Farsight's Ideas Explained

[iNow]

You're pretty much spot on there Spyman. Mind you, I don't feel bullied. It's more like I'm the star attraction in a game of burn the heretic. Note Ben's ongoing abusive comments above, compare with this...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=356323&postcount=219

 

...and judge the guy for yourself. Don't think I'm in any way hurt or wounded by all this stuff. I simply must submit my material formally, and meanwhile chitchatting about it on the internet might prove more than unproductive.

 

Farsight, how come for the past several days you've posted that you're extremely busy with other things and solidifying your paper so cannot respond to the questions and critiques raised, yet you seem to have no problem logging in to continue stating how attacked you are? You also have a strange way of only thinking people are correct if they agree with you, and only responding to their posts.

 

I'd suggest that the forum staff here have done a fantastic job of protecting you from personal attacks and off-topic discussion. Hats off to them. Yet, I still haven't seen a single question addressed by you in a way that supports your claims. If you truly understand these concepts so well that you can recreate accepted theory and write complete essays which should change the way we all think, then I struggle to understand why you cannot address ANY of these well articulated concerns and critiques with ease.

[Farsight]

iNow: I need a little break from time to time. My RELATIVITY+ paper is hard work. And my new-found reticence is because there's something I don't want to give away.

You haven't seen a single question that supports my claims? Please refer to the link in my previous post. This is what it says:

 

Farsight---

 

There is some good insight here. Specifically this

 

Mass' date=' in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you.[/i']

 

is a good way to think of mass at a classical level. This is something that I had never really thought that much about.

 

This "good insight" from BenTheMan supports my claims. The insight is in MASS EXPLAINED, and Ben's post demonstrates is that all his antagonism has come from somebody who hasn't paid any attention to my material. By the way, he's now asking about time on another thread, demonstrating that he hasn't read TIME EXPLAINED either. Quite absurd.

 

Phi is similar to Ben. He dismisses my material without actually reading it. He exhibits conviction, and conviction is a hard nut to crack. But we'll get there. And it sure is going to be fun when the penny drops.

 

Norm: your post noted. I've been thinking of getting in touch with Joao. He's at Imperial College London, a couple of hours away from me.

 

OK, back to work, catch you later.

 

PS: My son is still at school. My daughter is a straight-A student who starts university in three weeks. She's doing Psychology.

[swansont]

I don't know why that should piss you off but you shouldn't let if affect your posts.

 

"pissed" <> "pissed off"

[Dak]

Afaik, like all -to my knowledge- sfn-related projects started by sfn non-staff members, the letter was never finished and sent.

 

which, may i add, was the stupidest thing that i ever witnessed: with all the work that went in, to abandon the letter when it needed just an atom's worth more work

[Spyman]

BenTheMan:

I am not threatening you, 1) it was for Phi and 2) it was an example to make a point.

 

As I have said in every post I made in this thread: I agree that persons should be prepared to be told they are wrong and if persisting contrary to evidence then they are rightfully crackpots.

 

But, (and this is a big but and my only objection), even if a person is a crackpot it is wrong to make a thread like this one. There is a fine line somewhere in this "gray area" between calling someone a crackpot and making a named thread devoted to prove it with the intention to point finger and show everybody how out of his mind this person is.

 

From your long reply it's obvious that you wouldn't like to be the target of a similar thread.

(Farsight on the other hand seems to enjoy to stand in the spotlight you have created for him.)

 

And it's not nice to use my example for more humiliating of him either.

 

Yes, I would have the same objections to the same treatment of a person defending Intelligent Design.

 

Maybe you cand find harsher treatments, but I have not yet seen a thread as personal as this one.

 

No, I don't go around searching for minorities to protect, but if I happen to stumble on something wrong, then I might take the time to raise my voice and say so. I am defending the moral and ethical status of SFN.

 

And like you I don't stay silent either while someone trashes something good, like SFN.

 

 

 

swansont:

Yes, I am attacking the behavior in this thread, but not on a personal level.

