Crackpot link makes no sense!
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Great. Well we are done with that then. So anymore posts by you will confirm that you are a liar.
Looking forward to discussing more woo-woo with you AFTER your book is published.
Take care.
Same to you mate. Seriously though, if you think you are really going to write the most important book on physics since Einstein's theory of GR, I strongly suggest that you discuss these ideas with your health professional, it may just be a harmless delusion but it could be an indication of something more serious that medical science could help you with.
Again good luck.
When will it get through to you that I am real and put my money/work where my mouth is? There are people in some forums who know I am not kidding you. Just because you think it 'unlikely' doesn't mean anything if you don't know/expect what is around the corner in complete and consistent reality-based ToE terms. The whole thing about 'revolutions' is that they come as a surprised to those not in the know while the revolution is brewing or are unprepared for it because of being 'convinced it is unlikely'. Twas ever thus for pioneering, independent works. I won't try to convince you about anything, since it matters not at this juncture. The future will tell all. Again, I understand your stance and bear no hard feelings. It's not about either me or your beliefs about it, it's about the complete and consistent reality-based ToE that SOMEONE had to work out. Whence it comes is not important, only that it came finally. Posterity and Science will deal with it accordingly.
Good luck, origin.
A bit restrictive isn't it? Seeing as we are in the middle of an exchange started and continued by you, Russ and PhysBang (and also Trippy) since I just made that passing link to someone else's expert comments on CMB signal processing (which blew up into troll-confusion exchanges still going on)?
Anyhow, if you, Russ and PhysBang (and also Trippy) are finished about this, then so am I. Good luck.
When you cite scientific papers rather than crank videos.
Isn't that obvious? You really do come off as someone who knows nothing when you present garbage and you obviously haven't read the source material.
The inescapable answer is never. For you to be real you would have to actually do what you have been claiming to do all these years and only a brain dead fool would think you could.
Please, tell us why you trust that link and not the work of the people who actually measure the CMB?
U
Uncle Ira
Guest
Does this mean you aren't going to tell ol Ira what you were trying to mean when you said the energy-space? Really-Undefined-Skippy, I don't think these other peoples can tell me what it is you were trying to mean, so before you Really-Skippy-Going, could you please tell it to me what is this energy-space? And also what you use to measure it with since you said it was really real.
Guys, guys...
In both cases the content was not crank unless Sean is a crank; or unless that expert critique in that later video I referenced for Russ did not contain objective critique/info on the subject matter mentioned in context of CMB signal processing.
I have not referenced crank videos in either case, so your 'generic' but FALSE claim to give that impression is BOGUS trolling tactics and nothing more, just because you want to 'justify' apriori your making uninformed accusations and claims BEFORE you even LOOKED at the videos. That was a case of you trolling, and not me referencing crank videos, yes?
Who said I 'trusted' ANYONE? I already made clear I LISTEN to EVERYTHING before me and make up my mind on the objective facts as to what is gem and what is dross. How many times are you going to conflate LISTENING with TRUSTING in this context? Your reaction is based on that FALSE EQUATION which you attribute to me but which is NOT SO. I look and then make assessments objectively and acceptOR reject accordingly.
If you don't ever LOOK then you are prejudicing your assessment and it is NOT hence OBJECTIVE, is it? The overall thrust I took from that latest video was about the limitations and pitfalls that attend such 'signal processing' methods/assumptions/procedures/interpretations that also are used in CMB work which is then used as basis for 'papers' and 'conclusions'. That's all I wanted to reference it for. To remind everyone of the limitations and pitfalls which all CMB work/interpretations may be subject to. You can make your own mind up about all that. It's no skin off my nose. I just wanted you to be AWARE of that particular aspect that was covered in that video. No more, no less. Good luck.
What can one say to that, origin? Even Einstein had such uninformed kneejerk comments from peers, and he was 'one of them', hey? Some things never change when human nature and ego/elitist mindsets/certainty are in play. You have made your conclusions but are totally ignorant of the actuality. Very 'scientific'. Never mind. I trust you are now finished stringing out your opinion on this, else if I respond you might again accuse me of something because I responded to you. Good luck.
I explained why already.
If you are too lazy to start your own thread/discussion of the matters involved, then look to your own motives and behavior which keeps you ignorant, and don't blame others. Good luck.
OK, guys. All finished with your respective irrelevant distractions now? Great! Good luck, everyone!
