physics - maths = Dark Energy, woooh!

[Farsight]

I can explain the Bullet Cluster. I can explain the unusual gravitational lensing. And the flat galactic rotation curves in spiral galaxies. It's all very simple, and it involves Dark Energy, but not Dark Matter. But nobody here would read my explanation, they'll carry on wasting years on neutralinos and other exotica because they have no real understanding of particles and the Standard Model. And they'll doubtless call me names to boot, so I guess I'll pass.

[insane_alien]

ffs farsight. you say you can explain stuff but never do so. you just ramble on and use analogy after analogy and show pictures in at random intervals. you put up no math and refuse to create it. your explainations are circular or are extended versions of 'that the way it is because thats the way it is'. if you have nothing to add, don't say anything at all.

[Farsight]

ffs farsight. you say you can explain stuff but never do so. you just ramble on and use analogy after analogy and show pictures in at random intervals. you put up no math and refuse to create it. your explainations are circular or are extended versions of 'that the way it is because thats the way it is'. if you have nothing to add, don't say anything at all.

I explain plenty. You refuse to read what I say and pretend it has no value. I really can explain Dark Energy, and Dark Matter. And it really is so incredibly simple. I feel sorry for this guy:

 

http://www.newscientistjobs.com/list/ViewJob-NS20072624035.html

[insane_alien]

why do you keep claiming that noone has read your goddamn essays? we have read them and found no content. just because we didn't find any science in them does not mean we did not read them. stop bitchin and put up or shut up.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Farsight, if you were serious, you'd read our suggestions and write your ideas in precise language with mathematics to back them up. I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped claiming you know the answers to things when your answer is vague and unproven. It is highly annoying and does not add anything to SFN.

[Farsight]

I am serious. I do write my ideas up in precise language, but because there's currently a paucity of mathematics to complement those ideas, nobody reads them, and then folk claim they're "vague" and "have no content" or are "unproven". I do know the answer to this. But sadly others don't want to know. So here we are again in pseudoscience.

[Klaynos]

I am serious. I do write my ideas up in precise language,

No you really don't.

but because there's currently a paucity of mathematics to complement those ideas, nobody reads them,

I've read many of them, they tend ot be vauge, content free and contradictory.

and then folk claim they're "vague" and "have no content" or are "unproven".

Maybe they are?

I do know the answer to this. But sadly others don't want to know.

Show us the answer then, in a few lines of maths?

So here we are again in pseudoscience.

 

Perhaps there is a lesson here? This is also the speculation section don't forget...

[Edtharan]

I am serious. I do write my ideas up in precise language, but because there's currently a paucity of mathematics to complement those ideas, nobody reads them, and then folk claim they're "vague" and "have no content" or are "unproven". I do know the answer to this. But sadly others don't want to know. So here we are again in pseudoscience.

I make long posts because I am interested in what you have to say. Just because I disagree with you does n ot mean that I don't read or understand what you write. To think that if someone disagrees with you, then they must not have bothered to attempt to understand you is small minded.

 

What if someone went to all the trouble to read and understand your posts, but then found that you were wrong? Would you believe them? Or do you think that you are so intelligent and so infallible that you can never make any mistakes at all evener in your life?

 

Can you accept the fact that you can be wrong, and that if someone says that you are wrong it is not out of mean spiritedness, or just because they have some sinister grudge against you?

 

Can you understand that someone might actually say you are wrong because they when you to be right?

 

I started off reading you essays and wanting you to be right. I was interested in helping you to fix any errors in your essays. I would have liked to contribute something that would advance the worlds understanding of science and how the worlds around them works.

 

But guess what. Because of your attitude to me and others that have attempted to contribute, you have driven us away. Because of the way you have treated us, we now have reason not to take anything you post seriously. That is why you end up in pseudo-science. Not because we dislike you or what you have to say, but because we wanted to help you and you treated us badly. Don't blame us for your actions.

[swansont]

But guess what. Because of your attitude to me and others that have attempted to contribute, you have driven us away. Because of the way you have treated us, we now have reason not to take anything you post seriously. That is why you end up in pseudo-science.

 

As someone who has moved posts to speculations/pseudoscience, I have to point out that this is not the reason. I moved posts because they were speculative, that is, they did not meet a reasonable threshold of being predictive and falsifiable.

[Dak]

I moved this one. I did so because it looked likely to derail the thread, even without following the phisics forum i know that 'i post proof and no-one reads it' is a lie, and, tbh, because i forgot that swansont can move posts himself.

 

at the end of the day, if you continue to post unscientific stuff that 'refutes' accepted science whilst ignoring every critique of your work, then you'll end up in pseudoscience for one reason or another.

[Bignose]

I am serious. I do write my ideas up in precise language, but because there's currently a paucity of mathematics to complement those ideas, nobody reads them, and then folk claim they're "vague" and "have no content" or are "unproven". I do know the answer to this. But sadly others don't want to know. So here we are again in pseudoscience.

 

OK, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, right here, right now. Please use your ideas to make one predictive, testable, verifiable statement. This will involve math -- because your predictive, testable statement will have to show why your theory predicts and explains things better than what we have now. What specifically does your theory predict more accurately than the theories we have now? Until you can answer this question directly, you are not going to find too many people receptive in the scientific community. They are not against new ideas -- but the ultimate crucible where an idea either stands up or it crumbled is whether that new idea can predict phenomena at least as well or better than the old ideas. It is as simple as that. So, show us one prediction made from your theories that is at least as good or better than the predictions the old models have.