(Except for my small example for Ben.)

 

Yes, my support is lacking, bullying is often done by subtle methods and is not always easy to spot/prove.

 

Bullying is if one or often a group, intentional tries to hurts another through any means, without justified reason.

(Being a Crackpot or a Creationist is NOT a justified reason.)

 

None crackpot has ever been collectively toasted before in a personal named thread.

(And with sooo much attention and hype.)

 

"A form of informal peer review" of the reviewer himself, instead of of his ideas ?

 

With comments like: "I don't care at all...untill he votes or raises childeren. THEN it effects me, and I DO care."

 

 

 

Farsight:

Yes, you are the ***STAR*** in this thread and you actually seem to "love it"...

 

 

 

Phi for All:

If they are allowed to measure crackpottery in terms of "out of his mind" and "insanity", I am allowed to use those words also, without any Strawman objections.

(Please note: I do know the difference between crackpottery and insanity.)

 

Actually it is Farsight and not his idea that is being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator.

 

Nope, the handicap example is not a Strawman.

 

"There is so plenty of them" and "I don't have the proper time" or "I am so tired of it" is also poor arguments...

 

Well, the distinction with the term "Crackpot" is also in a "gray area" and when used as it has in this thread, its value is in or close to the domain of "idiot", "moron" and similar invectives.

 

Defined parameters like: "5 points for each word in all capital letters" has nothing to do with ideas. Letters, spelling, grammar and any other ways to express yourself are personal. But I am not going to argue about John Baez' Crackpot Index, my point was that there might be other indexes that can be used in a similar way, if allowed.

 

Then I hope my objections is enough to show "the test" that this is the wrong way to deal with the problem.

(Like I said before, the old way was at least not distasteful.)

 

If you go full scale with this, then I suspect that most members lost won't be the crackpots but instead seriously young people willing to learn but afraid to be mocked for their ideas/questions.

 

And if allowed then the "gray area" can easily grow to contain more and more unpleasant ways to flame persons.

 

As for the Witch-hunt, it was not meant as a strawman, it was an example of how bad it could get.

(And that goes for the "Slippery Slope fallacy" too.)

 

Besides, and not an argument, but in a few years when someone is searching SFN for a keyword and finds/reads, for instance "Time Explained Version X", do someone really think the reader also will find/read this thread or the other one in the OP ? Very doubtfully indeed, they will be buried deep and forgotten a long time ago.

If the purpose is to show unknowledged readers that he is wrong, instead of humiliating him, it needs to be showed in his own threads, in a simple and clear manner. Otherwise you have all failed anyway...

[Farsight]

I'm glad you're speaking out against this absurdity, Spyman. One day they'll realise it, but right now it's like the shutters are down and there's nobody home. It's quite amazing just how irrational people can be to persuade themselves they don't have to listen to a rational argument.

 

Yes, I do rather enjoy all this. It's rather cruel of me. But it's because I know I'm right. Oh, I'm not right about everything. I will have gotten some things wrong, and I've certainly missed a trick or two with my colourful broad strokes. But not the big stuff. I know that's right. It's time travel that's crackpot, not me. Even now, none of the above has actually tackled TIME EXPLAINED. It's all a bit over their head I guess.

 

OK, back to work.

[BenTheMan]

This "good insight" from BenTheMan supports my claims. The insight is in MASS EXPLAINED, and Ben's post demonstrates is that all his antagonism has come from somebody who hasn't paid any attention to my material. By the way, he's now asking about time on another thread, demonstrating that he hasn't read TIME EXPLAINED either. Quite absurd.

 

If you'll notice, I said that the first line of paragraph was good insight. The rest is just plain wrong. Oh, wait...it's worse... it's NOT EVEN WRONG.

 

From your long reply it's obvious that you wouldn't like to be the target of a similar thread.

 

By all means start one. I know that it will be short lived.

[swansont]

swansont:

Yes, I am attacking the behavior in this thread, but not on a personal level.

