The Relativity of Time

[Undefined]

Good morning, paddoboy.

I'm not laying down any law, nor have I attempted to.
I merely recognize the near non existence of some self promoted genius, lingering out in layman's land, waiting with paper in hand, to tear down the supposed towers of mainstream intransigence...I merely detest the 100% positive nature and the "this is the way it is, and no correspondence will be entered into" attitude, that has been so prevalent with you and others of late....I merely strongly refute the highly unlikely event that someone is going to pop out of nowhere, with some model that will revolutionize physics/cosmology...Especially when the current models [SR/GR and BB] match what we currently observe so well.

What you need to do [and Farsight] is take a lesson or two in humility.



When another Einstein comes along, or a Bohr or Feynman, maybe even a Zefram Cochrane, [] I'm sure they will all submit to the system we have now with peer review, and establish themselves and whatever new models that eventuate with them, via the accepted method.

Yet all your post history is a constant litany of "Appeals to Authority", without real cogent relevant arguments from you on the new ideas presented, and with your 'comic book understanding' arguments which clearly demonstrate you have no real cogent 'handle' on EITHER the orthodoxy or the alternatives being presented/discussed by others who do have a clue as to what's what in both. So where does all your blustering leave you? You have no basis for ANY of your opinions about others or others' work or others' understandings. You have NO clue, and yet you persist in filling these threads with your 'personal noise' and pretending to 'understand and agree with mainstream' appeals/links to authority which you don't understand fully or even argue their relevance at all to the context/issues in the new ideas in discussion. Quit it and you will be less of an irrelevant triviality and personality cult troll and fellow troll cheerleader than you have been almost exclusively since you lobbed here.


And when the advance is made by someone who is not beholden to any previous theory or authority? What then? Why should one who revolutionizes the field of cosmology via his own totally independent cogitations/reviews from scratch of the reality (not the current abstract theories) be forced to 'submit' to those who have lost track of that reality and are still promulgating abstract maths 'explanations/models' that have failed to deliver ToE COMPLETENESS (eg, energy-space, matter, inertia, gravity, etc etc are not yet explained in terms of REAL "Energy-Space entities/mechanisms", but only in terms of MATHEMATICAL "Space-Time fields" abstractions). What makes you think that DUMBING DOWN and SUBMITTING a completed revolutionary ToE to FIT INTO a patently CONSTRAINED set of ABSTRACT partial theories is the way it 'must' go for that new complete ToE? It obviously will SUBSUME all other partial theories. As it should do by virtue of completeness. So it's a matter of existing partial/incomplete theory paradigms/models having to SUBMIT to the new paradigms/models of the OVERARCHING completed ToE. Why try to fit a REALITY based ToE 'square peg' into an existing ABSTRACT MATH riddled 'round hole' that has doomed itself to incompleteness once it started on the path to unbridled charge into abstract/math worlds which Einstein started to bemoan way back when:

Since the mathematicians have invaded my theory I don't understand my own theory anymore!----Einstein

paddo, keep your 'appeals to authority arguments and coat-tailing/cheerleading' to your own discussions in your new VB-boozy man-cave. This is a science discourse site, and that sort of thing won't make you anything but an irrelevant troller of irrelevant personal opinions. OK? Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

Good morning, paddoboy.
Yet all your post history is a constant litany of "Appeals to Authority", without real cogent relevant arguments from you on the new ideas presented, and with your 'comic book understanding'

As I told you before, the closest thing I read to comic books are your posts.

paddo, keep your 'appeals to authority arguments and coat-tailing/cheerleading' to your own discussions in your new VB-boozy man-cave. This is a science discourse site, and that sort of thing won't make you anything but an irrelevant troller of irrelevant personal opinions. OK? Thanks.

I'll use whatever means possible to refute and highlight your delusions of grandeur, and your unsupported unreviewed, unscientific claims.
If you don't like it, then I suggest you start posting some science I can comment on.

 

[Undefined]

As I told you before, the closest thing I read to comic books are your posts.




I'll use whatever means possible to refute and highlight your delusions of grandeur, and your unsupported unreviewed, unscientific claims.
If you don't like it, then I suggest you start posting some science I can comment on.

