For the alternative theorists:

[Trippy]

Hi Russ.



Isn't that what Einstein was doing too? You couldn't get more (then) non-mainstream than GR at the time. It came as a revolutionary shocker 'out of the blue' to all his mainstream contemporaries, and no mistake! Yes?

I only said GR. The SR was just evolution of what was known already.

And if you read the history, you will find that no-one expected GR as it was. It was NOT some 'evolution' of what was mainstream, as you try to wrongfully imply. It was revolutionary and non-mainstream in the extreme.

Nothing in the mainstream science/models at the time prepared the mainstreamers for GR. Please don't try to rewrite the history to suit your uninformed opinions. Thanks and goodbye, paddo.

Maybe you should take this aspect of the discussion back to this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists

 

[paddoboy]

I only said GR. The SR was just evolution of what was known already.

And if you read the history, you will find that no-one expected GR as it was. It was NOT some 'evolution' of what was mainstream, as you try to wrongfully imply. It was revolutionary and non-mainstream in the extreme.

Nothing in the mainstream science/models at the time prepared the mainstreamers for GR. Please don't try to rewrite the history to suit your uninformed opinions. Thanks and goodbye, paddo.

The evolutionary aspects of GR may well have been counter intuitive to a layman, but it was almost immediatley accepted within 3 years after irrefutable evidence came about [Eddington and the eclipse] that revealed the true real nature of not only space, but time and also space/time

GR followed on from SR, pure and simple......and allowing for the fact that Einstein was indeed a genius of the highest calibre, and that they do come along infrequently, and would not in anyones imagination push some delusionary aspect of a TOE on a public forum.

I'm not rewriting history, I actually thought you were. :shrug:

 

[Undefined]

Maybe you should take this aspect of the discussion back to this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists

I don't want to take it anywhere. I was only making a one-off observation on the discussion here between Russ and leopold. That's it. Just because paddoboy chooses to argue his uninformed opinion about it is neither here nor there as far as the original intent of my original observation is concerned. Thanks anyway. Let paddo take it anywhere he likes. Ask him.

 

[Undefined]

The evolutionary aspects of GR may well have been counter intuitive to a layman, but it was almost immediatley accepted within 3 years after irrefutable evidence came about [Eddington and the eclipse] that revealed the true real nature of not only space, but time and also space/time

GR followed on from SR, pure and simple......and allowing for the fact that Einstein was indeed a genius of the highest calibre, and that they do come along infrequently, and would not in anyones imagination push some delusionary aspect of a TOE on a public forum.

I'm not rewriting history, I actually thought you were. :shrug:

Ask yourself how long after Einstein published his GR did Eddington make that observation?

And ask yourself if it took that observation to convince Einstein's peers at the time, then GR was not mainstream yet because it was only accepted into mainstream 3 years later!

And ask yourself where in the mainstream science/modeling of gravity at the time was 'curvature of spacetime' mentioned or even hinted at as an explanation of observed gravitational effects, being so totally different from what 'mainstream explanations' obtained before.

Admit it, what you 'thought' doesn't matter when the history of the GR 'total' revolution of the contemporary mainstream is there for all to read for themselves, despite you trying to rewrite/reinterpret it to suit your uninformed opinion. No-one was the least prepared for the GR bombshell. Only years of familiarization, discussion and finally observations made it 'acceptable' and 'familiar' to the mainstream...eventually, and certainly not before all that took place.

Goodbye and good luck in your future attempts at uninformed opinionating despite the history/evidence, paddoboy.

 

[Trippy]

I don't want to take it anywhere. I was only making a one-off observation on the discussion here between Russ and leopold. That's it. Just because paddoboy chooses to argue his uninformed opinion about it is neither here nor there as far as the original intent of my original observation is concerned. Thanks anyway. Let paddo take it anywhere he likes. Ask him.

