Inflation and curvature

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm not sure if they have forgotten or have never learned the basis of mathematics.
They present a law as a theory but they try to demonstrate as if it would be a theorem.
For them it is scurry between the notions of law, theory and theorem.

You have an extremely poor grasp of what physics and maths says and what people here do, think and understand. I don't think its a coincidence you'll talk to Farsight but not me, you don't want to hear things which don't reinforce your own delusions and ignorance. Nor is it a coincidence Farsight won't talk to me either, he has the same attitude of sticking his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes.

You talk about 'good faith' but you have none yourself.

 

[przyk]

Oh boy. I said I want your next post to address either those light clocks or those tape reels, and nothing else. Anything else is an evasion. Come back to the other points after you've demonstrated that you are not ducking this issue..

Seriously, just who do you think you are? You are in no position to make demands of anyone and just expect quiet obedience, especially when that demand represents a double standard.

And you're still ducking the issue. You think this massive mathematical smokescreen gets you off the hook? Geddoutofit.

Smokescreen? You didn't understand it, you mean. That's hardly my fault, is it?

You've proved nothing. Absolutely nothing at all.

Denial. There's no other word for it. I've proved that the metric gradients are coordinate-dependent and thus non-physical. You obviously don't have an answer to that.

You haven't elminated it at all. You're measuring that curvature with something curved, so you don't see it any more.

That was your own example, not mine, and it only undermines your position: light bending isn't absolute. It is relative to a particular coordinate system.

In general, we can always eliminate the bending in the trajectory of light because 1) light travels in straight lines in locally inertial coordinate systems and 2) we can always get a locally inertial coordinate system at any point in space-time just by diagonalising the metric. Einstein may talk a bit about light bending in GR but he nowhere gives a coordinate-independent definition of what it means for light to bend, simply because there isn't one.

I will reiterate: there is no motion through space-time. You cannot move through the block universe.

Maybe not, depending on exactly how you define "motion", but you can certainly have a trajectory in space-time parameterised by an affine parameter such as proper time. An "equation of motion" is just a differential equation that predicts such a trajectory.

Just because the phrase contains the word "motion" doesn't mean you can inject your personal dogma about motion and space and pass it off as a fact about general relativity. Ultimately, if you've got a problem with trajectories and equations of motion in space-time, take that up with Einstein, not me. It's his theory that derives and applies the geodesic equation in space-time. Not only have I shown you where Einstein explicity says he's working in space-time, I've also proved that GR would have been stillborn otherwise, since the geodesic equation in only space is unable to reproduce anything resembling Newtonian gravity.

I said address either those light clocks or those tape reels, and nothing else. Anything else is an evasion. Now address the issue.

See above. Stop being a hypocrite first.

I'm not going to address anything until you present a coherent case. I originally confronted you with the fact that all the recent evidence for GR tested the modern interpretation. You wormed your way out of that with "evidence doesn't distinguish between interpretations". So either explicitly take that back and properly address the point I made, or quit complaining when I throw your own excuse back at you.

Noted.

Noted: your willingness to resort to the particularly dishonest tactic of quoting me out of context.

 

[Farsight]

I'm not sure if they have forgotten or have never learned the basis of mathematics...

Maybe. But IMHO it goes deeper than that. There's some kind of disconnect from the scientific evidence that we use to distinguish between a thery, a theorem, and a law. It's as scientific evidence doesn't matter, and mathematical "proof" is sufficient on its own. And we see huge posts with reams of smokescreen mathematics in an attempt to obscure the evasion of patent scientific evidence. Pryzk will not address the simple fact that a tape reel, or a light clock, goes demonstrably slower where gravitational potential is lower.

 

[RJBeery]

This thread reminds me of The Outsiders with a building of tensions between the socs and the greasers...

 

[Farsight]

In general, we can always eliminate the bending in the trajectory of light because 1) light travels in straight lines in locally inertial coordinate systems and 2) we can always get a locally inertial coordinate system at any point in space-time just by diagonalising the metric. Einstein may talk a bit about light bending in GR but he nowhere gives a coordinate-independent definition of what it means for light to bend, simply because there isn't one.

How many time do I have to remind you that a coordinate system is an artefact of measurement? Light doesn't travel through a coordinate system, it travels through space. And what's this: Talk a bit? The initial validation of GR was in 1919, it was the deflection of light by the sun. What are you going to do, "eliminate" it?

