Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
See, that's what happens when you try to forecast the future, Murphy is there to prove you wrong when you get there.
My gravity theory
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
See, that's what happens when you try to forecast the future, Murphy is there to prove you wrong when you get there.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Nothing compares to the beauty of nature, literally.
Nah, the problem is that your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. A rather unattractive combination of traits, I might add.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Again, why do you continue to say that the sun revolves around the earth, just because you see it that way? When you finally admit to yourself that you might be wrong, just on the slim chance, then go back and reread all these threads and get some top notch education for free. Note your comments while you do that.
I'm either calling you a liar or deluded, an assessment based on the evidence of your posts. This stems from your hypocrisy to demand people present evidence for their claims but then you cannot provide any yourself for your claims. You assert reality works in a particular way when you cannot possibly know for certain it does since you have no experimental data to hand and no model which can describe that data. This then brings us to your comments about your superiority to Newton in the case of torque. You admit to having what even a decent high school student would call a poor physics knowledge base and clearly you are bordering on innumerate, thus you're incapable of modelling real world systems involving torque, as illustrated by other posts having to walk you through concepts like $$\tau = \mathbf{x} \times \mathbf{F}$$ (which we can thank Newton for).
I also notice you only quoted part of my post, skipping over the first half of it where I say I'm happy to discuss torque with you if you can demonstrate you have a working understanding of it. I suggested you do something someone with a superior understanding of torque than Newton should be able to do immediately, namely a simple kinematics problem involving torque. Funny how you didn't address that part. A simple problem given to freshman doing a classical dynamics course, something based entirely on Newtonian kinematic principles, something which takes a competent student a few minutes to solve, something Newton would eat for breakfast, something you shouldn't have any trouble doing if you are correct in your assessment of your abilities.
I ask for such a thing because of your track record. When someone does something formal and mathematical you can do little more than either ignore it or just dismiss it out of hand. Given that a necessary part of discussing how torque works in the real world is to have a formal working model upon which to base the discussion. After all, there is no point in us talking about how to apply $$\tau = \mathbf{x} \times \mathbf{F}$$ to a problem of say a car accelerating along a surface if you don't understand vectors or the cross product. These are concepts introduced by Newton to model precisely these sorts of problems so if you really do understand torque better than him you should be fine. I'm asking you to demonstrate this because you haven't shown you have an understanding of such things before. If you have shown such understanding then please link to a post of yours where you solve kinematic problems of that sort (posts where you've just listed a bunch of equations lifted from somewhere and not applied them to a specific problem do not count, it doesn't demonstrate a working understanding). If you ever formalised any of your many threads whining about your issues with relativity then I'd not ask, I'd know you can do it just like I know Rpenner could because of all of his many posts demonstrating as much and just like people know I can do various things in kinematics, my post history.
If you go around complaining others don't have evidence for their claims then you're a hypocrite. If you go around claiming you know how the universe works then you're dishonest since you have no data on which to base claims. If you claim you're more competent than Newton when it comes to torque but you cannot do even a related child's homework problem then you're, again, dishonest. So, do you accept that request? Are you willing to illustrate to myself and others here that you do in fact have a working quantitative understanding of kinematics? Once you have then you and I can dig a little deeper and discuss your views on such things. Until then I'm not going to enter into such a discussion, as it would degenerate into me giving formal, quantitative explanations as to your errors and you then ignoring them because you don't understand.
/edit
Yes, when you were required to show a working understanding of information pertaining to physics you sucked at it. Now that you can just say "I'm right!" and walk away you suddenly become a physics whiz. How did this information get into your head? Experimental data you've combed through and constructed a viable model for? Nope, since you have no such data. An examination of the quantitative side of current models to identify inconsistencies with some experimental data? Nope, since you have no experimental data and your mathematical skills are so poor that you're, for all intents and purposes within physics, innumerate. Pure reason and logic? Nope, since even if your work was formalised it is possible to construct infinitely many different internally sound models of space and time and to deduce which are not applicable to reality requires that pesky experimental information again. After all, special relativity is a sound hypothesis for how space and time work and yet you don't accept it. Euclidean space and time is another possibility. Space and time could be discrete, quantised in structure. Space and time could be an ensemble construct from closed strings. Or from spin foam. All can be made into sound formal constructs so the only way to distinguish them as fact or fiction is through experiment.
So where did your knowledge come from? Did you just wake up one morning and just know? Did some god whisper in your ear? Did you learn it in a dream? Please illuminate us all on how it is you know how the universe works when you have absolutely no real world data to go on.