Moderator Note:
You're always complaining that I don't go back to the beginning of things. I was asking you as the poster of the original, off topic observation regarding the mainstream/non-mainstream status of GR. The purpose of that other thread is to discuss galactic evolution, not the evolution of General Relativity. According to your standards, Paddoboy is entitled to reply to your posts as he sees fit, and I should deal with the originator of the off-topic discourse, not the person responding to it.

If you want to discuss the evolution of GR and its status as a mainstream or alternative theory, do it here. If you want to discuss the evolution of galactic form, do it there.

In case it's unclear, this is a warning.

 

[Undefined]

Moderator Note:
You're always complaining that I don't go back to the beginning of things. I was asking you as the poster of the original, off topic observation regarding the mainstream/non-mainstream status of GR. The purpose of that other thread is to discuss galactic evolution, not the evolution of General Relativity. According to your standards, Paddoboy is entitled to reply to your posts as he sees fit, and I should deal with the originator of the off-topic discourse, not the person responding to it.

If you want to discuss the evolution of GR and its status as a mainstream or alternative theory, do it here. If you want to discuss the evolution of galactic form, do it there.

My original post was ON topic as in the context involved in that exchange between leopold and Russ which I QUOTED in context and addressed ONLY that aspect as a one-off observation. If paddoboy wants to make it a further discussion thread then its up to him to take it wherever he wants. You may move the FURTHER paddoboy responses as OFF-topic and put them in the appropriate thread you think is right for his posts, but MY ORIGINAL post was on-topic and intended as a one-off observation of the topic being exchanged between Russ and leopold.

I appreciate what you were trying to do, but it's not necessary unless paddoboy wants to continue his own off-topic posts about my one-off ON-topic post as described. Then you can move the further paddo posts as you see fit, as I will not be responding to him on this matter in this thread again. Thanks.

 

[Trippy]

Request Denied

My original post was ON topic as in the context involved in that exchange between leopold and Russ which I QUOTED in context and addressed ONLY that aspect as a one-off observation. If paddoboy wants to make it a further discussion thread then its up to him to take it wherever he wants. You may move the FURTHER paddoboy responses as OFF-topic and put them in the appropriate thread you think is right for his posts, but MY ORIGINAL post was on-topic and intended as a one-off observation of the topic being exchanged between Russ and leopold.

I appreciate what you were trying to do, but it's not necessary unless paddoboy wants to continue his own off-topic posts about my one-off ON-topic post as described. Then you can move the further paddo posts as you see fit, as I will not be responding to him on this matter in this thread again. Thanks.

Your original response was to a post that was partly on topic and partly off topic in the context of the thread the conversation was originally split from, IE: This thread.

If you want to pursue that topic further, this thread is the correct thread to do it in. If you want to discuss galactic evolution further, the other thread is the correct thread to do it in.

Moderator note:
The answer is no, my decision stands.

If you want to take this dispute further feel free, but remember that this is not the thread to do it in. I will not accept further correspondence from you on the matter in this thread, and further discussion of it in this thread will result in the posts being treated as off-topic.

You have multiple vehicles for pursuing your complaint against me further, however, further derailing this thread is not one of them.

 

[Undefined]

Your original response was to a post that was partly on topic and partly off topic in the context of the thread the conversation was originally split from, IE: This thread.

If you want to pursue that topic further, this thread is the correct thread to do it in. If you want to discuss galactic evolution further, the other thread is the correct thread to do it in.

Moderator note:
The answer is no, my decision stands.

If you want to take this dispute further feel free, but remember that this is not the thread to do it in. I will not accept further correspondence from you on the matter in this thread, and further discussion of it in this thread will result in the posts being treated as off-topic.

You have multiple vehicles for pursuing your complaint against me further, however, further derailing this thread is not one of them.

Oh, sorry, your moving and splitting has confused things for me.

I had not intended to carry on a discussion with paddo or anyone else other than make that one-off on-topic observation based on the exchange between those posts of Russ and leopold in the Galaxy Evolution thread where the exchange between leopold and Russ (posts there #4 and #5) occurred and still remain.

But you've moved my original one-off observation as well as the further exchange between paddo and me on that. Sorry I didn't realize that and posted as if this was the other thread because I saw my initial post here as well. My bad.