I will reiterate: there is no motion through space-time. You cannot move through the block universe.

Maybe not, depending on exactly how you define "motion", but you can certainly have a trajectory in space-time parameterised by an affine parameter such as proper time. An "equation of motion" is just a differential equation that predicts such a trajectory.

An equation of motion is an equation for motion through space. When you parameterize it by proper time you're missing the simple fact that proper time is measured on a clock, and clocks clock up motion. That clock goes slower and slower as it approaches an event horizon, where it stops. Then there is no proper time. That's when you're "measuring" proper time on a stopped clock.

Just because the phrase contains the word "motion" doesn't mean you can inject your personal dogma about motion and space and pass it off as a fact about general relativity.

It's no personal dogma. Remember A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. And as I've said repeatedly, Einstein talked about a variable c during the development of GR:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = co(1 + Φ/c²).

1912: On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.

1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.

1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.

1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

The word he used was geschwindigkeit which translates to speed, he referred to c, and to one of the two fundamental assumptions. That's the special relativity postulate, which is the constant speed of light.

Ultimately, if you've got a problem with trajectories and equations of motion in space-time, take that up with Einstein, not me. It's his theory that derives and applies the geodesic equation in space-time. Not only have I shown you where Einstein explicity says he's working in space-time, I've also proved that GR would have been stillborn otherwise, since the geodesic equation in only space is unable to reproduce anything resembling Newtonian gravity.

Like I said above, you've proved nothing. But you have demonstrated your attempted evasion.

Noted: your willingness to resort to the particularly dishonest tactic of quoting me out of context.

Your evasion is dishonest. But I'll cut you some slack and say it's misguided, and give you another chance to address those tape reels and light clocks. Come on. Be it a pendulum clock, a quartz wristwatch, or an atomic clock, which is a light clock, what a clocks clock up is local motion. So when a clock goes slower, what's really happening?

 

[quantum_wave]

Maybe. But IMHO it goes deeper than that. There's some kind of disconnect from the scientific evidence that we use to distinguish between a thery, a theorem, and a law. It's as scientific evidence doesn't matter, and mathematical "proof" is sufficient on its own. And we see huge posts with reams of smokescreen mathematics in an attempt to obscure the evasion of patent scientific evidence. Pryzk will not address the simple fact that a tape reel, or a light clock, goes demonstrably slower where gravitational potential is lower.

Wait, wouldn't a clock run slower at higher gravitational potential, not a lower gravitational potential? If I understand the way you are using the term, gravitational potential would be the strength of the gravitational field. If we can equate a gravitational field to accelertation, then the clock is being accelerated by the gravitational field. An accelerated clock has been shown to run slower than a clock at rest relative to the accelerated clock, hasn't it?

 

[przyk]

Uote]

How many time do I have to remind you that a coordinate system is an artefact of measurement?

No it isn't. There are no restrictions on how coordinates can be defined in GR. Of course it makes sense to define coordinates that have some physical significance where possible, but you've never done this. You've just naively lifted results from things Einstein said without any regard for how the coordinates are defined.

Light doesn't travel through a coordinate system, it travels through space. And what's this: Talk a bit? The initial validation of GR was in 1919, it was the deflection of light by the sun. What are you going to do, "eliminate" it?

What, someone actually tracked the complete trajectory of the light and gave a coordinate dependent definition of what it meant to say that the light bent? Didn't think so. What did happen was that the light was observed to come from a different angle than it usually did. Explanation: angles between geodesic worldlines in curved space-time generally aren't the same as they would be in flat space-time. The internal angles in a triangle don't generally add up to 180 degrees in non-Euclidean spaces, for example.

An equation of motion is an equation for motion through space.

Etymological fallacy. By the same reasoning, atoms are indivisible because the word "atomos" means "indivisible" in Greek.

There is just no ambiguity about this. Call it what you will, general relativity uses the geodesic equation in space-time to predict trajectories, and needs things to be that way in order to be able to reproduce Newtonian gravity. You have responded with nothing other than blunt denial to this.

It's no personal dogma. Remember A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. And as I've said repeatedly, Einstein talked about a variable c during the development of GR:

Argument from authority. We've been through this. You just keep dogmatically repeating the same quotes by Einstein and telling everyone to interpret them a certain way. This will never carry weight with anyone with a functioning brainstem.

