Spacetime vs. QWC gravity

quantum_wave said:
That is why there is a Google.doc and if you want to discuss QWC with me you have to read the document and refer to what I say in the document.
Click to expand...
And if the problem is that your Google.doc fails to address an issue, then what? That's my criticism, that's my problem. Yet you just say "Read the document", as if information which wasn't there before magically appears because I'm reading it again.

quantum_wave said:
and they like to pretend that QWC is something that they make up instead of what I say it is.
.
Click to expand...
That's the problem., QWC is what you say it is. There's no formal derivation. Someone else used GR to predict black holes because Einstein provided them with the tools to logically derive things within his work. QWC is what you say it is and nothing more. That isn't science, it's story telling.
 
Guest254 said:
Of the two of us, I'm the only professional scientist so I think the continual barrage of "dweeb" comments is silly. I gave you the opportunity to speak about your work in a scientific manner, by addressing some simple and reasonable questions. And this is your response? This kind of behaviour doesn't do a lot for you or your work.

If you feel these (precise) questions are answered (precisely) elsewhere in the document, I am more than happy for you to refer me to the relevant sentence or sentences.
Click to expand...
I view you in much the same way as I view AN. He wants me to prove my ideas are science and quantify them or admit I am lying. That is absurd and I address what QWC is in the document. I don't respond politely to the "Ima pro and your an idiot" response. Your egos keeps you from dealing with people like me because you start with the premise that you are more intelligent and I should respond from a position of inferiority.

I'll be glad to answer your questions if they are based on what I say in the document, but I'm not going to point you to my response in the document. The document serves as the current updated version of QWC and it is sequential. It is speculation and ideas. It is for discussion and I don't consider what you and AN are trying to do as discussion so I won't be very polite until you realize what QWC is and read the document.

You have the option of walking away and I have my own view of cosmology either way. The only way you can change my view is to address what my view is and show how it is inconsistent with observations or suggest better ideas than the ones I put forth.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
And if the problem is that your Google.doc fails to address an issue, then what? That's my criticism, that's my problem. Yet you just say "Read the document", as if information which wasn't there before magically appears because I'm reading it again.
Click to expand...
Your are getting the idea.
That's the problem., QWC is what you say it is. There's no formal derivation. Someone else used GR to predict black holes because Einstein provided them with the tools to logically derive things within his work. QWC is what you say it is and nothing more. That isn't science, it's story telling.
Click to expand...
Fine, dweeb; walk away or play by my rules.
 
So you respond only to criticism which 'plays by your rules', which is to say you respond only to criticism you can retort.

You want to do science, do you not? Then you have to play by its rules, not your own. If you can't deal with a few educated people on a forum why on Earth do you think you'll get anywhere with the science community?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
So you respond only to criticism which 'plays by your rules', which is to say you respond only to criticism you can retort.

You want to do science, do you not? Then you have to play by its rules, not your own. If you can't deal with a few educated people on a forum why on Earth do you think you'll get anywhere with the science community?
Click to expand...
Dweeb.
 
quantum_wave said:
I view you in much the same way as I view AN.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter about your opinion of me. The scientific method doesn't care about egos, agendas or personal opinions.

I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions. I've also pinpointed the parts of your document which motivated the questions. Now if you don't understand the questions, that's fine, I can elaborate. If your theory is unable to answer them, that's fine too - it just means there's some big problems you need to work over.

Do you actually want to talk about your work? It doesn't seem so, at the moment.
 
quantum_wave said:
Dweeb.
Click to expand...
And this just confirms you aren't interested in science, you just want people to listen to you pass on your truths 'from on high'. If you were honest and really wanting to do science you'd play by its rules, not your own.

The fact it takes a couple of 'dweebs' to point this out to you shows how little effort or honesty you put into your work. Couldn't you summise all of this for yourself?
 
Guest254 said:
It really doesn't matter about your opinion of me. The scientific method doesn't care about egos, agendas or personal opinions.

I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions. I've also pinpointed the parts of your document which motivated the questions. Now if you don't understand the questions, that's fine, I can elaborate. If your theory is unable to answer them, that's fine too - it just means there's some big problems you need to work over.

Do you actually want to talk about your work? It doesn't seem so, at the moment.
Click to expand...
Sure I do. That is what I want to do but you seem bent on talking about something off topic. You didn't read the document or wouldn't refer to my "work" as "theory". You are the one that doesn't want to talk about QWC, you want it to be something I don't claim that it is.

So feel free to troll or be a dweeb, or you could just write me and my "work" off as a lost cause and go about your business. :shrug:

If you wanted to talk about it you would have responded to my courteous, well cautious by courteous response to your recent effort to put some logical and mathematical framework together. The trouble was that your response was full of arrogance and rebuke.
 
quantum_wave said:
The trouble was that your response was full of arrogance and rebuke.
Click to expand...
And you're not arrogant for thinking you're above the scientific methodology or by playing by its rules? You're not arrogant for being 'above' criticism, for not needing to retort to issues raised?