Thanks anyway, even if you you didn't leave my initial observation where it was on-topic and in context of Russ-leopold exchange in their posts # 4 and # 5 in that other thread.

OK, Trippy. Let sleeping dogs lay, as they say. Thanks anyway since your intentions were good. Cheers.

 

[Trippy]

Thanks anyway, even if you you didn't leave my initial observation where it was on-topic and in context of Russ-leopold exchange in their posts # 4 and # 5 in that other thread.

On-topic in the context of a post which in itself contains off-topic content and was only included because it provided context to a subsequent reply.

The fact that somebody else made an offtopic post, or an offtopic post was included in the original thread split does not make your responses to it any less off topic. Do we have an understanding?

Addendum: If it makes you feel better, I've moved a copy of the post back into this thread as well: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ve-theorists&p=3187496&viewfull=1#post3187496

 

[Undefined]

On-topic in the context of a post which in itself contains off-topic content and was only included because it provided context to a subsequent reply.

The fact that somebody else made an offtopic post, or an offtopic post was included in the original thread split does not make your responses to it any less off topic. Do we have an understanding?

Yes, it's clear that an off-topic-on-topic 'cascade effect' was involved which you have since clarified as above. Understood now. Thanks for your trouble and patience in this matter. Cheers.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Am I in the wrong thread with this? I don't even know - I wasn't around last night to see how this evolved...

Hi Russ.

Isn't that what Einstein was doing too? You couldn't get more (then) non-mainstream than GR at the time. It came as a revolutionary shocker 'out of the blue' to all his mainstream contemporaries, and no mistake! Yes?

Absolutely not. Are you under the impression that anything new is by definition non-mainstream? It isn't: GR was born out of known flaws in Newtonian Gravity, to a guy who was completely educated in the current (at the time) state of the mainstream. And it was all mathematical, not pseudophilosophical like the crap flying around in the physics section here. You can't get any more mainstream than how Einstein did his work.

Nothing in the mainstream science/models at the time prepared the mainstreamers for GR.

False. What prepared them was this:

Before the advent of general relativity, Newton's law of universal gravitation had been accepted for more than two hundred years as a valid description of the gravitational force between masses, even though Newton himself did not regard the theory as the final word on the nature of gravity. Within a century of Newton's formulation, careful astronomical observation revealed unexplainable variations between the theory and the observations.

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

The mainstream of physics had known about the flaws in and and been looking for an alternate to Newtonian gravity for a hundred years before Einstein found it. GR was accepted very quickly because the mainstream was prepared for it and immediately recognized that it fixed the problems they already knew existed.

There is a crackpot cult of Einstein whereby people try to paint him as a crackpot in his time in order to bring him down to their level. They want to be crackpot kindred spirits. It just isn't what Einstein was. Einstein was the epitome the mainstream success story.

 

[paddoboy]

Absolutely not. Are you under the impression that anything new is by definition non-mainstream?

A great point that I have made many times.....
You can bet your your life that any new innovative scientific discovery, will almost certainly emerge from mainstream science.

 

[forrest noble]

.........In other words, it's the theory which best explains the sum of all phenomena, proposed by experts, and universally held to be the best explanation to support the best evidence, As opposed to several minority views and alternative theories, also proposed/suggested by experts, but which are considered inferior. Unlike crank proposals we see all the time, which are mere pseudoscience and don't even measure up to "inferior" since they aren't even close to being called "theory"......

Yes, I generally agree with your statements above, it's just your last statement below that I disagree with.

Therefore the emphasis on "mainstream", and distancing yourself from it, is ludicrous. Be honest. Just admit that you have no clue.

No, I think I have more than a clue, pantheory.org. That, however, does not mean my opinions or theories are right only that I think I understand enough to formulate my own.

 

[paddoboy]

No, I think I have more than a clue, pantheory.org. That, however, does not mean my opinions or theories are right only that I think I understand enough to formulate my own.