Then your 'means' of incessant 'appeals to authority', non-arguments, pure opinionating and comic book 'handles' on orthodoxy and total ignorance of the new discussion points questioning that orthodoxy comic book 'handle' you offer 'as a layman' doesn't do anything but brand yourself as a trolling personality-cult 'me too' and 'cheerleader' of fellow equally mindless egotistical trolls pretending to have any clue at all, let alone the right ones. Better luck in your next 'troll' reincarnation on the forums, paddo; this one's let you down badly, and embarrassed even those who you would 'cheerlead' for so lamely and irrelevantly. Poor thing. Back to your new man-cave and suck down a few more VBs to ease your troll pain, mate!

 

[paddoboy]

. Poor thing. Back to your new man-cave and suck down a few more VBs to ease your troll pain, mate!

I may have to leave you be undefined...Obviously this is getting you rather excited.


ps:
I have no pain to deal with.....I align with the accepted position, while your are aligning with the lunatic fringe...Enjoy it!

 

[Undefined]

I may have to leave you be undefined...Obviously this is getting you rather excited.


ps:
I have no pain to deal with.....I align with the accepted position, while your are aligning with the lunatic fringe...Enjoy it!

The CAPS are to get through your troll filter to your troll 'beliefs' in the hope it may actually sink past them, for your own sake as much as science's.

And DO try to get over your elitism 'thrall' to orthodoxy built on cascades of abstract maths fantasy and incestuous 'passing' by 'peers' of more of the same.

Didn't you catch where INTERNET EXPERIMENTS using computer-generated math/physics terms gobbledegook passed 'peer review' system because either the 'peers' didn't understand any of it but didn't want to appear dumb; or because they just ASSUMED it was OK because of all the CITATIONS list and 'reputable persons/institutions' the submissions 'spoofed' for the experiment/submissions? Hilarious, if it wasn't so seriously tragic for 'modern cosmology' science and 'peer review' both.

And haven't you read the latest mainstream 'publish or perish' motivated lame offerings which are inherently flawed systemically, assumptively and procedurally PRECISELY BECAUSE of the cascade of past flawed work/interpretations becoming inbuilt to all the subsequent work/interpretation 'papers' which CITE and DEPEND of those prior flawed 'passed' papers for their 'justification/validity'? I found the obvious GLARING flaws almost immediately, because I recognized the 'smell' of PAST flaws inbuilt to the very starting/cited premises/interpretations/conclusions of their 'work' which was nothing more than a 'publish or perish' BS exercise which they hoped would get past the 'peer reviews' like all the others in the past, and hope no-one would notice this time either.

Take time to re-think your unthinking personal 'beliefs' way of discussing/understanding and 'getting a handle' on science issues. Leave the 'religious faith' and 'belief' in obviously flawed and fallible 'authority' MO for those who have no clue of their own and just 'go along' with whatever 'herd' they think will be of most use to them because they think they are helpless and unable to think on their own. OK? Good luck.

 

[PhysBang]

Undefined, you are imagining that people use peer reviewed papers without reviewing them.

It's "peer review", not "peer published and trusted without reading". The peer review is not merely the editors, it is the entire community. Some papers get criticized, some get ignored. Some get relied upon because they are read carefully. Scientists do not merely rely on video interviews and accept the positions of authority figures; they do work.

Just because there are lax editorial controls on some journals (and there are thousands of journals) does not mean that people (other than you) do or even want to trust what is published without question.

 

[paddoboy]

Undefined, you are imagining that people use peer reviewed papers without reviewing them.

He's grasping at straws...again!

 

[Undefined]

Undefined, you are imagining that people use peer reviewed papers without reviewing them.

It's "peer review", not "peer published and trusted without reading". The peer review is not merely the editors, it is the entire community. Some papers get criticized, some get ignored. Some get relied upon because they are read carefully. Scientists do not merely rely on video interviews and accept the positions of authority figures; they do work.

Just because there are lax editorial controls on some journals (and there are thousands of journals) does not mean that people (other than you) do or even want to trust what is published without question.