(Except for my small example for Ben.)

 

Yes, my support is lacking, bullying is often done by subtle methods and is not always easy to spot/prove.

 

Bullying is if one or often a group, intentional tries to hurts another through any means, without justified reason.

(Being a Crackpot or a Creationist is NOT a justified reason.)

 

None crackpot has ever been collectively toasted before in a personal named thread.

(And with sooo much attention and hype.)

 

"A form of informal peer review" of the reviewer himself, instead of of his ideas ?

 

With comments like: "I don't care at all...untill he votes or raises childeren. THEN it effects me, and I DO care."

 

That you don't call people out individually does not allow you to except it. I don't think that questioning behavior is wrong, BTW. I wouldn't have gone this route, but what's the alternative? Ban Farsight as a troll because he won't engage in scientific discussion — doesn't, in fact, usually recognize scientific discussion? The value of that thread is in the good questions and responses that other posters are providing. All Farsight is providing is evasion and a rehashing of his thesis. (Can I say "troll" or is that also objectionable?)

 

Contrast this with elas's "Particle structure" threads (I recall at least three with similar titles) where there are predictions made and an actual response to people coming up with objections to the implications. There are serious problems with the proposal, to be sure, but the give-and-take there has some scientific value. Metaphysical pronouncements do not.

 

It doesn't matter of you are a creationist, crackpot, or well-respected scientist. If you spout nonsense, expect it to be vigorously attacked. It's not personal, it's not bullying. It's the way the system works.

[Xerxes]

Oh, wait...it's worse... it's NOT EVEN WRONG.

Why does everyone get this Pauli quote wrong? It should be "....not even eligible to be wrong" Apparently he (P.) was a great wit; my favourite Pauli-ism was in reference to Einstein's (and other's) attempt to find a Unified Field Theory: "What God has torn asunder, let no man join" (a reference to the Anglican Church marriage ceremony, I believe).

By all means start one.

Right. I'm starting now. I'll call it BEN EXPLAINED+++++. OK with you?

[BenTheMan]

Please do. You can find much information by googling my name on the internet. (I don't hide behind online handles.)

 

Things you'll find...

-->I am a self admitted redneck, and can skin a deer while drunk, AND tell you why compactifying the heterotic string on a six-torus gives you N=4 supersymmetry.

-->I have an undergraduate degree in Chemistry, not Physics.

-->There are probably 5-7 papers with my name on them floating around.

-->I always post in physics forums under the same name.

-->Farsight is the 5th crackpot I debunked (total 12).

-->My woman is in med school.

-->I'm never scared to be wrong.

[Xerxes]

You do realize I was horsing around, don't you?

[Phi for All]

If they are allowed to measure crackpottery in terms of "out of his mind" and "insanity", I am allowed to use those words also, without any Strawman objections.

(Please note: I do know the difference between crackpottery and insanity.)

I will reread to spot these references to sanity. I agree that they should not be allowed.

Actually it is Farsight and not his idea that is being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator.

This was not the goal. Period.

Nope, the handicap example is not a Strawman.

Again, you state that this is an attack and then you shift the focus onto handicaps, a much more easily defensible argument. Strawman.

"There is so plenty of them" and "I don't have the proper time" or "I am so tired of it" is also poor arguments...

Reality would seem to disagree but I hear you loud and clear on this one and wish things were different.

Well, the distinction with the term "Crackpot" is also in a "gray area" and when used as it has in this thread, its value is in or close to the domain of "idiot", "moron" and similar invectives.

I disagree completely. Morons and idiots display an inherently stupid behavior in most things (or it is so implied), whereas a crackpot is defined by the ideas he/she holds. And we've repeatedly stated that this is our usage for the term so I don't understand why you remain adamant that it isn't.

Defined parameters like: "5 points for each word in all capital letters" has nothing to do with ideas. Letters, spelling, grammar and any other ways to express yourself are personal. But I am not going to argue about John Baez' Crackpot Index, my point was that there might be other indexes that can be used in a similar way, if allowed.

