Farsight Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 seriously, are you BLIND? several times your essays have been analysed paragraph by paragraph. the questions raised were uniformly ignored by you and you trundled on regardless. it is you who has not read our posts. or, if you have, you choose to ignore them. Oh they've been analysed paragraph by paragraph have they? Would you like to show me the evidence for that? Because they haven't. And how many times have I asked people to do so on this thread? Would you like me to show you that evidence? well, farsight, if you said this to a peer review journal, they would laugh at you. do you know why they would laugh at you and throw your paper out? because science HAS to ANSWER questions. it is not allowed to pick and choose what to answer and what to ignore. I've answered lots of questions, but you ignore my replies, just as you ignore Farsight's "theories", which also answer questions. Now I've run out of patience. There you go. you will not get blind faith here, if you want that go to one of the nuttier boards. I do get blind faith here. I've never seen so much blind faith. And I don't think there is one. but here, you will need to provide substantiation. we ask for evidence, you provide none, you point to your essays again as if they are the be all and end all of science. we ask for the maths you used to come to your conclusions, you say you are bad at maths and didn't do this yet you also claim to have derived the theory. we ask you to explain well observed phenomenon that would behave differently under your theory and you ignore us. None? Hello, here we are on page 7. Bad at maths? Where did that come from? I said you can't use maths to tackle mathematical axioms. Ignore you? You really are making it up as you go along. Anybody can check the thread and see this. you are not doing science. your are asking for us to reject current theories in favour of yours with no evidence, proof or mathematics. to steer clear of the gaping holes in your theory and pretend they don't exist. No, all I'm asking is that you actually read what I say. You continually ignore what I say, and soothe your conscience with dishonesty. there is one other group of people who employ these exact same tactics and it is at this level i have finally come to rank you. the 'Intelligent Design' people. you have lost every shred of credibility and patience i've had with you. and i have tried to be generous. but unless you start playing by the rules of science, GTFO. Now that is an utterly ridiculous insult. You're the guys playing religion here. Not me. This thread is absurd. It is a Scientific criticism of farsight's theories that will not refer to those theories. It is utterly Kafkaesque, like a medieval theocratic court performing a burn the heretic show trial. It is the height of irrationality, and the pretence is shameful. No wonder this forum is a dead zone for juveniles.
insane_alien Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 fine i'll give you evidence http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25430 look at post 11 i done it myself. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25231 here edtharan hasn't quite done it paragraph by paragraph but he confronts all your main points http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050 edtharan again doing what he does best http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23348 yet again edtharan http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23662 and last but not least, edtharan. come on now. you should know better farsight just to finish because i need to run None? Hello, here we are on page 7. Bad at maths? Where did that come from? well, it has been one of your many many many excuses for not providing any hard maths. not bad perse but just not good enough to convert your ideas into equations. i can't find the exact post just now because of the sheer volume of crap i have to sift through and probably over looked it.
swansont Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 Now that is an utterly ridiculous insult. You're the guys playing religion here. Not me. This thread is absurd. It is a Scientific criticism of farsight's theories that will not refer to those theories. You have previously admitted that those posts do not constitute theories. We were trying to concentrate on the few predictions you made, like everything is made of photons. That claim has certain consequences, and can be tested. You have steadfastly refused to address objections and questions about the implications of that claim.
someguy Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 farsight i still don't see why you don't just propose your basic principles one at a time. if they hold we will have no choice but to agree with your essays. if they don't hold you could write better essays. i know alot of people say they found flaws with your essay and i'm one of them. and i know you've said you'e handled anything said to you. but to tackle the whole essay like this with so many people is just stupid. it doesn't allow for us to bring up a specific point and then discuss about it. if we we re in conversation would you really just blurt out a soliloquy like that essay and expect a constructive discussion afterwards? we can constructively discuss one point. and that thread could be filled with people discussing the actual issue instead of full of "I saids he saids". just open up a thread about one of your most basic principles and defend it. if you succeed then move on to the next one, if you fail then revise your theory. it's a win win situation for you. all of this personal attacking is pointless and hardly scientific at all.