Like I said above, you've proved nothing. But you have demonstrated your attempted evasion.

While you said that, I did in fact:

• Show where Einstein explicitly said he was working in space-time.
• Show that Einstein explicitly included time components in the geodesic equation.
• Prove that using the geodesic equation in space-time is necessary in order for GR to reproduce the predictions of general relativity.

So what you said was a bare faced lie. You have addressed none of these points. That is evasion.

Maybe. But IMHO it goes deeper than that. There's some kind of disconnect from the scientific evidence that we use to distinguish between a thery, a theorem, and a law.

How would you know? You obviously don't know the first thing about mathematics or how or why it is used in physics.

It's as scientific evidence doesn't matter, and mathematical "proof" is sufficient on its own.

How about you point out specifically why my mathematical proofs don't unambiguously lead to the conclusions they do. "Smokescreen" is name-calling.

Pryzk will not address the simple fact that a tape reel, or a light clock, goes demonstrably slower where gravitational potential is lower.

And you won't address the reason I don't need to: your own hypocrisy. You say "evidence doesn't distinguish between interpretations" when it suits you, but then somehow forget about that when you want me to explain light clocks. I simply have no good reason to waste time on a person demonstrating this kind of double standard. When I pointed this out to you yet again you showed your true colours by resorting to quoting me out of context. That's deliberate misrepresentation and gets you first prize for dishonesty. Before I say anything about light clocks, change your attitude and prove you'd be worth the effort. A dishonest hypocrite is not worth the effort.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Maybe. But IMHO it goes deeper than that. There's some kind of disconnect from the scientific evidence that we use to distinguish between a thery, a theorem, and a law. It's as scientific evidence doesn't matter, and mathematical "proof" is sufficient on its own. And we see huge posts with reams of smokescreen mathematics in an attempt to obscure the evasion of patent scientific evidence. Pryzk will not address the simple fact that a tape reel, or a light clock, goes demonstrably slower where gravitational potential is lower.

Wow are you ever a hypocrite. You whine about how mainstream physics has forgotten about predictions and smokescreens but your work doesn't model anything. You can use it to make a single testable quantitative prediction about any phenomenon.

Besides, the mathematics isn't a smoke screen, its a way of doing precise step by step logic. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does, though I'm sure that's what you'd like to think. You can't do 1st year undergraduate level mathematical methods, hence why you don't realise przyk has completely destroyed your claims about Einstein. Your ignorance is your bliss Farsight. The mathematics in mainstream physics allows conclusions to be derived in a logical manner from the initial postulates, not the arm waving "Because I say so" you spew in your work.

Give me one, just one, step by step quantitative derivation of a working model in your 'work' which can be experimentally tested and hypothetically falsified. You can't and its not like you haven't had time, I've been asking you for years. Even string theory, which you love to claim has no falsifiable predictions, manages that. If string theory is 'not even wrong', as you like to quote of Woit, then what does that make your work? Ignorant delusions of grandeur rejected by any and all reputable journals which you've had to pay to be printed and which no one buys?

No doubt you'll either ignore this post or reply with "You're rude, I'm not replying!" but that won't make my points any less valid. You utterly fail to meet the criteria you try to hold the mainstream to.

 

[quantum_wave]

Wait, wouldn't a clock run slower at higher gravitational potential, not a lower gravitational potential? If I understand the way you are using the term, gravitational potential would be the strength of the gravitational field. If we can equate a gravitational field to accelertation, then the clock is being accelerated by the gravitational field. An accelerated clock has been shown to run slower than a clock at rest relative to the accelerated clock, hasn't it?

Was I wrong about this? No one called me out on it.

 

[Magneto_1]

Was I wrong about this? No one called me out on it.

Quantum Wave, I also was wondering why Przxk and AlphaNumeric did not answer this question of yours; both just skipped it. It is a very good question, and is one of the main tenants of General Relativity.

I do believe like you, that Farsight, got this reversed, and was hoping that he would have corrected this. I happen to like Farsight, because he does have a passion for science, and he does propose different ideas and concepts for others to contemplate, discuss, and debate. This is really good for science and physics in general. I hope that Farsight is not discouraged by AlphaNumeric's "put downs" and keeps up the good work!

Here is my humble attempt to answer your question:

The main difference between Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) is that there is a gravitational field associated with (GR) that is not included in (SR).