I would welcome another index, as long as it gave us a similar or greater potential for measuring ideas.

Then I hope my objections is enough to show "the test" that this is the wrong way to deal with the problem.

(Like I said before, the old way was at least not distasteful.)

You have shown that this way has it's faults like the other ways we've tried. This was never intended to be used in all instances. The thread is still open because we are gleaning a tremendous amount of information from the various reactions to it.

If you go full scale with this, then I suspect that most members lost won't be the crackpots but instead seriously young people willing to learn but afraid to be mocked for their ideas/questions.

We hope most will simply redouble their efforts to be rigorous in their testing and put more effort into understanding basics that will help them with that.

And if allowed then the "gray area" can easily grow to contain more and more unpleasant ways to flame persons.

I am willing to increase my vigilance to compensate if this index proves fruitful.

As for the Witch-hunt, it was not meant as a strawman, it was an example of how bad it could get.

(And that goes for the "Slippery Slope fallacy" too.)

Whether you meant it or not, it's still a Strawman argument. I actually respect the Slippery Slope argument more since history shows us how easy it is to abuse changes in a system. We know it's a danger and we accept that it will mean an increase in awareness and prevention.

 

Besides, and not an argument, but in a few years when someone is searching SFN for a keyword and finds/reads, for instance "Time Explained Version X", do someone really think the reader also will find/read this thread or the other one in the OP ? Very doubtfully indeed, they will be buried deep and forgotten a long time ago.

If the purpose is to show unknowledged readers that he is wrong, instead of humiliating him, it needs to be showed in his own threads, in a simple and clear manner. Otherwise you have all failed anyway...

It's actually your best argument. It's the reason we've always simply handled it on a per situation basis in the past. But too often crackpots interject their ideas into other people's threads, in addition to ignoring rebuttals in their threads. More time wasted.

 

Believe me, we would love to have someone pitch a pet theory in Relativity, have it get bounced to Pseudoscience and Speculations, only to slowly and methodically make it's way, under rigorous questioning and testing, back into the main science sub-forums, having undergone a test of fire. Can you imagine the draw that would be for the site? It makes my nipples hard just thinking about it .

 

We won't be using Baez' Crackpot Index on any individuals in the future, at least not in a thread like this. It was an attempt to let BenTheMan refute the bulk of Farsight's ideas since his individual critiques in Farsight's threads were mostly ignored. Doing things the same way hoping for different results is a definition of insanity, and we're trying to avoid that, right?

[iNow]

Farsight, how come for the past several days you've posted that you're extremely busy with other things and solidifying your paper so cannot respond to the questions and critiques raised, yet you seem to have no problem logging in to continue stating how attacked you are? You also have a strange way of only thinking people are correct if they agree with you, and only responding to their posts.

 

I'd suggest that the forum staff here have done a fantastic job of protecting you from personal attacks and off-topic discussion. Hats off to them. Yet, I still haven't seen a single question addressed by you in a way that supports your claims. If you truly understand these concepts so well that you can recreate accepted theory and write complete essays which should change

the way we all think, then I struggle to understand why you cannot address ANY of these well articulated concerns and critiques with ease.

 

iNow: I need a little break from time to time.

Okay, but from time to time, we need a little evidence and non-evasive response to questions and criticism.

 

My RELATIVITY+ paper is hard work.

Boo hoo. Poor you.

 

And my new-found reticence is because there's something I don't want to give away.

You haven't seen a single question that supports my claims? Please refer to the link in my previous post. This is what it says:

 

BenTheMan trying to find a way to move forward and make progress in these discussions suggested that there was insight in the first sentence, but too much of the rest is still lacking.

 

This "good insight" from BenTheMan supports my claims. The insight is in MASS EXPLAINED, and Ben's post demonstrates is that all his antagonism has come from somebody who hasn't paid any attention to my material. By the way, he's now asking about time on another thread, demonstrating that he hasn't read TIME EXPLAINED either. Quite absurd.