Farsight Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 insane alien: bah: all you quote is more of the blather we see here. Your first link is to overall RELATIVITY+ summary, and all you're saying is "no, that's wrong", without actually saying anything intelligent at all. And the other links show us Edtharan repeatedly saying "Farsight you're wrong because of <axiomatic statement such as time is the fourth dimension>". Thin gruel, kid. swansont: yes, I've said it's a toy model rather than a theory. I was quoting from the thread title. let me remind you what it is: Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories. You aren't trying to concentrate on anything other than ignoring the model I present, digging up all kinds of tangential red-herring questions, ignoring my answers, then digging up more questions. And you still refuse to consider the time travel and wormholes issue that brought us here, which I counter with TIME EXPLAINED. The situation remains that self-appointed so-called rational-minded "scientists" would rather believe in time travel than read an explanation of why it's not possible. And it really is quite, quite absurd. And to bolster your absurdity, you are inferring that I am a crackpot. I rather think there's another word that's more suitable: heretic. Elas: I read your paper, and noted the "stretched hoops" illustration. I'm afraid however I became somewhat confused by the way the text talked about electron shells and particles without what looked to me a clear separation. If you start some thread on it I'll give you some detailed feedback for what it's worth. I have read either this or something similar from you previously. farsight i still don't see why you don't just propose your basic principles one at a time. if they hold we will have no choice but to agree with your essays. if they don't hold you could write better essays. i know alot of people say they found flaws with your essay and i'm one of them. and i know you've said you'e handled anything said to you. but to tackle the whole essay like this with so many people is just stupid. it doesn't allow for us to bring up a specific point and then discuss about it. if we we re in conversation would you really just blurt out a soliloquy like that essay and expect a constructive discussion afterwards? we can constructively discuss one point. and that thread could be filled with people discussing the actual issue instead of full of "I saids he saids". just open up a thread about one of your most basic principles and defend it. if you succeed then move on to the next one, if you fail then revise your theory. it's a win win situation for you. all of this personal attacking is pointless and hardly scientific at all. That sounds sensible, someguy. OK, let's start with the first of my basic principles. Let's start with time: Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel. Discuss.
YT2095 Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 farsight I`m stunned, totally Amazed as to How you can lay accusations against someone (Wrongly I might add!) that they run to the Moderators (Staff), when YOU`RE laying nothing short of a Barrage of complaints by reporting posts like some squeely pig being chased by a hungry fat chick with a knife and fork! I think you owe Ben an apology! (he`s never complained ONCE!) 1
Klaynos Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 If time is not a dimension how come it appears in the 4-vector equations?
elas Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 insane_alien because science HAS to ANSWER questions. it is not allowed to pick and choose what to answer and what to ignore. At CERN only 2 (rarely 3 or 1) out of each batch of approximately 80,000 results are selected (by a computer program) for further examination, is that not picking and choosing? Is not the program designed to select those results that closely match a mathematical prediction? Who decided that the predictive theory predicts all possible particles? and where is the evidence that it does so? Farsight might not be the best presenter of an idea, but at least he realizes that we are being tricked into believing something that is far from the whole truth. Mathematics used to be a tool for the use of scientists (and others); but in physics, as in no other science; mathematicians have become the masters and scientist are very much the junior partner. Hence Particle physics has recently been demoted and is now classified as a branch of Quantum physics when, by any logical reasoning it should be the other way around. The search for a clear understanding of particles should precede the acceptance of a mathematical predictive theory, regardless of its accuracy.
Klaynos Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 Hence Particle physics has recently been demoted and is now classified as a branch of Quantum physics OH **** THERE'S A LEAGUE TABLE! Maths is not the master of physics it is the language of physics. It allows us to make predictions unlike hand waving. As for CERN I am not familiar with their experimental set up but I suspect they are failed experiments not just ones that give unexpected results...
insane_alien Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 yeah, i would be surprised if all those results would be discarded for no reason. i honestly have no idea why they are discarded and it could be for any number of reasons (the wrong particles, the wrong reactions, background noise etc.) every science has a way to detect when something hasn't worked right whether it is a contamination or a mis fire.
iNow Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 It's pretty sad that this is still going on after 7 pages. The forum staff, however, are in the difficult position of being labelled "censors" if they close the thread. Perhaps a thread title change would be in order? "Attempts at Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Proposals."