The fact that the latest 'work/papers' cited and were basing their interpretive assumptions/conclusions on the 'perceived' validity of prior 'work/papers', which were themselves flawed and so built into the flaws into all the latest CMB 'interpretive exercises', doesn't even get a look in to your unshakeable beliefs in 'the system' that has produced this flawed 'orthodoxy set of interpretive/assumptive 'takes' on the observed CMB? If the entire community has been captive to and part of the incestuous problems that have resulted in the proven failures of that system , then what you are saying is that they are all wittingly or unwittingly enabling the process which has resulted in such (experimentally and often) proven mass failure of the peer review system. What does it take to 'wake you up' that your unshakable beliefs are found to be misplaced?

Only because the 'cranks' pointed to the obvious and serious systemic, assumptive and procedural flaws in the latest 'publish or perish' exercise from mainstream 'team', have SOME of the braver mainstreamers themselves started to look more closely and finding the very flaws which have passed 'peer review for decades and have been built into the latest exercise via 'citation' and 'dependence' on prior 'reputation/acceptance of those flawed interpretations/assumptions all along.

Get real, mate. Santa Claus doesn't exist. Think for yourself from now on, until the problem has been fixed properly. Good luck.

 

[Undefined]

He's grasping at straws...again!

No mate, that has been the mainstream cosmological teams who obey 'published or perish' imperatives to get their latest flawed-from-the-outset-by -past-peer-review-flaws BS through 'peer review' which has been proven to be a failure and incestuous circle of 'yes men/women' who either don't understand the gobbledegook they are presented with OR they just 'accept' the validity based on prior citations/reputations which have themselves been built on past peer-review failures not picking up the inbuilt assumptive/interpretive BB bias and BS. Now that we know what the real problem in mainstream HAS BEEN PROVEN to be, we can all go back and try to re-think everything from scratch based on reality, not on more never ending maths/abstract BB fantasy world 'constructs' BS masquerading as 'explanations'. Good luck to us all.

 

[paddoboy]

Now that we know what the real problem in mainstream HAS BEEN PROVEN to be, we can all go back and try to re-think everything from scratch based on real not maths/abstract BB fantasy world 'constructs' masquerading as 'explanations'. Good luck to us all.

Rubbish...Nothing is proven. Again a reflection of your anti anti paranoia.

 

[PhysBang]

The fact that the latest 'work/papers' cited and were basing their interpretive assumptions/conclusions on the 'perceived' validity of prior 'work/papers', which were themselves flawed and so built into the flaws into all the latest CMB 'interpretive exercises', doesn't even get a look in to your unshakeable beliefs in 'the system' that has produced this flawed 'orthodoxy set of interpretive/assumptive 'takes' on the observed CMB?

Do you have any actual reason to claim that people (like Sean Carroll) who are working on the CMB are using papers that are too flawed to use? Or are you simply using your fantasy?

So far you have shown 0 flaws.

 

[Undefined]

Rubbish...Nothing is proven. Again a reflection of your anti anti paranoia.

In denial still? Didn't you see the latest proof of it where MANY 'papers' of computer generated gobbledegook were 'passed' by 'peer reviewers' because they didn't understand the gobbledegook but were afraid to look stupid so they 'passed' it? Or they just assumed it was 'ok' because of the personal/institutional 'reputation' and the long list of equally irrelevant nonsensical 'citations' at the end of the 'paper'?

You want to pretend to have anything lucid to say about others and science, but you can't even grasp that proven fact because of your unshakeable belief in 'appeal to authority' in lieu of thinking for yourself? No wonder your posts are what they are. Mostly useless and cluttering 'noise'. Do better.

 

[Undefined]

Do you have any actual reason to claim that people (like Sean Carroll) who are working on the CMB are using papers that are too flawed to use? Or are you simply using your fantasy?

So far you have shown 0 flaws.

That was the beauty of his CMB feature 'traingulation exercise' which determines that the universal energy-space is flat to infinite extent beyond observational volume. It did NOT depend on anything in the prior papers/work containing the systemic/interpretive BB bias and other flaws related to treatment of CMB data and its math/abstract interpretations models. That is one of the FEW mainstream exercises that IS NOT FLAWED from the get-go by any bias. Only known Pythagorean theorem was involved in the test/outcome. No prior 'peer review passed' faulty mainstream biases/assumptions needed or wanted therein. Kudos Sean Carrol.