In Special Relativity Light Speed ($$c_{Light}$$) is Constant relative to all observers; whether the observer is at rest or in uniform motion will measure light speed to be the same to everybody.

The real problem with (SR) is that the conditions of this situation is completely hypothetical, because in the real world, gravity fields are everywhere throughout the universe.

In General Relativity the question now becomes is the speed of light ($$c_{Light}$$) constant in a gravity field just like SR?

Einstein considering this question in his early years (1911) postulated that light speed would vary in a gravitational field. However, four or five years later when Einstein completed his theory of General Relativity(1915 - 1916), this concept was brought into question by very many, because they were converted by Einstein in (1911) to accept light speed as being constant. This concept that light varies, threw many physicist for a loop.

See link: Speed of Light Varies

Shortly after 1916 and around 1917, physicist came to the conclusion that light is indeed affected by the gravitational field. However, light speed in a gravitational field does not change but what does change for the light is the: Frequency ($$f_{frequency}$$), Wavelength ($$\lambda_{Wavelength}$$), Proper Time ($$\Delta t_{0}$$), and Space ($$r$$).

Ok, so what happens to light in a gravitational field:

1) In a strong gravitational field near the event horizon black hole:

a) The Frequency increases or blue shifts
b) The Wavelength decreases or gets smaller
c) The Proper Time Clock ticks at a slower rate. Meaning that if the normal clock is not in a Gravity field it takes an event ten (10) seconds, then drop that same clock in the strong gravity field that same event could take fifteen (15) seconds.

1) In a weak gravitational field far away from the event horizon black hole:

a) The Frequency decreases or red shifts
b) The Wavelength increases or gets longer
c) The Proper Time Clock ticks at either a faster or normal rate. Meaning that if the normal clock is not in a Gravity field it takes an event ten (10) seconds, then drop that same clock in the weak gravity field that same event could take eleven (11) seconds or event ten (10) seconds as if there were no gravity field present.


Gravitational Redshift

General Red Shift


Let's look at the math:

Where, the Space-time Expansion ratio term is given by:

$$\frac{dS}{dr} = \frac{1}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}} = \(1 + z_{shift} \) = \frac{\lambda_{observed}}{\lambda_{emitted}} = \frac{f_{emitted}}{f_{observed}}$$ $$ -> unitless $$.


The Red/Blue Shift Parameter:

$$z_{shift} = \frac{\lambda_{observed} - \lambda_{emitted}}{\lambda_{emitted}} = \frac{f_{emitted} - f_{observed}}{f_{observed}}$$ $$ -> unitless $$.


The above Red/Blue Shift Parameter is maximum near the Black Hole Event Horizon and is minimum far far away from the Event Horizon.


Where, the Frequency in a Gravitational Field is given by:

$${f_{emitted}} = \frac{f_{observed}}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}} = f_{observed} (1 + z_{shift}) $$ $$ -> 1/s $$.

Where, the Wavelength in a Gravitational Field is given by:

$${\lambda_{emitted}} = {\lambda_{observed}}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}} = \frac{\lambda_{observed}}{\(1 + z_{shift}\)} $$ $$ -> m $$.


The Schwarzschild Radius of the source of the Gravitational Field:

$$r_{S} = \frac{2m_{Net}G}{c^2_{Light}} = \frac{m_{Net}}{\mu_{S}}$$$$ -> m$$



Now let's look at the Clock Time

Let the proper time and distance be given by

$$dr = {c_{Light}}dt_{0}$$ $$ -> m $$.


Let's also return to our original equation and substitute
$${dS} = \frac{dr}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}}$$ $$ -> m $$.

$${dS} = \frac{c_{Light}dt_{0}}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}}$$ $$ -> m $$.


Next dividing both sides by the speed of light $$c_{Light}$$


$$dt = \frac{dS}{c_{Light}} = \frac{dt_{0}}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}}$$ $$ -> s $$.

If you integrate both sides of the above term you can also write.

$$\Delta t = \frac{S}{c_{Light}} = \frac{\Delta t_{0}}{sqrt{1 - (\frac{r_{S}}{r})}}$$ $$ -> s $$.

Where the above equation allows you to predict how a clock behaves in a gravitational field.

This completes the derivation and explanation of light behavior in a gravitational field.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Quantum Wave, I also was wondering why Przxk and AlphaNumeric did not answer this question of yours; both just skipped it.