elas Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 BenTheMan Well, there you have it. It seems that you have learned as much from Wikipedia about spinors as I have in the two months or so it took me to understand them. You have just cut and paste something from Wikipedia that someone else has cut and paste from somewhere else. You haven't attempted to understand what a spinor is, and why we think spinors represent fermions. I really doubt that you read any more than the first paragraph of the article. Try: http://www.vttoth.com/spinors.htm Anything that is part of QT is mathematical prediction, it tells us what particles do, not how or why or what they are. Claiming that one theory explains bosons and fermions sounds like Farsight reasoning. And I note that the paper referred to does not exactly agree with your statement.
someguy Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel. Discuss. I agree with you and that's why i say it is semantics. the 4th dimension is not spacial and thus to travel in it cannot be done as it is done i nthe first 3 dimensions. however time is the relative motion of objects and the relative motion of the parts of my body dictate the rate at which i age. if i had a twin their parts would have the same relative motion as mine all other things being equal. however if i was accelerated very greatly my parts would be moving at a rate different from those of my twin. since time is the relative motion of parts, then you could say that i have travelled through time. not like travelling through a liquid or a door or anything like that. time is not spacial, as you have stated. however my body ages days come and go entropy increases and the rate at which it increases is variable thus you could say that travel through time is possible, so long as you allow for travel to have meaning in a 4th dimension rather then being limited to dimensions of space. if you do not allow for travel to be used this way then I think yo uare right about that. but clocks do run and days do pass. a clock ticks and that ticking has been named as running. the earth spins and causes the sun to rise and set and that has been named as days passing. time certainly is not a length. you can't travel through travel. but the relative rates of motion can increase or decrease and that is time as you have said, and i think you could call that travelling in time, as i said, if you allow for the word travel to be used for a dimension that is not spacial, if you do not, then you would need to invent a new word. or maybe use a different one, like simply increase or decrease. you might say that the temperature travelled from one temperature to another, particularly if you measure it with the motion of mercury. but usually since mercury goes only up or down people will say the temperature rises or falls. but temperature can technically neither rise nor fall it is also only motion. but i don't think that means you need to go around telling everybody that the temperature cannot rise or fall. what would be the point of that? asserting what temperature is would be time better spent i think. but time is not money so maybe i shouldn't say time can be spent either. i find that language rather than inventing new words all the time just uses the closest word that fits with a slightly different definition and that's how we come to have words that sound the same and are spelled the same but mean different things. or sometimes slang because using the wrong word can be kind of poetic. like in hip hop instead of copy someone they will say byte. because of sound bytes, and integral part of hip hop. but by your actions obviously you could never literally byte my actions, it just sounds cooler. but so far i think all in all i have to agree with your first premise even though i would allow the use of the word travel to signify changes in the 4th dimension.
BenTheMan Posted August 29, 2007 Author Posted August 29, 2007 A few comments to others before Farsight. First to elas--- At CERN only 2 (rarely 3 or 1) out of each batch of approximately 80,000 results are selected (by a computer program) for further examination, is that not picking and choosing?Is not the program designed to select those results that closely match a mathematical prediction? Yes and no. Many events are disregarded because of the sheer volume of data acquisition that is required. This is called ``triggering''. With the technological limits we have, it is literally impossible to observe every single piece of data that the LHC will give us. Thousands of scientists have worked for decades on this project, and there has been much discussion about the design of the triggers. While they are designed to (specifically) trigger on certain types of events, the collider signatures are general enough so that anything weird that happens will be quickly identified. So don'y worry your pretty little head about the LHC not finding your theory. If it's right, and has predictions for LHC physics, the very capable people in Geneva will find it. Kalynos--- This was my first objection to Farsight's ideas: If time is not a dimension how come it appears in the 4-vector equations? And one that he is aparently still bitter about...four vectors are tied very closely to Lorentz invariance. If you can't write a four vector (as in Farsight's notion of time), you don't have Lorentz invariance. Plain and simple. One very important example. Farsight would be right if he were talking about quantum mechanics. That is, the time evolution of the Schroedinger equation is goverened by a unitary operator, [math]e^{i\mathcal{H}t}[/math], where [math]\mathcal{H}[/math] is the hamiltonian. So in a sense, Farsight is exactly right, if we were alive 100 years ago. But Einstein showed, in General Relativity, that time was actually a direction, which is WHY we have four vectors, and this is WHY we need the Dirac equation---the Schroedinger equation doesn't incorporate Lorentz invariance. Now to Farsight. Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel. Again I will use the Standard Model to show you that this is wrong. We know that there are chiral fermions in the standard model. Chirality is a special feature only in even numbers of dimensions. Specifically, one can only define left-handed and right-handed parity operators in even numbers of dimensions. I have linked to the wikipedia article if you should need to refresh yourself on these ideas (as I did): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28physics%29#Chiral_Theories Now, why do we know there are chiral fermions? The answer is weak interractions, which are naturally incorporated into the electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam won the Nobel prize in 1979), and was first written down by Fermi in the 1930's. Experimentally, we have observed that left-handed particles interract under the Weak force, but right handed particles do not. Thus, chirality is a natural feature for fermions in an even number of dimensions, but impossible to define in an odd number of dimensions. If you would like to see experimental data (read: actual experimental data), I can link it for you, but only if you promise to look at it.