From where I sit a well presented and Interesting paper.....I have only glanced through it though, and the technical aspects of your hypothesis is under construction...Not that I would have been able to validate or otherwise as I'm not qualified.
Quite lengthy and not sure if I have the patience to read fully.
But what I have observed in my glancing, is a series of statements/claims but no evidence, either observational or experimental, and no maths.
I do hope some of our more learned people here do take the time to comment on it.
I await with great interest as to their comments.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No, I think I have more than a clue, pantheory.org. That, however, does not mean my opinions or theories are right only that I think I understand enough to formulate my own.

Since you claim your "theory" is generated from scratch, with no basis in existing theory, then that is a very wrong and breathtakingly naive and arrogant thing to believe/say. In context: no one who has ever said such a thing, who hasn't been formally trained (at least since science became science), has been correct.

Ignorance is not a badge of honor, nor a source of freedom, it is a shortcoming to be overcome through education.

[edit] Wait, I just downloaded it: It says it was originally copyrighted in 1959. You mean to tell me you generated this 55 years ago?!? And you have nothing to show for it? That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard!

 

[Undefined]

Absolutely not. Are you under the impression that anything new is by definition non-mainstream? It isn't: GR was born out of known flaws in Newtonian Gravity, to a guy who was completely educated in the current (at the time) state of the mainstream. And it was all mathematical, not pseudophilosophical like the crap flying around in the physics section here. You can't get any more mainstream than how Einstein did his work.

False. What prepared them was this:

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

The mainstream of physics had known about the flaws in and and been looking for an alternate to Newtonian gravity for a hundred years before Einstein found it. GR was accepted very quickly because the mainstream was prepared for it and immediately recognized that it fixed the problems they already knew existed.

There is a crackpot cult of Einstein whereby people try to paint him as a crackpot in his time in order to bring him down to their level. They want to be crackpot kindred spirits. It just isn't what Einstein was. Einstein was the epitome the mainstream success story.

You appear to be conflating the Scientific METHOD with the scientific WORK/IDEAS.

The method may be mainstream (or it would not be science) while the NEW ideas/approaches etc being developed may be alternatives to current mainstream paradigm (as distinct from mainstream method, which is not the 'alternative' new ideas).

See your conflation? Doing science is doing science. Period. Either you are doing science or you are not.

The scientific method is what is mainstream.

Then there is mainstream theory status of orthodoxy as per the current mainstream understandings paradigm....AND...then there are NEW postulates, conjectures, hypotheses etc which may NOT be mainstream if they do not align with the orthodoxy until they are either accepted or rejected after testing etc.

Get it? The scientific method is still mainstream, but the NEW approaches/ideas may NOT be mainstream, else they would by your 'impression' NOT BE 'new', would they?

And they don't get any NEWER than Albert's NON-mainstream GR 'bombshell' idea/model which shook up the prevailing mainstream paradigm and remedied some of the prevailing paradigm flaws, do they?

That was the thrust/context of my comment, not the mistaken impression' you seem to be working under and mistakenly attributing to me. Cheers.

PS: I see paddoboy is 'cheerleading' before seeing the response which makes what he 'cheerleads' irrelevant/wrong. You'd think he would learn his lesson before doing the usual 'noise' and 'cheerlead' posts as usual before he understands what is involved. But obviously not. Too bad. Good luck to him, he'll need it if he keeps that up while missing all the clues along the way which he could have learned from.

PPS: By the way, have a look at this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

...by an MRI and MICROWAVES expert; especially from approx. 30 minutes in. It's about the COBE/WMAP etc mainstream methods/problems with CMB 'signal processing' and assumptions, techniques etc which may be invalid for all the claims made by those mainstreamers here which are based on such CMB 'maps' and interpretations. Listen carefully and try not to kneejerk/filter the facts pointed out; and view it a few times before you come to any conclusions. Good luck.