 

Am I the only one here who laughs when I see you using an off topic positive comment from another member here to support your claims? Am I the only one here who remembers you repeatedly saying that this member (BenTheMan) doesn't know what he is talking about? Am I the only one here who realizes that you only accept an opinion as valid if it is not counter to your ideas? Never mind... these can be treated as rhetorical, but it's true all the same.

 

So, I ask you again, for someone who has such a self-proclaimed and devastatingly complete understanding of the true nature of things, why do you fail to answer the simplest of questions posed? Actually, better yet... Ignore my questions and actually address those related to your proposals. Please.

 

I await your next technique of evasion... erm... I mean, your answer.

 

 

Someone call Sun-tzu, this guy's rewriting the book.

[BenTheMan]

Why does everyone get this Pauli quote wrong? It should be "....not even eligible to be wrong"

 

Fair enough. I stand corrected. The illusion was to a popular book that has graced the bookshelves recently.

[Farsight]

Okay, but from time to time, we need a little evidence and non-evasive response to questions and criticism...

 

So, I ask you again, for someone who has such a self-proclaimed and devastatingly complete understanding of the true nature of things, why do you fail to answer the simplest of questions posed? I await your next technique of evasion... erm... I mean, your answer.

 

Shrug. It's simply not true. Check my previous posts:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?searchid=346746

 

Sure I can't answer some of the Standard Model curve balls from Severian, but people ask me simple questions, and I can answer them. Pity they aren't questions about Farsight's Ideas, but what does one expect in this quite charming game of burn the heretic.

 

Believe me, we would love to have someone pitch a pet theory in Relativity, have it get bounced to Pseudoscience and Speculations, only to slowly and methodically make it's way, under rigorous questioning and testing, back into the main science sub-forums, having undergone a test of fire. Can you imagine the draw that would be for the site? It makes my nipples hard just thinking about it.

 

LOL. There will come a day when you move my RELATIVITY+ threads back to Relativity so fast they won't touch the sides. Test of fire my arse. Nobody is testing TIME EXPLAINED or any of the other essays. The only fire round here is personal, and it's directed at me.

[iNow]

Shrug. It's simply not true. Check my previous posts:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?searchid=346746

 

Sure I can't answer some of the Standard Model curve balls from Severian, but people ask me simple questions, and I can answer them. Pity they aren't questions about Farsight's Ideas, but what does one expect in this quite charming game of burn the heretic.

You cannot link search results in the manner you've attempted. The search ID is not valid for the rest of us, and your link directs others to an error message.

 

However, how about you just answer a question directly instead of putting up another smoke screen? If you asked me my name, I wouldn't tell you to google common first names. If you are directing me to a specific post, reference that. I've read all of your other threads, which is exactly why I'm here stating that you've failed to address any questions and begging you to adjust your tactics and response style.

 

 

I've had better luck getting answers out of five year olds who needed medications.

[swansont]

LOL. There will come a day when you move my RELATIVITY+ threads back to Relativity so fast they won't touch the sides. Test of fire my arse. Nobody is testing TIME EXPLAINED or any of the other essays. The only fire round here is personal, and it's directed at me.

 

What's in there that can be tested?

[Farsight]

You cannot link search results in the manner you've attempted. The search ID is not valid for the rest of us, and your link directs others to an error message.

 

So just click on my userid in the top left hand corner of this post and then Find all posts by Farsight. Easy peasy. You'll find posts like this:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355414#post355414

 

I've answered plenty of questions. Plenty. So what's all this childish accusation from you? And you dropped your previous accusation fast enough. Remember your post #76 talking about a single matter that supports my claims? Well I found you one, you ignored it, and you even changed your post #88 at 6:38pm after I'd posted my reply at 6:37pm. You aren't interested in what I've got to say. You're just joining gung-ho into an irrational absurd abusive game of burn the heretic that is still in denial about TIME EXPLAINED and other essays and still will not address them.

