Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Now back to the task at hand, Tach's answer as to why the equations are "anti-mainstream, crackpot" stuff.
At Rest with our Hubble view
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Is that a rhetorical question, or did you actually ask me to solve a 7th grade math problem?
You asked for details, I am providing them. Now you say you don't want them.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
It was my response to your previous replies and questions. You ask me questions, I respond, and then you respond with this? Like I said, forget it, I'm wasting my time with you. No free lessons for you. If you learned this stuff in 7th grade then why were you so confused (and still are) about what the equations were?
I am responding to What is "anti-mainstream, crackpot" about the following? You asked a question, I started to answer, and you dismissed the answer without acknowledging that there are other people out here who have reasons for what they say, and, as should be obvious to you by now, in many cases they actually studied the math and science that you keep telling us you want to learn. Your pattern of response, the one that earns you so many charges of trolling, is that when someone offers you constructive feedback, you become defensive and reject it. You can't learn science that way. You have allow your brain time to let things soak in.
I replied to you for two reasons. First, I recall seeing this list of equations you posted somewhere else, and I remember at the time rejecting it. Second, you asked for an explanation why anyone would reject it. I took this as an opportunity to help you improve your presentation style, and decided to reply. While there are many aspects of basic science you can still learn through osmosis here at Sci, it remains that one of the skills you lack is the ability to communicate technical ideas effectively. I decided to offer you feedback, believing, as I often do, that you are not as dumb as you want people to believe you are. You either have a sincere desire to learn from the folks who generously offer you help all the time, or else you're just here to harass people. I would think that if you are not trolling you would politely engage my first post with an honest answer. I simply asked what your motive was in opening with a formula that relates average velocity under constant acceleration to total distance traversed over a specific interval. Any reader would wonder the same thing. It makes no difference that it falls out of high school science, since we're still left asking why you picked this formula to open with.
In other words, posting equations can either be helpful or detrimental. When they are randomly posted, with no rationale to allow the reader to understand the motive for posting them, they tend to be detrimental. That covers the issue about not stating in text why you are starting with a particular opening equation. The second detrimental aspect in the way you have used the formulas is that when you write one equation and follow it with a second equation, you are asking the reader to form a connection between them. There is no text to relate to, so equations 2 and 3 appear to relate to equation 1. But as we begin to try to form the relationship, we are left wondering what you mean, since it's not self-evident. For example, if I write "Food. Mouse. Dog. Bowl." You might eventually figure out that I was trying to say "As the dog sniffed the food in his bowl, a mouse ran by", but look at the paces I would have put you through to figure that out. Your equations are like that. There is no continuity in them, no certainty as to what you think you mean, much less what you think we think you mean. Worse, when we skip to the bottom searching for what the point of this all is, it appears you have taken us on a very tedious way to find the roots of a quadratic. But at first glance your formulation is suspect, so we are left to make allowances and ignore it as a crackpot post. We already knew how to find the roots of a quadratic, and how it applies to "the laws of motion" you are pointing to. It was in the Chapter 1 questions for trajectory of a cannon ball, way back when we first took introductory physics. It's just basic stuff. So the net effect of what you wrote is detrimental. Thus we can arrive at the crackpot nature of the post without even relying on the history of similar posts you've made.
You asked for details.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I didn't ask you for details, you asked me, because you didn't recognize the equations as being equations of motion. You asked me what the first equation meant to me and I told you, and then I asked you what it meant to you. You could have just gave a simple direct to the point answer as I did, but you wandered off on some tangent, as usual with you. You get caught off guard and look foolish, and then try to cloud the issue with paragraphs of BS so as to confuse the reader, to hide your incompetence of 7th grade math and lack of understanding thereof!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
...and if you were half as intelligent as you pretend to be you wouldn't have to be spoon fed every last detail of something I post, you would recognize it for what it is. But what do you do? You ask to be educated, and then when I educate you, you pretend you already knew that, and play it off like it was my misdoing from the start. (rolls eyes)
You specifically said
Motor Daddy said:
which was posted not as a PM to Tach but to the general public. As they say, watch out what you ask for, because you just might get it. Hence you got some of the details you requested.
As I said beforeMotor Daddy said:
I'll leave it to you to relate the terms "kinematics" and "equations of motion".
Motor Daddy said:
All you said was
Motor Daddy said:
Given the thread topic, it's unclear how this is relevant.
Motor Daddy said:
How does that assessment arise from my actual reply, which was
which was an actual question, by the way, one you didn't answer.
I already categorized it as 7th grade. That's a pretty overt way of saying the opposite.Motor Daddy said:
Now who's caught off guard.Motor Daddy said:
Which part confused you more, my inquiry into why you chose da/dt = 0 and t[sub]u[/sub] ≤ t ≤ t[sub]v[/sub], or the second question about the roots of a quadratic?Motor Daddy said:
What grade level of competency does my question immediately above demonstrate?Motor Daddy said:
You wouldn't be able to form a competent assessment of my understanding of 7th grade math since you evidently dropped out in the 6th grade.Motor Daddy said:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
We've already established that your reader could not have reached that conclusion without first assuming da/dt = 0 and t[sub]u[/sub] ≤ t ≤ t[sub]v[/sub], which is has no factual predicate for assuming it to be so. This, of course may not be obvious if you are still scratching your head over 7th grade math and aren't able to appreciate the ideas from readers who not only grew out of that but moved on to 8th and 9th grade math, leading to the actual math that describes kinematics as explained by its two inventors.Motor Daddy said:
Now what were you saying about this high school math, that makes this all "plug and play"?