What crank videos have I linked to for you or Russ? Some weeks ago I alluded to a Sean Carroll BBC production interview which you called me a 'liar' over even before you looked. Now the latest link for Russ in my passing PS was to a video of an expert on the relevant Microwave signal processing limitations and pitfalls irrespective of who was doing it, and instead of Russ viewing it for himself he let paddo troll put him off by 'associating' with EU IRRELEVANCIES regarding venue/sponsor.
In both cases the content was not crank unless Sean is a crank; or unless that expert critique in that later video I referenced for Russ did not contain objective critique/info on the subject matter mentioned in context of CMB signal processing.
I have not referenced crank videos in either case, so your 'generic' but FALSE claim to give that impression is BOGUS trolling tactics and nothing more, just because you want to 'justify' apriori your making uninformed accusations and claims BEFORE you even LOOKED at the videos. That was a case of you trolling, and not me referencing crank videos, yes?
Who said I 'trusted' ANYONE? I already made clear I LISTEN to EVERYTHING before me and make up my mind on the objective facts as to what is gem and what is dross. How many times are you going to conflate LISTENING with TRUSTING in this context? Your reaction is based on that FALSE EQUATION which you attribute to me but which is NOT SO. I look and then make assessments objectively and acceptOR reject accordingly.
If you don't ever LOOK then you are prejudicing your assessment and it is NOT hence OBJECTIVE, is it? The overall thrust I took from that latest video was about the limitations and pitfalls that attend such 'signal processing' methods/assumptions/procedures/interpretations that also are used in CMB work which is then used as basis for 'papers' and 'conclusions'. That's all I wanted to reference it for. To remind everyone of the limitations and pitfalls which all CMB work/interpretations may be subject to. You can make your own mind up about all that. It's no skin off my nose. I just wanted you to be AWARE of that particular aspect that was covered in that video. No more, no less. Good luck.
What can one say to that, origin? Even Einstein had such uninformed kneejerk comments from peers, and he was 'one of them', hey? Some things never change when human nature and ego/elitist mindsets/certainty are in play. You have made your conclusions but are totally ignorant of the actuality. Very 'scientific'. Never mind. I trust you are now finished stringing out your opinion on this, else if I respond you might again accuse me of something because I responded to you. Good luck.
I explained why already.
If you are too lazy to start your own thread/discussion of the matters involved, then look to your own motives and behavior which keeps you ignorant, and don't blame others. Good luck.
OK, guys. All finished with your respective irrelevant distractions now? Great! Good luck, everyone!
Last edited:
Sean says time is real, in no uncertain terms, and adds that it is quite bizarre to believe otherwise....
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA&feature=kp
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA&feature=kp
This loose end again?
In the context of SPECULATIVE CONJECTURES including multiverses etc. OK?
Einstein described it as I told you. Anything else is 'belief' and 'conjecture' and 'abstraction' in the CONTEXT it is being used in...as Sean himself says, you have to be careful what context/usage you are meaning when you use that term 'time'. And if its not fundamental, then it is emergent/derived, as Einstein clearly explained as an abstract connection WE make between two events when we speak of 'time' in physical terms. It doesn't exist as fundamental space-energy motion/process does, it only exists as an abstraction from those fundamental things. Try to understand the subtle differences in meanings/usages depending on the various philosophical/mathematical/physical contexts involved. Good luck, paddo.
Sean says time is real, in no uncertain terms, and adds that it is quite bizarre to believe otherwise....
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA&feature=kp
In the context of SPECULATIVE CONJECTURES including multiverses etc. OK?
Einstein described it as I told you. Anything else is 'belief' and 'conjecture' and 'abstraction' in the CONTEXT it is being used in...as Sean himself says, you have to be careful what context/usage you are meaning when you use that term 'time'. And if its not fundamental, then it is emergent/derived, as Einstein clearly explained as an abstract connection WE make between two events when we speak of 'time' in physical terms. It doesn't exist as fundamental space-energy motion/process does, it only exists as an abstraction from those fundamental things. Try to understand the subtle differences in meanings/usages depending on the various philosophical/mathematical/physical contexts involved. Good luck, paddo.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sean says time is real, in no uncertain terms, and adds that it is quite bizarre to believe otherwise....
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA&feature=kp
questions:
Please define Reality (for reference)
Does Time have physical properties?
Isn't it obvious? After you publish it!
So sad for their gullibility, but it isn't really my problem.
