Dark energy is pseudoscience

James R. Would I be expected to prove that Santa Claus does not exist? People talk about dark energy as though there were the slightest proof to back it up. It is just an explanation which may or may not be true.
 
Bishadi. Science used to be a testable/provable field but now too much is unquestioningly taken for granted in a number of fields. When people dare to question some of these tenets, followers start ranting against them instead of trying to answer them.
 
AlphaNumeric.b As is shown by scientists at the Discovery Institute, give some people enough money and they will work for any cause, even creationism. It is said that 1 in 3 of the clergy do not believe in things like the virgin birth, various miracles, resurrection, etc. These people are making a living so why should they question whether their field is viable or not?

ArXiv, where papers go to die.

What physics do you know? Quoting what can be found on many internet sites is not proof that you knew it, and you do nothing else, UnoriginalNumeric.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
How old were you when you stopped studying physics in school? What was the last physics textbook you read?
Click to expand...

To use an ANism, strawman!

And notice how JamesR and Ben both agree with me. Just like I said people do. People who've studied physics. Though I imagine you think they've been brain washed. :rolleyes: Or maybe are sock puppets of mine. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Translation. I'm losing the argument so if I make myself look smart, people will believe the junk I come out with.

Now about dark energy......what are you running away for?
 
kaneda said:
ArXiv, where papers go to die.
Click to expand...
What makes you say that? Pretty much every physics paper, theoretical and experimental, gets put on ArXiv before it gets submitted to a journal. Papers go there BEFORE they get published.
kaneda said:
What physics do you know? Quoting what can be found on many internet sites is not proof that you knew it, and you do nothing else, UnoriginalNumeric.
Click to expand...
How many times have I provided you with links to my degree certificate, proof I went to Cambridge, proof I'm doing a PhD and proof I've contributed to physics? If I'm unable to do physics and maths, why are you refusing to debunk the evidence I provide in previoous discussions with :

I'm on the list of PhD students.
I've given internal seminars (March 13th).
My website is linked to from the list of PhD students.
How do you explain me rowing for my college?
How do you explain that years before I came here I was posting on NRich saying I was on the Trinity network? Notice my name is in blue, which means I'm a student or ex-student from Cambridge doing maths or physics.
You've seen pictures of my degree certificate.
Here's a paper where I'm named in the area of work I do.
I have attended conferences here and here , where I'm listed as a member of a university.

So do you think I have faked two different university websites, an independent one with photos of me rowing in my college colours, multiple other websites years before I came across you?

Go on, if I'm lying about being able to do physics, you need to explain all those bits of independent evidence. And where's evidence you can do physics? How many times have I asked you to link to a single post of yours where you show you can do quantitative physics? And you have ignored that request every time.
kaneda said:
To use an ANism, strawman!
Click to expand...
You claim to have such a grasp of physics you know it better than every physicist. I think it's relevent to know how you came to such an understanding. How much physics did you learn in school? What physics have you read and worked through since then?

You ask me for evidence I know physics. Now I'm asking you.
kaneda said:
Translation. I'm losing the argument so if I make myself look smart, people will believe the junk I come out with.
Click to expand...
You said that few people believe me or think I'm decent at physics. I'm proving you wrong with examples.
kaneda said:
Now about dark energy......what are you running away for?
Click to expand...
I'm not. The fact I always reply to your threads demonstrates I'm not running away. Your opening post doesn't ask a question though, it makes a statement without any backup.

What do you want to know. Come on, let's make a decent discussion of it. If you make any claims, provide backup.
 
kaneda said:
Bishadi. Science used to be a testable/provable field but now too much is unquestioningly taken for granted in a number of fields. When people dare to question some of these tenets, followers start ranting against them instead of trying to answer them.
Click to expand...

rant away..... i see the same mess;

i.e... particle physics and accelerators are the biggest waste of resorce on the planet

Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote:

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
Click to expand...

they be creating their own toys


Chemistry pays no mind to the energy upon the mass; they play an entropic binary game based on the structures and ionizations; which remove any comprehension to the energy (em upon mass). Everything from resonance to potential conveyance between structures is lost. The whole comprehension of how lipid bilayers assemble (no peptide bonds) to the ATP cycles (proton accelerations) are a joke.

Heisenberg has discussed the coupled double harmonic oscillator, and has shown that the ordinary rules of quantization lead to two non-combining sets of states in one of which the electrons are in phase and out of phase. The energy of the system is successively transferred from one to the other – resonance! (Linus Pauling, 1977)
Click to expand...


so keep screaming at the top of your lungs sharing how foolish the so called community can be about not being capable of integrity over eduaction.

as per an old quote

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

A. Einstein
Click to expand...
 
Mind you, Albert was educated - he learned all about tensor calculus, and Riemannian manifolds. Took a bit of effort, I understand, but obviously he got there.

My biggest problem with learning math, was that the teachers would never say why it was important, or what it explained, or how it connected to anything else, so I would often sit there wondering "so what?"

How about you?
 
Vkothii said:
Mind you, Albert was educated - he learned all about tensor calculus, and Riemannian manifolds. Took a bit of effort, I understand, but obviously he got there.

My biggest problem with learning math, was that the teachers would never say why it was important, or what it explained, or how it connected to anything else, so I would often sit there wondering "so what?"

