Then I suggest you stop making claims or assumptions as if they are fact. The fact is you don't know about our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics, yet you see no hypocrisy in telling me to not make assumptions after you've claimed that ZPE and antigravity are proven facts. Good one.
Well I didn't. And short of things like some health emergency or the house I live in collapsing or being the victim of crime (ie immediate need for one of the emergency services) I don't generally have an immediate requirement for other people. And given this thread is about physics and you aren't showing much 'expertise' in it, I don't think I'd have much requirement for a man of your 'expertise' if I had a problem with physics.
None of which is relevant for a discussion on physics and me calling into question the validity of your claims or assumptions about physics. I wouldn't call a doctor's medical training into question if he didn't know about quantum mechanics but I would call into question the validity of any of his statements about quantum mechanics.
See the connection there?
Ah, the call of the crank. You cannot actually do relativity but you think reading Wikipedia, a few crank websites and maybe thumbing through a biography of Einstein (so you know he wasn't working in a university when he published SR) that you've got some amazing intuitive, conceptual grasp of his work which escapes people who can actually do relativity. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last.
I'm still waiting for you to link to a reputable paper investigating and corroborating the Hutchinson effect.
AlphaNumeric
For the sake of brevity I'll cut through the chase here.
First of all, Thank You. You do elucidate some very good and important points as per usual.
I think you will agree that context is VERY important with respect for an over all understanding of what constitutes the weight of obligation in any situation.
Did you forget that this is the "pseudoscience" section of the SciForums' message board system?
When someone such as yourself, who is obviously extremely learned and specific with respect to expertise, responds in such a fashion as to EXPECT legitimacy or careful research on exacting issues, I do believe you have forgotten where you are at.
This is NOT a formal debate. This is NOT the legitimate physics section of the board (where I wouldn't even be inclined to start a thread), this is the PSEUDOSCIENCE section of the forum.
I have come here KNOWING of my likely ignorance and asking questions subsequently. Naturally as someone lower in real knowledge than many members that make up the SciForum's populous, I will have innocent delusions that come equipped with a healthy dose of enthusiasm.
So in short deep down, I EXPECT to be beat on here a bit. But when you as an advanced SciForums' member feel as the pseudoscience section is a place where you expect to engage well prepared propagators of brilliant cutting edge insight, who's made the mistake?
It's up to YOU to refute here in this section of the forum, with facts you yourself are armed with that underline that which is not pseudo science but rather legitimate science, to back up your disagreements. Not just to place the burden of enlightenment on the enthusiastic pseudoscience section goer.
You gotta be
real here AlphaNumeric. We are both on a mission but your mission should NEVER be to intimidate and ridicule members "MR. Stand Alone - I don't need anybody" (which incidentally is a laugh)
Now for instance: I mentioned that fact that I believe Hutchinson's effect is represent of some esoteric new science. I provided a link to a video that clearly exemplifies "The Hutchinson Effect"
I'm done. Now the ball is now in your court. Refute this video with your present understanding and that which constitutes a strong case for non reality of the pseudoscience in question. You cannot do this by asking more questions or by pointing to the philosophical illegitimacy of my "scientific stance" or anyone else's.
The Pseudoscience section of this over all GREAT message board system is for the enthusiastic discussion of speculative pseudo scientific curiosities. And for the refutation of those propositions, be they unexplained anomalies and phenomenons, or be they claims by other scientists with very questionable supporting evidence.
This is NOT a lazy man's shooting gallery where in the legitimate credential seeking bullets of your flag waving scientific sharp shooting expertise may take aim and fire at will. This military exercise can only be triumphed over via that covert intelligence operations of legitimate scientific knowledge put forward to conquer and win out over the pseudo science enthusiasts.
Don't get me wrong. Credentials are CRUCIAL as Read-Only has been teaching me and has pointed out in one of his last posts in this thread. But I would like to state for the record that the way he did that was incredible. It actually pierced the tough hide of my obstinacy. Seems stupid doesn't it? Candidly, and admittedly, so are many people that champion the specific type of pseudo scientific enthusiasm that is put forward in this section of the form. Get used to it.
I await your factual fiery arrows of refutation. May they plunge deep enough into the flesh of MY pseudo scientific fascination as to pierce the foolish heart of my enthusiastic folly.