 

However, how about you just answer a question directly instead of putting up another smoke screen? If you asked me my name, I wouldn't tell you to google common first names. If you are directing me to a specific post, reference that. I've read all of your other threads, which is exactly why I'm here stating that you've failed to address any questions and begging you to adjust your tactics and response style.

 

Then ask me a question about time, energy, mass, et cetera. Jesus Christ, knock on wood!

 

I've had better luck getting answers out of five year olds who needed medications.

 

Here you go again. You're in denial, you won't ask questions on my ideas, and you trying to discredit me with stupid childish insults. SLAP!. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

*********************************************************

What's in there that can be tested?

 

How about Neutrinos have mass because they travel slower than light. I could search through it all and give you a big list but you'll find some reason to dismiss them like my list of predictions, then change the subject. Because you're fooling yourself Swanson. You never read BELIEF EXPLAINED did you?

 

It was Richard Feynman who said “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”[/i']. This is more true than you realise. It’s true because when you’ve fooled yourself, you don’t know it. You convince yourself that you haven’t fooled yourself, and you develop a conviction, a faith, a belief about it. You will be quite irrational in defence of this belief. You will not test your belief in an empirical scientific fashion. Instead you will become incredulous, and perhaps even insulting. If you don’t behave this way, that’s fine, you’re not a believer. You merely have an opinion, or better still, an open mind. What’s that I hear you say? You do have an open mind? I’m sure you like to think so. But let me goad you by saying this: No you don’t. You’re fooling yourself. At which point I can see you bristling already. See how it works?

[YT2095]

this So reminds me of a bad game of Chess, you may indeed have your King covered from all possible angles of attack but you`v made nothing but Illegal moves to get to that position. and that is NOT how the game is played!

[Farsight]

What the hell are you on about? Illegal moves? This is no game. The is the real thing. History in the making. I do physics, and you guys who learned some physics parrot and sneer and insult and will not read what I say. Do you think I wrote TIME EXPLAINED some wet lunchtime for a laugh? This is what's gone into it. And time is the key. Understanding time is the key that unlocks all the doors of physics.

 

The concept of time that you find here is nothing new. Maybe five years ago I read Julian Barbour’s 1999 book The End of Time. It didn’t sink in much. It was just another fairly interesting book that I read on my Saturday afternoons on the sofa. A couple of years later I also read About Time by Paul Davies' date=' dating from 1995, but again it was just one book amongst many. I didn’t pay too much attention. I was sleepwalking. But thank you Julian and Paul because something along the lines of time is change became lodged in my mind, and it made me query the speed of light. In August 2006 I got myself into an argument about it on the internet. I remember looking up at my bookshelf and pulling down those books on time, weighing them in my hand, pondering. I resolved to get it down so darn straight that nobody could argue any more. I knew it wasn’t a brand new idea, because it goes back to Aristotle, who was born 2391 years ago and counting. But I could put a fresh slant on it, using catchy conversational language and a tight delivery that would be crystal clear even to the layman.

 

[img']http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MHHN9QD4L._AA240_.jpg[/img]

 

So I wrote a little essay called TIME EXPLAINED and posted it on an internet forum. Even the first version referred to the optical illusions, because I already knew that we take things too much for granted, and seeing is not always believing. Hence I’m very grateful to “echalk” Online Resources For Teachers, and to R Beau Lotto and Edward H Adelson, see http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/illusions.htm. That was October 2006.

 

The feedback was interesting. I learned a lot. I learned about Presentism, a philosophical concept introduced by John McTaggart in 1908 in an essay called The Unreality of Time, see http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html. I found myself siding with Presentism rather than Eternalism, an opposing philosophy that involves the block universe and big problems for free will.

