For the alternative theorists:

[Write4U]

Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

@leopold,

a) How do you know space is corrupted by stuff?

pure space, probably synonymous with perfect vacuum.

Would a dimensionless perfect vacuum not be a singularity?

b) How do you know time is corrupted by stuff?

i don't.

Hmm, what about your words

leopold,
It isn't pure time either because it too has "stuff" in it.

c) If it is an aspect of spacetime why do you call it Contamination and not Potential?

you could call "it" anything i guess.

So "that which is pure" has no name, but may be called anything, whatever.

Do you mean to say, whatever did not belong there and contaminated the purety of It (space).

yes, space is not a perfect vacuum

No, it's contaminated spacetime, right?

Does pure space have Time?

in my opinion time is infinite

But you said "time is a result of stuff" (I agree)

If time is a result of stuff which is a contaminant, time is a result of pollution so it does not belong in "pure space", right?

you misunderstood, the universe is the result of the "contaminated" aspect of space and time.

And how did it get "contaminated"?, remember we started with a Pure State which became polluted (by some mechanism). In my philosophical working model I prefer to call It "potentiated" spacetime, the premise of Bohm's "Implicate".

d) So we are actually in the wrong dimension, but the contamination (stuff) in space is causal to our reality? What are the odds of being pushed into another dimension due to stuff contamination of the pure space dimension?.

i don't know. i'm not mentally equipped to tackle this stuff.

If you have not read David Bohm's work, I urge to give it some attention. You will undoubtedly find "stuff" in there which will "enlighten" rather than "pollute".

 

[Beer w/Straw]

you don't have to read my posts.

I didn't read that article you linked. It was a news site, not science.

and if i wanted to cram something somewhere, it sure as hell wouldn't be "shit down your throat".

Innuendo?

do you value science?

I'm still a physics major. I've taken some time away to dabble in psychology, biology and mathematics.

peer review makes science what it is.

No. Honest and curious people seeking to learn is what makes science.

if this process ever becomes corrupt, or it's found that it can be manipulated, what does this mean for what you think you know?

I try to be an honest person. Maybe in my mind I can feel I can trust people to be honest as well.

don't ever think "it can't happen here".

WTF does that even mean?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

BTW can you teach me the Law of Large Numbers and how we can make predictions from that?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The Law of Large Numbers merely states that the average of the results of a large number of the same event (in our context, the repetition of an experiment) will be very close to the mathematically expected value. The obvious corollary is that if you continue to perform the experiment (for example, flipping a coin) the average will tend closer and closer to the expected value (in this case, 50% heads and 50% tails).

This is how casinos collect their profits. If we use the roulette wheel as a typical and easily understood example, each player, with each bet, has 18 chances in 38 of winning and 20 chances in 38 of losing (because of the green numbers: 0 and 00). So on any one spin of the wheel, it's quite possible that more players will win than lose, resulting in a net loss for the casino. But in the long run, an average of 20 players will lose on every spin, and an average of only 18 will win, giving the casino a profit of 2/38.

If you watch a wheel for four hours, you'll probably see the casino come out at least slightly ahead. But the Law of Large Numbers says that if you watch it for a month, it's very likely that you will see the casino collect a profit of almost exactly 2/38 of the total bets.

This is simply one aspect of probability theory.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

And it could also discredit a multiverse theory.

 

[leopold]

I didn't read that article you linked. It was a news site, not science.

plos bilogy is not a news website, it contained a follow up on the "news site" link.
both taken together suggests the information is legit.

No. Honest and curious people seeking to learn is what makes science.

I try to be an honest person. Maybe in my mind I can feel I can trust people to be honest as well.

trust me, peer review is needed, and for a very good reason.

WTF does that even mean?

okay, let me spell this out.
you have a swimming pool that you charge admission to swim in.
your problem is to prevent children from drowning in it when it is closed.
you put in place several things to prevent that.
think about that for a moment.
. . .
. . .
now, how are you GAURENTEED that the above scenario can't happen (children drowning in your pool when the pool is closed)?
this is what i meant by "don't ever think it can't happen here".

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Can I die now.

Someone please ban me, this forum sucks.

 

[leopold]

. . . this forum sucks.

before you go, can you explain how this forum sucks?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Tell the linguistics moderator to look up what "rhetorical question" means. Ask him if he's got a text book on probability theory as I do and tell him that I have access to wikipedia too. This forum sucks if even the moderators think you're stupid.


And you, everything you say is hypocritical bullshit. I don't even need to give an example. You are dishonest, manipulative, and have an underlying agenda.

 

[leopold]

And you, everything you say is hypocritical bullshit. I don't even need to give an example. You are dishonest, manipulative, and have an underlying agenda.

nothing quite like being ad hommed to death.
thanks for the, ahem, OPINION.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

nothing quite like being ad hommed to death.
thanks for the, ahem, OPINION.

Yes. I am emotional.

You say peer review is needed, but dissed my physics text books. That is ludicrous. Yes, new discoveries from things aren't printed the next day, but you're holding out in the belief that something like Noah's Ark is factual.

BTW, a geoncentrist is a person believing the Sun orbits the Earth, perhaps they're your friends.