Wow, it looks like you guys had fun all night. It leads me to wonder where you are posting from, i.e. what time zone are you in?
No, I just wasn't out all night sniffing motor oil, or whatever MD does for kicks.
Makes me wonder if I can repackage Valvoline or STP as a math-enhancing aroma therapy with the brand name "Plug N Play". The logo could be a big Sparky, a humanoid spark plug wearing a contraption that appears to be downloading vast equations directly into his brain. Upon close inspection, they would turn out to say "x + 1 = 1 + x", something along that line, something that appeals to the 6th grade level of math competency.
MD has stick-to-it-iveness. I think he is pretty much staying focused on the nature of the universe, so I would be surprised if he has gotten mixed up with a bad crowd of motor oil sniffers.
Get some sleep, lol.
He wouldn't know the difference between seeing stars and "seeing stars". He's still trying to figure out why he's the only person in school who never got a gold star (not even silver or blue for that matter) and (if his projected persona is to be taken at face value as sincere) is merely hashing out some grudge he has (envy) against the kids who were promoted on to jr. high. As far as I know, he mistakes me for one of the kids that left him behind in the dust.
I have requested that the thread be moved to Alternative Theories. Now that we have covered the mainstream concepts of redshift and CMB to the point where no one objects to the idea in the OP of being at rest relative to them, I want to discuss some related alternative ideas.
Gravity waves. No, I have no scientific evidence or mathematical quantification over and above the current knowledge in the scientific community available to layman science enthusiasts like me. The topic is alternative to the generally accepted cosmology which attributes motion to the curvature of space-time and that is why it goes to the Alternative Theories forum as soon as a moderator grants my request.
Here is were I am in this thread: Our Hubble view is pretty well understood to be the observable universe. We observe redshifted light from distant receding galaxies, and we observe microwave energy at about 2.7K with very slight fluctuations coming from all directions. My alternative topic is about the possibility of gravity waves being emitted by mass, and the associated conclusion that for all of the sources of redshifted galactic light, there is also a source of gravity wave energy coming at us from all the same sources.
That would make the background energy of our Hubble view filled with redshifted light energy, microwave energy, and gravitational wave energy coming form all directions.
Gravity waves. No, I have no scientific evidence or mathematical quantification over and above the current knowledge in the scientific community available to layman science enthusiasts like me. The topic is alternative to the generally accepted cosmology which attributes motion to the curvature of space-time and that is why it goes to the Alternative Theories forum as soon as a moderator grants my request.
Here is were I am in this thread: Our Hubble view is pretty well understood to be the observable universe. We observe redshifted light from distant receding galaxies, and we observe microwave energy at about 2.7K with very slight fluctuations coming from all directions. My alternative topic is about the possibility of gravity waves being emitted by mass, and the associated conclusion that for all of the sources of redshifted galactic light, there is also a source of gravity wave energy coming at us from all the same sources.
That would make the background energy of our Hubble view filled with redshifted light energy, microwave energy, and gravitational wave energy coming form all directions.
Good way to take the steering wheel and try to pull this jalopy out of the ditch after MD ran this off the road at his highly improbable 185 mph (82.7 m/s he said). In his dreams.
Gravity waves. (You really mean gravitational waves.) In any case, you might first start with your understanding of the difference between a field and a wave. The subject of the possibility of gravity waves being emitted by mass would or would not fall into the fringe depending on why you think there is any reason to discount the mainstream view.
Gravity waves. (You really mean gravitational waves.) In any case, you might first start with your understanding of the difference between a field and a wave. The subject of the possibility of gravity waves being emitted by mass would or would not fall into the fringe depending on why you think there is any reason to discount the mainstream view.
We touched on the mainstream view, if you mean Big Bang Theory, and that discussion addressed the gravitational waves associated with changes in motion of bodies in space due to interruptions of motion, and the time delay of that information. Is that what you mean by the mainstream view?
Here is an exchange on the topic from my Quantifying Gravities Mechanism thread out in the Alternative Theories forum:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-s-mechanism&p=3062772&viewfull=1#post3062772
Markus Hanke said:
While we await moderator action to move the thread to Alternative Theories as requested by myself and others, I will try to conduct a discussion about the hypothetical gravitational wave energy within our Hubble view.
To start, on the basis that I think it has been agreed that it is possible to be at rest relative to the generalized redshifted light sources and the CMBR, then I hypothesize that we can also be at rest relative to all of the gravitational wave energy sources as well. Do you agree? Consider that situation just a thought experiment for discussion.
To start, on the basis that I think it has been agreed that it is possible to be at rest relative to the generalized redshifted light sources and the CMBR, then I hypothesize that we can also be at rest relative to all of the gravitational wave energy sources as well. Do you agree? Consider that situation just a thought experiment for discussion.