swansont Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 swansont: yes, I've said it's a toy model rather than a theory. I was quoting from the thread title. let me remind you what it is: Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories. You aren't trying to concentrate on anything other than ignoring the model I present, digging up all kinds of tangential red-herring questions, ignoring my answers, then digging up more questions. And you still refuse to consider the time travel and wormholes issue that brought us here, which I counter with TIME EXPLAINED. The situation remains that self-appointed so-called rational-minded "scientists" would rather believe in time travel than read an explanation of why it's not possible. And it really is quite, quite absurd. No, actually, this thread was split off so topics other than time travel could be discussed, as I explained in my first post in the thread. "the discussions are about predictions made and how they fail (or not) to be supported by experiment" Everything being made of photons is a prediction. Discussion of that is most certainly not a red herring. Your response was "Let's select one point to discuss at length without red herrings, then move on to another. For your starter for ten, let's start with the decay of a neutral pion. OK what are the products?" for pete's sake! You AGREED to discuss that! You PROPOSED not changing topics! Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel. Discuss. I would point out that you still need to make a prediction out of this, or list some implications, but I see that Ben has already done this for you.
someguy Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 Kalynos--- This was my first objection to Farsight's ideas: And one that he is aparently still bitter about...four vectors are tied very closely to Lorentz invariance. If you can't write a four vector (as in Farsight's notion of time), you don't have Lorentz invariance. Plain and simple. One very important example. Farsight would be right if he were talking about quantum mechanics. That is, the time evolution of the Schroedinger equation is goverened by a unitary operator, [math]e^{i\mathcal{H}t}[/math], where [math]\mathcal{H}[/math] is the hamiltonian. So in a sense, Farsight is exactly right, if we were alive 100 years ago. But Einstein showed, in General Relativity, that time was actually a direction, which is WHY we have four vectors, and this is WHY we need the Dirac equation---the Schroedinger equation doesn't incorporate Lorentz invariance. Now to Farsight. Again I will use the Standard Model to show you that this is wrong. We know that there are chiral fermions in the standard model. Chirality is a special feature only in even numbers of dimensions. Specifically, one can only define left-handed and right-handed parity operators in even numbers of dimensions. I have linked to the wikipedia article if you should need to refresh yourself on these ideas (as I did): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28physics%29#Chiral_Theories Now, why do we know there are chiral fermions? The answer is weak interractions, which are naturally incorporated into the electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam won the Nobel prize in 1979), and was first written down by Fermi in the 1930's. Experimentally, we have observed that left-handed particles interract under the Weak force, but right handed particles do not. Thus, chirality is a natural feature for fermions in an even number of dimensions, but impossible to define in an odd number of dimensions. If you would like to see experimental data (read: actual experimental data), I can link it for you, but only if you promise to look at it. I don't think he ever said that time was not a dimension i jsut think he was saying it was a dimension you can't travel in. he is just saying that the three other dimensions are different from the 4th one. so none of your critiques of your last post contradict what he was saying. i don't know if you read my last post but if you do i think you'll see what i mean. I would point out that you still need to make a prediction out of this, or list some implications, but I see that Ben has already done this for you. no, i don't think he needs to make any predictions with this or list implications yet, it is simply his first premise. his conclusion is yet to come. once he has concluded then there would be implications. unless of course you mean flaws with this idea, which the whole purpose of posting the thought was for us to find some. we need examine this premise for its validity. ben has not shown any implications. he has shown that a 4th dimension must exist. the debate, though i think both parties agree that the 4th dimension is time, is not about how many dimensions there are it is about what the 4th dimension actually is. everyone agrees it is named time. but the debate is about what exactly time is. proving there must be 4 dimensions is a moot point. he is saying that you cannot "travel" in the 4th dimension since it is not spacial. again i think someone everyone agrees with. still, i would use the word 'travel' freely, even if the 4th dimension isn't spacial, just like i spend time doing something even though time isn't money or anything other object i possess, but whatever. arguing over that is a waste of time i think. there is a 4th dimension it is called time and it is not spacial. right? certainly everyone agrees with that. pretty much everything else farsight said in his most recent post, at least as far as the main idea goes, i personally agree with. but you can try to shoot it down more if you want to. if not, i'm ready for the next premise. i don't wanna tell anybody what to do, but please for everyone's sake try to keep to talking about farsight's last post about time or else we'll just be fighting around in circles and going nowhere fast. Originally Posted by Farsight View Post Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel.