 

 

A fellow forummer called mganderson flagged up A Hole at the Heart of Physics; A Matter of Time; Special Editions; by George Musser. It was in the September 2002 issue of Scientific American, and I was too mean to buy it. But I read the synopsis. Sorry George, but thanks, and thanks mg. And thanks THoR for vital encouragement when I was flagging. Ditto to amrit, real name Amrit Srecko Šorli, who was ahead of the game but language was a barrier. And thank you yquantum. On 29th October 2006 you recommended a book called “A World Without Time: the forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein” by Palle Yourgrau, professor of philosophy at the Brandeis University in Massachusetts. This book was published in 2005, and I bought the last copy Amazon had in stock at the.. time. It’s historical and philosophical, and pure gold dust. I was amazed to discover that Einstein thought of time this way too. Not in 1905, but in 1949, when he was at Princeton with Godel. Thanks Palle.

 

 

I also came across a 1999 paper Quantum Spacetime: what do we know? by Carlo Rovelli, see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903045, who said “At the fundamental level we should, simply, forget time”. Thanks Carlo. There’s also Process Physics by Reginald T Cahill, see http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf dating from 2003. Whilst I didn’t find myself empathising with all aspects, I did find myself empathising strongly with the basic premise that time is process. Thanks Reg.

 

Much of what I learned went into a new improved version of TIME EXPLAINED, which is pretty much what you’ve read here. It’s all just a rehash of an old idea, and isn’t particularly original at all. As to why it’s news to anybody I’m not quite sure. Understanding time seemed to be the key that would open all the doors in physics. It was enough to convince me that I could make a difference. I could break the impasse. And then the fun began.

[swansont]

How about Neutrinos have mass because they travel slower than light. I could search through it all and give you a big list but you'll find some reason to dismiss them like my list of predictions, then change the subject. Because you're fooling yourself Swanson. You never read BELIEF EXPLAINED did you?

 

If it's already known to be true then it's not a prediction. Neutrino oscillations were reported a few years ago. I pick Indy to win last year's super bowl. Do you want to pay for my secret of how to pick winners of past events? Or does it possibly have no value whatsoever?

 

In testing scientific models, predictions have to be specific enough to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong, and exclude other models. Is any of this sinking in yet?

 

How does neutrino mass follow from anything of yours, and what values do you predict? (you have to do this before the final answer has been determined)

 

What the hell are you on about? Illegal moves? This is no game. The is the real thing. History in the making. I do physics, and you guys who learned some physics parrot and sneer and insult and will not read what I say.

 

I read it. You mention philosophy or philosophical several times. The real question is why you think you're doing physics. You run in the opposite direction, screaming, everytime that actual physics is brought up.

 

The problem is not that people aren't reading what you wrote. They have, expecting some science, and found it wanting. It's philosophy and metaphysics (and I've been telling that from the get-go).

[Spyman]

swansont:

You seem to be misinterpreting my argument entirely...

 

I do NOT think that questioning behavior/ideas/thoughts is wrong !!!

 

Calling people out individually and the purpose/value of THIS thread is what I am questioning.

(FYI: I am not complaining about the attacks of Farsight or his ideas in any other thread.)

 

Allowing the bullying to happen, even if not participating, is lending support for the bullies.

 

Unlike the more physical form of schoolyard bullying, workplace bullying often takes place within the established rules and policies of the organization and society. Such actions are not necessarily illegal and may not even be against the firm's regulations; however, the damage to the targeted employee and to workplace morale is obvious.

 

While various strategies to deal with bullies have been put forth, conventional wisdom, anecdotal evidence, and common perception indicates that the only effective method that stops bullying is to respond in kind - to confront the violence of the bully with violence in return. This response, though it may not stop an attack, reduces the benefit of bullying the target individual.

 

The basis of this concept is that the bullied is seen to be an "easy target" and that there are few, if any, consequences to harassing them. By removing the fundamental basis of the bully/target relationship, the bullying ends.

 

This response is also very often the most effective means of stopping bullying, usually to only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

 

 

 

BenTheMan:

Again, I am not threatening you.

 

I am only trying to explain why I think THIS thread is BAD.

 

 

 

Phi for All:

I was going to make a long reply but it seems like we have at least reached an partial understanding...