 

[paddoboy]

.

BTW, a geoncentrist is a person believing the Sun orbits the Earth, perhaps they're your friends.

Don't let these ancient creationists get to you beery.
Remember what I have often said, these forums are the only outlet they have for their nonsense, and this one in particular, does have a wide consensus that includes, shall we say the eccentric and weird?

 

[leopold]

Yes. I am emotional.

nothing wrong with that as long as you don't reach the "drama queen" stage.

You say peer review is needed, . . .

yes, i did.
the rest of your post doesn't deserve responding to

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Oh, well yeah, I'm not worth responding to because I'm dumb.

So, I'd like to ask an open question to the forum: What kind of peer review would Fundamentals of Physics 9th Edition have gone through?

http://www.amazon.ca/Fundamentals-Physics-David-Halliday/dp/0470469110

I could also quote the book if you want.

:EDIT:

also maybe this one http://www.amazon.ca/Brock-Biology-Microorganisms-13th-Edition/dp/032164963X

It comments on evolution. Imagine that!







I'm not meaning for advertisement. I'm miffed.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, well yeah, I'm not worth responding to because I'm dumb.

So, I'd like to ask an open question to the forum: What kind of peer review would Fundamentals of Physics 9th Edition have gone through?

http://www.amazon.ca/Fundamentals-Physics-David-Halliday/dp/0470469110

I could also quote the book if you want.

:EDIT:

also maybe this one http://www.amazon.ca/Brock-Biology-Microorganisms-13th-Edition/dp/032164963X

It comments on evolution. Imagine that!







I'm not meaning for advertisement. I'm miffed.

You're right, you are not worth responding to. But that isn't because you are stupid (thought you may be, it's hard to tell), it's because you NEVER bother to string together any coherent points in any of your posts. There is never anything there to reply to. If, just once in a while, you cared to formulate an argument, or a properly explained point of view, I'm sure you would get replies. But as it is, your pointless interventions are merely irritating - at least that is how they generally appear to me, and I suspect I am not alone.

What do you think is gained by asking a silly question about "peer review" of a physics textbook? A textbook does not report any research. So peer review does not apply. A textbook stands or falls on how it is reviewed, by teachers and by students, and by how many copies are bought. Obviously.

Peer review is intended to validate research findings and the inferences the researchers draw about how their findings relate to theories.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Thanks.

 

[leopold]

What do you think is gained by asking a silly question about "peer review" of a physics textbook?

the only time a textbook gets "peer reviewed" is when the manuscript is approved for publishing.
feedback from teachers and students also play a role in future additions.

A textbook does not report any research.

it does for historical reasons, but no, research in textbooks is current as of a few years ago.

So peer review does not apply. A textbook stands or falls on how it is reviewed, by teachers and by students, and by how many copies are bought. Obviously.

to be fair, some textbooks are probably routinely dispensed with and new additions purchased.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Holy living fuck!

You have GOT to be kidding me!

I haven't posted much on here in the last 3 years, I pop back for a quick look and Leo is STILL trying to flog this long dead horse.

Leo, it's been over three years since you had your arse handed to you regarding your lies about Dr. Alaya ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ution-exsist&p=2716892&viewfull=1#post2716892)

While Science may not have issued a retraction - YOU my friend HAVE issued one for lying about this very issue.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ution-exsist&p=2707946&viewfull=1#post2707946

get over yourself you narcissistic prick

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You're right, you are not worth responding to. But that isn't because you are stupid (thought you may be, it's hard to tell), it's because you NEVER bother to string together any coherent points in any of your posts.

Why the hell would you even respond to me then? Is your only intent to insult me?

If you're still mad at me from that time dilation thread you had on TheScienceForum, didn't my apology mean anything? I actually meant "sorry" cause I screwed up and was too quick. I admitted I didn't expect your reaction and I said sorry.

The text books are established science and go against what leopold is saying about evolution and the Big Bang. They have information that has already passed peer review to an utmost extent. Far more reputable than any journal or news article I know. That was my point.

You can stop hating me please. I don't consider you a crank like a myriad of other posters around the internet.

:EDIT:

You also got pissy with me over the documentary I posted "Hubble's Amazing Universe." The documentary spoke for itself. A huge ass telescope in space from National Geographic compared to a geocentrist crackpot documentary? WTF? Maybe you hate me too much that you wont give me any credit or pause to think about the stuff I post. I'm not going to write an entire essay to appease people that would dismiss it right away.

 

[paddoboy]

Holy living xxxx!

You have GOT to be kidding me!

I haven't posted much on here in the last 3 years, I pop back for a quick look and Leo is STILL trying to flog this long dead horse.

Leo, it's been over three years since you had your arse handed to you regarding your lies about Dr. Alaya ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ution-exsist&p=2716892&viewfull=1#post2716892)

get over yourself you narcissistic xxxxxx

It's really so so easy to pick these boring if not consistent God botherers and their closet bleeding heart supporters.
The same way it's so easy to pick the continuing travellings from forum to forum of nonsense posts, of our alternative hypothesis friends and of course again their closet bleeding heart supporters.
And the conspiracy adherers? They speak for them selves.

Thanks for the revelations patel.