BenTheMan Posted August 29, 2007 Author Posted August 29, 2007 I don't think he ever said that time was not a dimension i jsut think he was saying it was a dimension you can't travel in. he is just saying that the three other dimensions are different from the 4th one. so none of your critiques of your last post contradict what he was saying. i don't know if you read my last post but if you do i think you'll see what i mean. someguy--- You have the same misconceptions as Farsight. The fact is that one can look at the Lorentz group (the SAME Lorentz group that predicts Lorentz Invariance) as [math]SO(3,1) \cong SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R[/math]. This is very beautiful, and is why we have left handed and right handed spinors. The idea of chirality is only around because time and space are more or less the exact same. Whether or not time travel is possible isn't an issue---if it is, it is. If it's not, then so be it. As I said in another thread, neither your ideas nor Farsight's ideas are enough to kill it. This was Einstein's greatest contribution to science---the idea that one should treat time and space on equal footing. Farsight has misunderstood this idea so severely that he claims Einstein was working on it in his dying years. ben has not shown any implications. he has shown that a 4th dimension must exist. the debate, though i think both parties agree that the 4th dimension is time, is not about how many dimensions there are it is about what the 4th dimension actually is. No, if time is only a result of motion, as Farsight claims, then the Lorentz group is SO(3). Period. IF this is the case, then there is no chirality. Period. I know because I can do the calculations.
Reaper Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 Damn it! This guy (Farsight) is invulnerable to reason. Whenever we present evidence to the contrary, or an absurdity to his "theory", he instead claims that we have somehow been brainwashed and that we just can't simply "see the light", so to speak. In addition, he prides himself with having the knowledge of the so-called "truths" that nobody else has, and seems to be expecting to be regarded as some sort of prophet. Sadly, its quite similar to a conspiracy theorist; irrational, deluded, narcisstic, closed-minded, and overall just out of touch with reality. He still has yet to come up with a counter argument against my points that I presented some time ago. I actually do have a question, why do the moderators here keep him on this site even though he is clearly a troll?
BenTheMan Posted August 29, 2007 Author Posted August 29, 2007 Perhaps we should keep track of his statements: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28212
iNow Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 I actually do have a question, why do the moderators here keep him on this site even though he is clearly a troll? Maybe because the rest of us learn from watching those who have supportable evidence prove his ideas wrong. A spiner, eh? That's wicked cool.
Phi for All Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 I actually do have a question, why do the moderators here keep him on this site even though he is clearly a troll?Maybe because the rest of us learn from watching those who have supportable evidence prove his ideas wrong. This is the main reason. It's also a test of control, not letting frustration cloud your arguments. And we do want to show that ideas aren't summarily dismissed here, even though they run contrary to accepted science. There are limits though, and I think the coyote has maxed out his ACME card.
fattyjwoods Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Here we go again! Do we all have to be sad to Farsight? He may be wrong sometimes but we all make mistakes
foodchain Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Here we go again! Do we all have to be sad to Farsight? He may be wrong sometimes but we all make mistakes I agree. Most of this thread has been nothing but a brutal and callous treatment of another human being.
Recommended Posts