 

Closing this thread and no more threads like this, on any individuals in the future, sounds good enough.

[Farsight]

If it's already known to be true then it's not a prediction. Neutrino oscillations were reported a few years ago. I pick Indy to win last year's super bowl. Do you want to pay for my secret of how to pick winners of past events? Or does it possibly have no value whatsoever?

 

In testing scientific models, predictions have to be specific enough to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong, and exclude other models. Is any of this sinking in yet

 

I know all that Swanson. But this is a discussion forum. But somehow we can't discuss my ideas. They are ideas. Mine is a toy model. It's qualitative not quantitative. I've gone for width not depth.

 

How does neutrino mass follow from anything of yours, and what values do you predict? (you have to do this before the final answer has been determined

 

I haven't calculated neutrino masses. I was talking to Carl Brennan about it on Physics Forums, but I got banned there because a moderator took a dislike to me, a moderator who thinks I'm a heretic, and just didn't want to know. Like you. But neutrino mass follows from this:

 

Mass, in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you.

 

When energy is moving at c like it does, like a photon does, you measure no mass. If it's moving at zero velocity with respect to you, you observe all the energy as mass. If it's moving at less than c, it's a sliding scale. Neutrinos are a configuration of energy travelling at less than the speed of light. That's why they have mass.

 

I read it. You mention philosophy or philosophical several times. The real question is why you think you're doing physics. You run in the opposite direction, screaming, everytime that actual physics is brought up.

 

You skimmed it, and dismissed it. You sneered at the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.

 

The problem is not that people aren't reading what you wrote. They have, expecting some science, and found it wanting. It's philosophy and metaphysics (and I've been telling that from the get-go).

 

Oh yes it is the problem. And don't you sneer at philosophy or metaphysics. What the hell do you think PhD stands for? Have you ever even looked at Metaphysics to see what it's all about? And where are the questions on TIME EXPLAINED and the rest? They're just not here. And they aren't on the other absurd thread either.

 

Metaphysics[/b'] is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally including cosmology and ontology. It is also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. Its name derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "after talking about physics"), "physics" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. In english, though, "meta" means "beyond;over;transcending". Therefore, metaphysics is the study of that which transcends physics.

[YT2095]

 

You skimmed it, and dismissed it. You sneered at the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.

 

1) Prove he did that! c`mon, put you evidence where your Big Mouth is for once and PROVE IT!

 

2) just Who the SMEG do you think you are!!!?????

you`ve got your head so far up your own ass your Mouth farts and your rectum has halitosis!

what are you doing on Here if you can "unlock all the doors in Physics"?

why aren`t you a household name like Einstein!?

[swansont]

[N]eutrino mass follows from this:

 

Mass, in its barest essence, is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you.

 

When energy is moving at c like it does, like a photon does, you measure no mass. If it's moving at zero velocity with respect to you, you observe all the energy as mass. If it's moving at less than c, it's a sliding scale. Neutrinos are a configuration of energy travelling at less than the speed of light. That's why they have mass.

 

We already know that objects moving at c have no mass, and objects with mass can't travel at c. Relativity. There's no new physics here, just some handwaving.

 

You skimmed it, and dismissed it. You sneered at the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.

 

You assume this, apparently because you assume that you're right, and that everyone who reads your stuff will instantly agree with you. But you've done nothing to objectively demonstrate that you are right, and that's what everybody has been asking you to do.

 

Oh yes it is the problem. And don't you sneer at philosophy or metaphysics. What the hell do you think PhD stands for? Have you ever even looked at Metaphysics to see what it's all about? And where are the questions on TIME EXPLAINED and the rest? They're just not here. And they aren't on the other absurd thread either.

 

You can detect a sneer from the written word? That's incredible. Are you clairvoyant, too? To set the record straight, I was not sneering. There is nothing bad about philosophy or metaphysics, it's just that they aren't science, and this is a science site. They are something else. It only becomes a problem when someone decides to parade their philosophy around as science, like it's an objective truth, when it can't be tested.