Because we're allowed to pick and choose who we reply to and what we say. If someone is desperate to find out what GR says so much there's these things called 'books' which contain information in the form of ink markings on bits of paper. You should reading them before writing your own.

I happen to like Farsight, because he does have a passion for science, and he does propose different ideas and concepts for others to contemplate, discuss, and debate. This is really good for science and physics in general. I hope that Farsight is not discouraged by AlphaNumeric's "put downs" and keeps up the good work!

You've seen a kindred spirit obviously. Shame neither of you passed peer review before spending your money to vanity publish. You don't hzve passions for science, else you'd be more intellectually honesty, you have passions for people stroking your egos.

In Special Relativity Light Speed () is Constant relative to all observers; whether the observer is at rest or in uniform motion will measure light speed to be the same to everybody.

The real problem with (SR) is that the conditions of this situation is completely hypothetical, because in the real world, gravity fields are everywhere throughout the universe.

Yes, in reality gravitational fields are everywhere but its easily dealt with. The question of "What is the speed of light in curved space?" is a matter of what local observers see. As you said in another thread, trying to tell me something you fail to realise I already know, if you look closely enough at curved space it looks flat. Thus you investigate what people in curved space-time see light do locally by formulating your description in terms of local normal coordinates by the use of vierbeins.

$$g_{ab} = e^{\mu}_{a}e^{\nu}_{b}\eta_{\mu\nu}$$

The e are the vierbeins and $$\eta_{\mu\nu}$$ is the flat Minowski metric. Basically e takes you from the canonical tangent space basis to a more general one and is position dependent. Since $$\eta_{\mu\nu}$$ has Lorentz symmetry the general $$g_{ab}$$ inherits it. Job done.

Where the above equation allows you to predict how a clock behaves in a gravitational field.

This completes the derivation and explanation of light behavior in a gravitational field.

There's more to gravitational fields than SC black holes. Hell, SC black holes aren't really physical since any actual black hole will have angular momentum and then you have to consider the Kerr metric, which is a great deal harder.

Expand your horizons a little, there's much more to GR than the SC metric. But first you need to learn how to do things like coordinate transformations and tensor calculus.

 

[Magneto_1]

There's more to gravitational fields than SC black holes. Hell, SC black holes aren't really physical since any actual black hole will have angular momentum and then you have to consider the Kerr metric, which is a great deal harder.

Expand your horizons a little, there's much more to GR than the SC metric. But first you need to learn how to do things like coordinate transformations and tensor calculus.

Why should I start to talk about Kerr Rotating Solutions to black holes, when you are still struggling with static conditions. I do agree however, that the Kerr Metric and the rotations of Black holes are a lot more fun than the static SC condition. I built Vortex models using the Kerr solutions.

Once again, you want me to go into "Complex GR," and to move away from "Classical GR" I am refusing to let you take me there, in that not many learn from the complex but from the classical.

Since you have the skills, why don't you write a "Complex GR" book; instead of critizing everyone else that is a published author. I would purchase your "Complex GR" book!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Why should I start to talk about Kerr Rotating Solutions to black holes, when you are still struggling with static conditions.

Your reply wasn't too me, so whether or not I struggle with anything is irrelevant.

I built Vortex models using the Kerr solutions.

Mmm.... sure you do.

Once again, you want me to go into "Complex GR," and to move away from "Classical GR" I am refusing to let you take me there, in that not many learn from the complex but from the classical

So now 'complex GR' is about Kerr metrics? Complex GR was about predicting multidimensional space before, then it was string theory. Your definition of 'complex GR' seems to vary to suit your purposes.

Since you have the skills, why don't you write a "Complex GR" book; instead of critizing everyone else that is a published author. I would purchase your "Complex GR" book!

I spend 8+ hours a day doing actual research which is either published or is applied to technology problems (which I cannot then publish due to industrial secrecy etc). I have no need to write a book, particularly a pop science book which isn't peer reviewed, to demonstrate my physics ability. This forum is recreation, I'm not peddling my own work here. As such it isn't meant to be a place where I convince people I can do research, real life is where I do that.

Besides, simply publishing a book doesn't mean what it contains is worth reading. You and Farsight have both vanity published a book which didn't (and couldn't) pass peer review. Paying your own money to get someone else to print it isn't very good. If your work where good someone would pay you to publish it. That's how famous physicists publish, they get their research published and its considered very good by others and once they have demonstrated a consistent publication value a publisher might approach them to write a book on the stuff.