How completely and utterly intellectually dishonest of you. You have a view which is completely absent any evidence or justification and you refuse to expose yourself to alternatives, regardless of how practical and tested they are, because you have already made up your mind. You aren't interested in following the evidence but leading the evidence, cherry picking what you can taut as supporting your views and ignoring everything else. It is this attitude which has lead you to a place where you ask questions like this :
If you understood notions like coordinates and inertial frames you'd not ask such things. For example, you ask what 'left' means in an attempt to make a comment about absolute space. Notions of 'left' and 'right' are fine within relativity because they are defined in reference to a choice of coordinates. You've shown repeatedly you don't grasp what coordinates really are or the concept of coordinates associated to an inertial frame and its your fault because you refuse to read anything you believe will contradict your own views.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yawn. AN, You are beating a dead horse. Why do you insist on attacking my non existent education record? Who cares where I learned what I learned? Why is that so important to you what someone's education record looks like? Why are you so concerned with my resume? I have no resume, I used my own brain, is that acceptable to you? Is there some requirement in physics that I have a certain education level in order to talk about physics? I know what I am talking about! I may not speak your language, but I don't speak Chinese, Japanese, or even Spanish either. I speak English. If you want to hear what I have to offer than you need to take an English class so you understand me.
Be advised though, when I speak English, I speak about the real world using real world terms, so that everybody can understand. My only regret is that I can't teach this information to a 3 year old. My language skills are not that great.
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I know what gravity is, do you?
Nothing you've ever posted would support this statement.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Oh well, your loss I suppose. My advice to you is to keep looking for the graviton, you're bound to find it sooner or later. Just keep the budget intact.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
What's your point?
You seem to be failing to grasp my point. I'm not saying "You don't have an education in physics therefore I'll call you a hack". What I'm asking is how you came to have such knowledge, if you have never learnt any models or seen any experimental data?
It would be like me claiming to know how to speak Mongolian, despite the fact I've never met a Mongolian, been to Mongolia nor seen or heard anyone speak or write Mongolian. It would be a legitimate question for someone to ask me "How can you possibly know any Mongolian if you have zero experience or information on it?". You're doing the same about particular areas of physics. How can you know how dynamical systems involving light behave if you have no knowledge of them? The information must have come from somewhere, right? It isn't education and it isn't experience and it isn't experimental data. So please enlighten us as to how you know things about the universe you have zero information on?
No because if you worked it out by reason and logic then you have to have feed in some real world information into whatever thought process you went through. I can come up with any number of internally consistent kinematic models, some have notions of absolute position and velocity, some do not. Both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity are logically valid constructs and thus you cannot determine which, if either, of them actually describes reality unless you feed in some information about reality. Since you have not done that then you cannot know, you can only hypothesis.
No and thanks for accusing me of implying such a thing. I guess you're just having to try and deflect from the fact you have no sound reason to claim you know.
You may well but the problem is you have not shown what you're talking about has any justification in reality. Remember all those times you demanded people provide evidence for their claims? Funny how you refuse when you're asked the same. Hypocrite.
If you don't speak 'physics' or 'maths' then would you care to explain how it is you can use your 'knowledge' (from divine inspiration seems to be the only explanation so far...) to accurately predict the behaviour of dynamical systems? After all, if you know how it all works you should be able to answer relevant questions. For example, an object of mass 5 kg is dropped from rest from a height of 5000km above the surface of the Moon. You may consider the Moon to have a mass $$7.35 \times 10^{22}$$ kilograms, uniformly distributed within its volume, which is taken to be a perfect sphere of radius 1735 km. At what speed will the object hit the surface of the Moon?. That's a child's homework problem. Would you care to give the answer? It requires about 4 lines of work and to anyone half capable they can just write out the answer line by line without having to use any paper. Should take you a few minutes. If you cannot answer that then how can you say you know how things work if you cannot explain everything?
Except you cannot show anything you say has any relation to reality, as you cannot show how your knowledge came about in any way due to real world information.
I would consider you teaching young children 'physics' to be a form of abuse. You'd willingly warp a child's learning process just so you can stroke your ego. I'd not think twice to complain to a school if my (hypothetical) children had you as a teacher.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
AN, I used pure logic which was based on pure facts. I am done discussing this topic.
If only you were telling the truth . . . .
You're nothing more than a nuisance [nonsense] troll. Why you're allowed to continue is beyond me. Trolling your own thread.
At least others claim alien voices provided the information. In MD's case, it just appeared in his head. Not nearly as imaginative.