 

[forrest noble]

Thanks paddoboy,

From where I sit a well presented and Interesting paper.....I have only glanced through it though, and the technical aspects of your hypothesis is under construction...Not that I would have been able to validate or otherwise as I'm not qualified.
Quite lengthy and not sure if I have the patience to read fully.
But what I have observed in my glancing, is a series of statements/claims but no evidence, either observational or experimental, and no maths.
I do hope some of our more learned people here do take the time to comment on it.
I await with great interest as to their comments.

There are places on this forum, to its credit, where details of alternative theory can be discussed. General discussions of alternative theories in this thread may be appropriate, but details of mine or any particular alternative theory/ hypothesis, I believe would not be on topic here. For this the Alternative Theory forum would seem appropriate for those that might be interested in such alternative theories. My collective theories are a book of over 400 pages including a number of unique equations. The theories involved propose alternatives to nearly everything in modern mainstream physics. All are discussed on the website, the link posted here. So if anyone is interested in the detail I will open a thread in the appropriate forum but will not comment in detail in this thread.

 

[paddoboy]

You appear to be conflating the Scientific METHOD with the scientific WORK/IDEAS.

The method may be mainstream (or it would not be science) while the NEW ideas/approaches etc being developed may be alternatives to current mainstream paradigm (as distinct from mainstream method, which is not the 'alternative' new ideas).

See your conflation? Doing science is doing science. Period. Either you are doing science or you are not.

The scientific method is what is mainstream.

And there is nothing in the scientific method that precludes new ideas and new approaches.
Any hypothesis can be said to be a new idea or new approach. That, along with Imagination and Innovation are part and parcel of the scientific method.
As they stand up to observational and experimental data, they are then accepted as theories.
As they continue to successfully make predictions and match observations, they become more concrete and certain...eg: SR, GR, the BB, Evolution.
If they contradict experimental and observational data, then they remain as unsupported hypothesis having failed the scientific method including peer review, and obviously this is where you and the other two TOE theorists have fallen on your swords.

It took me sometime to evaluate the 12 points any alternative theorist should adhere to.
I see them as constructive and compulsory if you want to maintain any semblance of respect or acceptance.

 

[forrest noble]

Since you claim your "theory" is generated from scratch, with no basis in existing theory, then that is a very wrong and breathtakingly naive and arrogant thing to believe/say. In context: no one who has ever said such a thing, who hasn't been formally trained (at least since science became science), has been correct.

Ignorance is not a badge of honor, nor a source of freedom, it is a shortcoming to be overcome through education.

[edit] Wait, I just downloaded it: It says it was originally copyrighted in 1959. You mean to tell me you generated this 55 years ago?!? And you have nothing to show for it? That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard!

For development of my own models, theory is unrelated to math to start with. My theories were developed conceptually from scratch, without any assumptions other than the subjective ones (such as what is perceived and measured is generally real and not part of a matrix experience, for instance )

From all known related observations these concepts and verbal theories were slowly developed. From this set of self-supporting verbal theories, some unique equations have been developed. Scientific papers have been written by me and others concerning the related concepts, observations by others, and my related equations -- then compared to mainsteam models and equations.

Yes, my first 10 page paper was written in 1959, my senior year of high school and later expanded and shown to my college professor for this subject. He asked if I had math details beyond the paper, alternative-equations which I had not developed as yet. After saying I didn't, he suggested that I try to develop such equations when able, based upon my concepts.

 

[paddoboy]

PS: I see paddoboy is 'cheerleading' before seeing the response which makes what he 'cheerleads' irrelevant/wrong. You'd think he would learn his lesson before doing the usual 'noise' and 'cheerlead' posts as usual before he understands what is involved. But obviously not. Too bad. Good luck to him, he'll need it if he keeps that up while missing all the clues along the way which he could have learned from.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds undefined.
You have been cheer leading from day one for your like minded souls in Farsight and others...not to mention Sean Carroll and Einstein!
And one of those you obviously took out of context, the other, well the best I could say is you were mistaken, and mislead by your blinkered agended approach to cosmology.
Carroll of course supports the reality of time, no question about it!

In essence you have failed the scientific methodology on most of the 12 points...that includes peer review.