We get called arrogant for knowing things. You are arrogant because you think you've above knowing things.
 
quantum_wave said:
Sure I do. That is what I want to do but you seem bent on talking about something off topic.
Click to expand...
Off topic? I literally quoted two paragraphs from your document and asked for clarification on several matters. It couldn't be any more on topic.

Why are you finding it so difficult to answer my questions? I'm asking about things you wrote. I'm asking what you meant when you used certain words/phrases. I'm trying to engage with you in a scientific manner, and you seem to run away. Why?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
And this just confirms you aren't interested in science, you just want people to listen to you pass on your truths 'from on high'. If you were honest and really wanting to do science you'd play by its rules, not your own.

The fact it takes a couple of 'dweebs' to point this out to you shows how little effort or honesty you put into your work. Couldn't you summise all of this for yourself?
Click to expand...
There is nothing I can do for you. Your fixation is abnormal and you should take my long standing advice. I'm talking about reading the document, not getting professional help though I also recommend that.

If you had taken the few minutes to read the document you wouldn't have a leg to stand on as to you arrogant insistence that I am trying to "con" people into something.

You are a dweeb.
 
quantum_wave said:
If you had taken the few minutes to read the document you wouldn't have a leg to stand on as to you arrogant insistence that I am trying to "con" people into something.
Click to expand...
I do have 'a leg to stand on'. You claimed QWC resolves the issue between short range gravity and long range gravity. Yet nothing in your work actually resolves that issue, you don't prove you have a working describing of gravity, you don't prove you have a short range description of gravity, you don't prove any of that.

My criticism has always stood. You threatened to embarrass Guest and I but all you've done is throw rhetoric at us, avoided answering direct questions and said "Read the document!!". The information isn't there. If the information isn't there, don't make claims you can't back up. Is that a little too subtle for you?

Don't shoot your mouth off. How do you fail to grasp that? :shrug:

And you want someone fixated on your work. Too bad I give so little a shit about you I couldn't care if you never posted again. I don't deny I reply a lot of hacks but you aren't special. The fact you post a lot means I reply a lot. It isn't a fixation with you, it's just me calling an idiot an idiot. Who that idiot is is largely immaterial to me.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
I do have 'a leg to stand on'. You claimed QWC resolves the issue between short range gravity and long range gravity. Yet nothing in your work actually resolves that issue, you don't prove you have a working describing of gravity, you don't prove you have a short range description of gravity, you don't prove any of that.

My criticism has always stood. You threatened to embarrass Guest and I but all you've done is throw rhetoric at us, avoided answering direct questions and said "Read the document!!". The information isn't there. If the information isn't there, don't make claims you can't back up. Is that a little too subtle for you?

Don't shoot your mouth off. How do you fail to grasp that? :shrug:

And you want someone fixated on your work. Too bad I give so little a shit about you I couldn't care if you never posted again. I don't deny I reply a lot of hacks but you aren't special. The fact you post a lot means I reply a lot. It isn't a fixation with you, it's just me calling an idiot an idiot. Who that idiot is is largely immaterial to me.
Click to expand...
Don't try to sweet talk me you dweeb.
 
Your silence just proves the information isn't there and you have been deliberately deceptive. You lied and you've been called on it. What do you hope to achieve by this?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Your silence just proves the information isn't there and you have been deliberately deceptive. You lied and you've been called on it. What do you hope to achieve by this?
Click to expand...
What am I proving by this? That you are a dweeb.

Edit: and fixated.
 
Guest254 said:
Do you find your situation funny?
Click to expand...
What is funny is that you, as a dweeb, think that you have any grasp of my situation. Count how many times you have posted to my threads with the fairy dust sentiment and then you will see who is infantile.

But just in case you have matured since then, answer this question: Do you think it is possible that the universe had no beginning, i.e. has always existed? Or go ahead and obfuscate and we will know that you are the one who has no intention of discussing QWC.

Note: Let me pose this same question to AN and Prom and anyone who is subscribed to the thread. Anyone have a yes or no answer or will you all be dweebs over such a simple question. I'm betting on dweebs.

Next time I am at the Maple Pavilion I will discuss your responses or lack thereof :).
 
quantum_wave said:
What is funny is that you, as a dweeb, think that you have any grasp of my situation.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep calling me names? Do you think this strengthens your situation?

Look, I'm offering to have a serious conversation with you regarding your writings. I've asked serious questions. This is your chance to have a real, scientific conversation. Why don't you engage yourself? Why have you suddenly lost all confidence in your writings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top