Well then get it peer reviewed...you'll have plenty of scientists to deal with then.
The Relativity of Time
- Thread starter Nightshift
- Start date
Well then get it peer reviewed...you'll have plenty of scientists to deal with then.
@ Nightshift
This Link : http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/ , is to a page that has quite a bit of pertinent information on Relativity and other "theories".
The following is a small quote from the Link (Bold by dmoe!):
Nightshift, quite a bit of the information available on that site (and the Links presented on that site) seem to be along the same lines of thought that you seem to be presenting.
The following is the Link to a .pdf that is titled "The Future of Fundamental Physics" by Nima Arkani-Hamed (mentioned in the ^^above quoted^^) : http://ws5.com/spacetime/Fundamental Physics.pdf
Eleanor Roosevelt said:
This Link : http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/ , is to a page that has quite a bit of pertinent information on Relativity and other "theories".
The following is a small quote from the Link (Bold by dmoe!):
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/www.ws5.com/spacetime/ said:
Nightshift, quite a bit of the information available on that site (and the Links presented on that site) seem to be along the same lines of thought that you seem to be presenting.
The following is the Link to a .pdf that is titled "The Future of Fundamental Physics" by Nima Arkani-Hamed (mentioned in the ^^above quoted^^) : http://ws5.com/spacetime/Fundamental Physics.pdf
I'm interested in what is on the mind of the person named, Nightshift.
A few Interesting passages from the link following.......
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://ws5.com/spacetime/Fundamental Physics.pdf
" The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics are the pillars of our current understanding of nature "
"One of the startling general predictions of quantum field theory is the existence of anti particles such as the positron, which has the same properties as the electron but the opposite electric charge. This prediction has another striking consequence, namely that even the vacuum has structure and dynamics"
"The standard model is one of the triumphs of physics in the twentieth century"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Probably, maybe, who knows....
But I have heard it said, by at least two authoritive experts in the field, that any future validated QGT/GUT/TOE, will only extend the limits and parameters of the current well supported models such as the BB, and SR/GR.
So we'll see.......
Probably, maybe, who knows....
Yeah well all mainstreamers would think this way
Actually it's Nightshift/Reiku who can't do any math. His modus operandi is to cut and paste terms and expressions from actual math which he doesn't understand, and then to assemble them haphazardly, enclosed in pretentious nonsensical text. From what I've seen he's at best just barely able to comprehend high school algebra. For some reason he has chosen to make blanket claims about advanced math topics from upper division and college graduate school courses, as if they are the same species of math as an 8th grader's.
Contrary to his narcissistic claim that it takes three readings to comprehend him, all of what he wrote can be reduced to one fundamental equation which illustrates his central mistake. Here he's pretending to know differential calculus. The rule he is violating is that he's taking a function of time, say f(t), and declaring that the when you differentiate this function over space, for example df/dx (which means the change in f with respect to a change in distance x) that it simply vanishes, for example df/fx = 0, proving that time does not exist. The correct answer is that df/fx = 0 simply means that f does not change on account of any changes in position. It says nothing about how f behaves over time, and his mistaken belief that it does tells you he couldn't work the end of chapter problems in the introduction to differential calculus in a typical textbook.
An honest average person who can't get admitted to any college of math or science due to a lack of adequate preparation will either give up or else take a course in remedial math to get their skills up to snuff. They would simply post a question asking how to solve a sample problem, or they will ask for an explanation of the subject matter. By contrast a dishonest person will pretend to know material he never studied and which he could not solve if given questions directly from the freshman text.
Resorted to attacking the person again because you have nothing intelligible to add?
Don't worry aqueous, it hasn't gone unnoticed.
Beer w/Straw, by simply completely reading the OP (and the Links provided therein), I was able to get a fairly decent insight into what is on his mind.
Although I cannot 100% concur with the entirety of it, he makes some very valid and compelling points. It would seem to me to be wrong to summarily dismiss them without fully understanding them - even if they may not align perfectly with the oft misunderstood but nevertheless fervently and ceaselessly parroted "Mainstream" view.
Exactly. Trapped_light, Trapped, 'the last sock puppet before the present sock puppet 'Nightshift', Reiku and his many sock puppets, and Nightshift are the same intellectually dishonest troll.
Probably, maybe, who knows....
Yeah well all mainstreamers would think this way
Or more to the point, all logical thinkers aligning to the scientific method would think this way....
If Id felt he needed to say that about me I'd be mortified. Ever hear of a 'pecking order'? Id's at the top and you're not even on the list of respected members.
I prefer reason , though , hence our differences here
Since reason allows for adding of information and therefore can adapt or change , the reasoning
Whereas logic based on reasoning given , can not adapt to new information , and therefore is stuck on the information given
Are you lot done quite trolling? Flaming, baiting and derailing this thread?
That's completely hogwash, and something you just made up on the run.
Mainstream logic is based on reasoning from incoming data and observations........not erronious "gut feelings" or reasoning blinkered and burdened with delusions of grandeur and the need to be anti mainstream just for the sake of it.
Isn't it you who is baiting and flaming, by starting another thread on the same subject being discussed in other threads, just to keep getting across your point of view in the face of knowledgable opposition?
In all actuality, the various "Scientific Methods" describe different actions and procedures, not what or how to think!
Besides, any truly logical and intelligent person thinks for themselves! They have no logically or intelligently deduced reason to let anyone or anything else decide what or how they think!
The name "Albert Einstein" would probably have no significance today - if he had ignored his own logical and intellectual abilities and instead merely aligned himself with the accepted Mainstream Science of his era!
Besides, any truly logical and intelligent person thinks for themselves! They have no logically or intelligently deduced reason to let anyone or anything else decide what or how they think!
The name "Albert Einstein" would probably have no significance today - if he had ignored his own logical and intellectual abilities and instead merely aligned himself with the accepted Mainstream Science of his era!
The pretense with mathematical symbols and terminology is pathetic. Id told you so. Pay attention. You must be a masochist the way you eat up the negative feedback you get.