 

[paddoboy]

In denial still? Didn't you see the latest proof of it where MANY 'papers' of computer generated gobbledegook were 'passed' by 'peer reviewers' because they didn't understand the gobbledegook but were afraid to look stupid so they 'passed' it? Or they just assumed it was 'ok' because of the personal/institutional 'reputation' and the long list of equally irrelevant nonsensical 'citations' at the end of the 'paper'?

It appears you are the one in denial or just plain blind!
I have discussed that matter and am not going into it again....
Let's just say that "One Swallow, does not a Summer make"

Again, I suggest if you are that paranoid about the present peer review system, then your supposed ToE, if you have one, is bound to languish forever in oblivion.

 

[Undefined]

It appears you are the one in denial or just plain blind!
I have discussed that matter and am not going into it again....
Let's just say that "One Swallow, does not a Summer make"

Again, I suggest if you are that paranoid about the present peer review system, then your supposed ToE, if you have one, is bound to languish forever in oblivion.

You haven't addressed the facts presented to you on the matter. So whatever it is that you 'think' you've been doing, it has certainly and painfully obviously NOT been addressing those facts in caps and in bold already presented to you. Do better than just bald trolling denial, mate.

 

[paddoboy]

You haven't addressed the facts presented to you on the matter. So whatever it is that you 'think' you've been doing, it has certainly and painfully obviously NOT been addressing those facts in caps and in bold already presented to you. Do better than just bald trolling denial, mate.

Wrong...They have been addressed.
Twice.


Your problem obviously, is that any peer review, is not going to be real acceptable to any lame brained idea of your's about rewriting 20th century physics and a ToE.

 

[PhysBang]

That was the beauty of his CMB feature 'traingulation exercise' which determines that the universal energy-space is flat to infinite extent beyond observational volume. It did NOT depend on anything in the prior papers/work containing the systemic/interpretive BB bias and other flaws related to treatment of CMB data and its math/abstract interpretations models. That is one of the FEW mainstream exercises that IS NOT FLAWED from the get-go by any bias. Only known Pythagorean theorem was involved in the test/outcome. No prior 'peer review passed' faulty mainstream biases/assumptions needed or wanted therein. Kudos Sean Carrol.

Sean Carroll did not do the CMB work. The CMB work that you (through a bizarre non-reference to the work of Carroll) are referencing relies on far more assumptions than most astronomy papers.

See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

(Their last paper released on cosmological parameters has about 200 references to other peer reviewed articles.)

You are so wrong here, it's scary. Literally scary, not funny scary.

 

[Undefined]

Wrong...They have been addressed.
Twice.


Your problem obviously, is that any peer review, is not going to be real acceptable to any lame brained idea of your's about rewriting 20th century physics and a ToE.

So if you read the facts you must accept that the peer review system has been proven more than once, even by internet experiments using computer gobbledegook, to be seriously defective and responsible for flawed work/papers to be included in the mainstream body of literature which causes a cascade of flaws to infect and become built in to the later works/papers citing/depending on those same flawed works/papers previously peer passed in error?

If you do not agree with that findings on the proven facts, then it still remains for you to detail your defense and reasons for still 'believing in authority' which has proven to be flawed through failure of peer review to date.

Go to it, paddo; else admit that you are just 'whistling in the wind' while the reality swirls around you and your 'appeals to authority' ring hollow because of the facts proving said authority is flawed.

 

[paddoboy]

So if you read the facts you must accept that the peer review system has been proven more than once,

How many times must one need to rattle your brain undefined?
One swallow does not a Summer make......
The peer review system is the best we have and has overall generally been highly successful.
It's going to be the same system that will eventually sink your crap, if and when you get it reviewed.
And if your ToE at all exists!

 

[Undefined]

Sean Carroll did not do the CMB work. The CMB work that you are referencing relies on far more assumptions than most astronomy papers.

See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

You are so wrong here, it's scary. Literally scary, not funny scary.

No no no! You got things arse up, mate. I already said he USED the CMB map (of 2003 IIRC) in his triangulation exercise. I DIDN'T say he helped CREATE that CMB map! He merely applied his method to the PRE-EXISTING 2003 CMB map 'features' already present in that CMB map. Look, why not just email Sean and just ask him if what he described/said/concluded in that TV documentary about that is true. Then you can go from there on your own researches. I have no more time to waste on already settled matters already on public record. Thanks, Bye, PhysBang.