I personally don't have enough research of high enough impact to make it worth my time trying to write a book. Unlike you I'm aware of the scale of my contributions to science and am a little more realistic. However, what research I have done is at least peer reviewed, unlike yourself.

 

[Guest254]

Since you have the skills, why don't you write a "Complex GR" book; instead of critizing everyone else that is a published author. I would purchase your "Complex GR" book!

I don't see AlphaNumeric criticizing all authors. I see AlphaNumeric criticizing a particular author who self published the joke "Super Principia Mathematica" and who has subsequently shown himself to be a complete and utter fraud.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thank you Magnito. Looks like there are issues with AN and Guest toward you and Farsight that justify their abandoning civility. You seem civil and thank you for the response. I do know that no one knows it all and the best people to talk to are the one's that can think things through and see relationships between science and what I call reality even though reality is a philosophical concept in some circles.

 

[Guest254]

Thank you Magnito. Looks like there are issues with AN and Guest toward you and Farsight that justify their abandoning civility. You seem civil and thank you for the response. I do know that no one knows it all and the best people to talk to are the one's that can think things through and see relationships between science and what I call reality even though reality is a philosophical concept in some circles.

You guys really don't do yourself any favours, do you! I shall explain my reasons for my feelings towards him, and I imagine AlphaNumeric's are similar.

I thoroughly dislike Magneto_1 (Robert Louis Kemp) because he is a complete fraud. Adding to that, he's the worst type of fraud: he cons people for his own monetary gain. Since arriving on this forum, he has done nothing other than: advertise his self-published joke of a book (Super Principia Mathematica), attempt to make out he knows more than he does, copy large chunks of technical discussions from Wikipedia and make out it is his own and finally (and unsurprisingly), when caught out he denies fault or error.

I dislike the man because he tries to exploit people like you!

 

[Magneto_1]

I thoroughly dislike Magneto_1 (Robert Louis Kemp) ....

Thanks Guest254. Those who will try to help people, and do the right things in the earth will endure and suffer persecution!

Once again thanks, this let's me know that I am helping people, and doing the right things!

Have a wonderful day!

 

[quantum_wave]

You guys really don't do yourself any favours, do you!

What do you mean by this? The favor that I do myself is trying to improve my understanding of the universe.

I shall explain my reasons for my feelings towards him, and I imagine AlphaNumeric's are similar.

I thoroughly dislike Magneto_1 (Robert Louis Kemp) because he is a complete fraud. Adding to that, he's the worst type of fraud: he cons people for his own monetary gain. Since arriving on this forum, he has done nothing other than: advertise his self-published joke of a book (Super Principia Mathematica), attempt to make out he knows more than he does, copy large chunks of technical discussions from Wikipedia and make out it is his own and finally (and unsurprisingly), when caught out he denies fault or error.

You help him by engaging him if that is true. Why would you let someone you view with disdain cause you to abandon civility?

I dislike the man because he tries to exploit people like you!

I don't appreciate it though because I'm not going to be lead down a path by anyone. I only move down the path as far as I can assimilate learning with everything I already have assimilated. You can feed me erroneous data but that doesn't mean I will follow the erroneous path innocently. Your protection of the "people like me" is presumptuous.

 

[Guest254]

What do you mean by this? The favor that I do myself is trying to improve my understanding of the universe.You help him by engaging him if that is true. Why would you let someone you view with disdain cause you to abandon civility?

On the contrary. This forum is in the public domain. If people Google his name and/or book and find this forum, they will see a far more informative picture than they would if they read any of the reviews he has paid people to write.

With regards civility: when I come across dishonest, incompetent people, my natural tendency is to treat them with contempt.

I don't appreciate it though because I'm not going to be lead down a path by anyone. I only move down the path as far as I can assimilate learning with everything I already have assimilated. You can feed me erroneous data but that doesn't mean I will follow the erroneous path innocently. Your protection of the "people like me" is presumptuous.

Try to be a little less self-absorbed - my post has about him. You simply serve as an example of the uneducated people he prays on.

 

[Magneto_1]

On the contrary. This forum is in the public domain. If people Google his name and/or book and find this forum, they will see a far more informative picture than they would if they read any of the.

No, what you are trying to do is to link yourself to me, in some strange way. It is kind of "Creepy!!"