U
Uncle Ira
Guest
See Really-Skippy, you tell Ira the great BIG LIE. You said you was not to speak of the space-energy again. Or is the space-energy another different thing you made up to sound scientist man? Space-energy and energy space, is the same yes? Or the not the same no?
Then people should reasonably wait to make their objective assessments/comments after it's published, when it's clear and known what's what they are commenting about, not making uninformed premature and prejudicial remarks based on personal opinions and beliefs only.
Whose gullibility? Maybe that's part of the communications breakdown? Are you under the impression I am part of some amorphous collection/vested interest group or something? I am a lone researcher and independent scrupulously objective scientist belong to no group or religion or any 'fan base' which you may be imagining when making that comment. Hence my work on this project since age nine has been only for my own independent understanding of the whole reality picture, and not for group/personal fame/profit reasons. That is why I CAN and HAVE been scrupulously OBJECTIVE all the way. It is obviously because many others amateur/professional are affected and driven by 'publish or perish' or 'group think' or 'status retention' etc etc that the progress has been slow to arrive at the REAL ToE, even after almost a CENTURY since Einstein's contributions. Hence my own efforts from scratch in reality-context empirically referenced/supported stages all along, which resulted in identifying/explaining the actual MECHANISM for everything including GRAVITY.....something which the abstract 'space-time' construct has been unable to advance to precisely because it is abstract construct, and hence has 'hidden' the 'mechanistic' aspects all too effectively under mountains of consequential abstractions like 'time' and other purely mathematical/philosophical 'overlays' that cannot BY DESIGN ever deliver the REAL complete and consistent ToE that is now in the offing because that 'space-time' construct has been sidestepped to go back to REALITY constructs all the way from go to whoa. Good luck, Russ.
Drop the 'lie' gambit because it marks you out as a troll, so it will get you into trouble sooner or later.
That was in RESPONSE to someone talking about the 'time' part of space-time (as part of a previous/ongoing exchange) which is abstract and I mentioned what wasn't abstract to explain the difference what exists as fundamental and what doesn't. Concentrate on understanding the actual science explanation content/meanings rather than trolling more 'personal' stuff like that. Go open a thread about energy, space and time and start learning from the answers you get from whomever contributes. Good luck.
Right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI
Yes, and then I looked and it turns out that I was correct.
ANd that is your problem: you choose crank videos over reading the challenges that the people doing the science discuss in detail.
So you assume! Because you like the conclusion, you assume that the information is both objective and correct. That is a crank video.
But you are either lying or seriously deluded on this point. You have made up your mind that this crank video is correct but you have never read the papers where the techniques and results that this guy is supposedly critiquing. You have exposed yourself to almost nothing.
You trust that source enough to recommend it to others. You are presenting it as an authority, and authority that you care to look at more than the original work that the source purports to be about.
I don't care to be objective. I prefer to look to the actual science to make up my mind. You choose to look at videos that are, at best, a short, pop description of the science. You made your subjective choice and I hope others will not join you.
[qutoe] The overall thrust I took from that latest video was about the limitations and pitfalls that attend such 'signal processing' methods/assumptions/procedures/interpretations that also are used in CMB work which is then used as basis for 'papers' and 'conclusions'. That's all I wanted to reference it for. To remind everyone of the limitations and pitfalls which all CMB work/interpretations may be subject to. You can make your own mind up about all that. It's no skin off my nose. I just wanted you to be AWARE of that particular aspect that was covered in that video. No more, no less. Good luck.[/quote]
But how do you know that those "pitfalls" are real and not imagined? How do you know that they are of significant impact? How do you know that these supposed challenges have not been anticipated?
You choose to accept the video promoted by cranks over the discussion of scientists.
Look at the WMAP papers; there is significant discussion of possible error.
Define reality...let's see, What I do know is reality does not have to be something you must be able to taste, see, feel, or smell.
Space, exists...it separates all the matter/energy in the Universe......if we had no space, everything would be together...In fact there would have been no BB!
Time exists...It stops everything from happening together...Without time, everything would happen together...in fact, like space, there would have been no BB.
Both time and space are now linked as space/time.....
Space/time stops everything happening together, and stops everything being together.
Space/time can be warped, curved and twisted [see GP-B results]
The above of course is my laymans simplistic "Ocamm's razor" explanation but you may prefer the following by Sten Odenwald....
"Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation."
see....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html