, but to people that disagree with you (either out of a lack of understanding or actual understanding) you have met with hostility and insults. You have refused the presentation of evidence and dismissed logical counter arguments.

 

Well, who is the more dogmatic of us then?

[Norman Albers]

I define greatness as the ability to think creatively, and then to be willing to move forth questioning the worth of your creation. General relativity is a differential mathematics in search of physics. Farsight, here's a knuckleball. I think I can show why electrons are the size they are, energetically, given the inhomogeneous electromagnetic dance describing them as singularity. Consider light energy of frozen phase, such as I detail completely with mathematics in my electron paper, circulating in a near field. It may be described by energy density and also by angular momentum density. Having done these ang. mom. integrals, I can say that they depend strongly on the radius at which a field momentum contributes. The clincher is that field density of energy equals that of ang. mom. multiplied by the frequency. We are used to dealing with this in the quantum relation [math]E=h\nu[/math], but it isn't hard to show that given the orthgonal field relations we understand, this works out. Consider a perturbation on the electron field to where it is more spread out, diffuse. Locally the decrease of energy density is not matched by the angular momentum since it goes also as radius. Therefore the field cannot do this consistently. The singularity may exist, in my analysis, given vacuum dipole availability and the fundamental constants (to some point!) determining its magnitude, along with this geomtetric physics. I have not yet spent time developing this formally so I join you here in the kitchen. I have developed mathematically electrons, photons, and gravitation as states of the vacuum polarizability.

[Farsight]

Good stuff Albers. Take care who you show it to. You need to work on another crossover point for the muon.