How about you?
Click to expand...

ask Milo

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/famous-mathematics-quotes.htm

ask him who was spent the 06 thankgiving holiday at his home?

and did he like the Orchid?

maybe you confused me with someone else.... by 8 quadratics and parabola were what i was doing for Mrs. Trueblood at Edison Elementary in Anaheim Ca.

for Professor White at 16 i submitted a thesis sharing how the human brain works grounded in a form of math sharing how mass and energy associate

and neither of the big boys (mit, cal tech, berkeley... etc) could comprehend it then; so a promise was made to learn for these last 25 plus years just to make sure and share at 40, that was a couple years back and now all over the world, a whole bunch of folk are starting to see;

and it appears you don't even comprehend now how these so called phenomenon actually work.... but like to talk alot about what theorem predicts

you just like a kid with a new bike... you see what others suggest and know a little math to play with and you just happy like no end

but are you defining anything with it or just barking up a storm about smart you are

dark energy/matter is a joke

particle accelerators are a joke

chemistry is a joke

when you can show, in math, how life exists upon mass, and then comprehend why it works........... combined with the comprehension of quantum eletrodynamic, chemistry and electromagnetism.......

all within an entangled environment (field)


then maybe you can talk

first hint; second law of thermodynamics is moot when defining life

ie... see what it did to planck and the errors of virial theorem (dark matter)
 
Bishadi said:
are you defining anything with it or just barking up a storm about smart you are
Click to expand...
No, you have that soapbox all to yourself at the moment.

You submitted a thesis? Under what name? What was the title and year? Which journal?

Do you actually know any calculus? A genius like you should be able to derive Boltzmann's thermodynamic formula, from the Von Neumann one for conditional entropy then, while you make a cup of jive? Or show, in a page or so, what's wrong with Fermi's analysis of magnetic fields and his virial formula, that was developed with the help of a certain Indian math genius?

Since you're also such a genius? Or will something like: "I don't need to waste my time showing everyone how brilliant I am, I just have to keep telling everyone I am" do it...?
 
Bishadi said:
Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote
Click to expand...
Einstein refers to the fact dynamical mass is a frame dependent quantity. Physicists don't use it, they use rest mass and momentum, using Einstein's formula of $$E^{2} = m^{2}+p^{2}$$ where m is the rest mass.

So your whining is based on ignorance.
Bishadi said:
for Professor White at 16 i submitted a thesis sharing how the human brain works grounded in a form of math sharing how mass and energy associate

and neither of the big boys (mit, cal tech, berkeley... etc) could comprehend it then; so a promise was made to learn for these last 25 plus years just to make sure and share at 40, that was a couple years back and now all over the world, a whole bunch of folk are starting to see;
Click to expand...
Did it get published? Did it get rejected by everyone you submitted it to? Who exactly is 'seeing it' now?

Was the 'thesis' less than 50 pages and devoid of maths? A thesis is between 100 and 400 pages typically and the culmination of 3~7 years work. What you're almost certainly referring to is a paper and one which was considered nonsense by mainstream physicists. You complain they didn't understand it but in actual fact they thought it was nonsense. And here you are, 25 years later, and you're still a nobody whining on forums about how you've got all the answers but you don't actually know anything.

Kinda like Kaneda.
 
AlphaNumeric. How many papers on ArXiv see the light of day anywhere else? 1 in 1,000?

You are still using the strawman argument, saying that you must be right because you have qualifications. Your posts however do not show signs of a great intellect. What you do is maths. Several years ago I heard of someone who could speak fluently 66 languages and get by in dozens more. What had this genius invented? Nothing. He just had a good memory for languages. You just have a good memory and a good head for figures. You have dedicated them to a field that will almost certainly never have a concrete use in the real world.

Again the strawman argument. Not interested in what I post but telling me you are a PhD student and I'm not so you must be right.

You do maths. People in your own field believe you are right in the same sense that you believe that they are right. Real world. You're all working on abstract maths which for all it's use might as well be calculating how many hairs in Santa's beard. That is your idea of "doing physics".

Why should I back up something for which there is no evidence? It is like my asking you to back up a statement that there is no God. If you cannot do so, then that would prove God exists. DE is an idea to explain a believed effect. Prove the idea is more than an idea.
 
Bishadi said:
in case anyone likes to see how dark matter clusters are suggested
Click to expand...


You see that very tiny blob on this huge photo. It is a hundred thousand light years across and might contain anything but because it is not the shape we think it should be, it must contain dark matter, so our computer put it there.
 
Bishadi said:
paradigm change

Dark Matter is Pseudoscience!
Click to expand...

Look at any picture of a spiral galaxy and you can see it is laid out as though only light matter mattered. Loonies however will tell you that you are only seeing 1/6th of the matter there and cannot see the missing 5/6 of the matter. Yet supposedly DM interacts gravitationally.
 
Vkothii said:
Mind you, Albert was educated - he learned all about tensor calculus, and Riemannian manifolds. Took a bit of effort, I understand, but obviously he got there.
Click to expand...


Maths does not teach you how to think as AlphaNumeric has found. It is just about using known equations with figures you input.

Einstein could not even work out the double slit illusion which took me several seconds to figure out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top