“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Unable to follow youre equations, AN. ”
AN:
So don't complain people haven't answered your question when you're incapable of understanding the answers.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Incidentally, you may call it whatever, but a 'Kerr black hole' is another black hole hypothesis ('Not that you'd know' - hey AN, you don't know...), by any other name. Like 'particles', they have yet to be confirmed to be what they are called. ”
AN:
So the masses of experimental observations for cosmology, black holes and particle physics don't count but your claims about 5th and 6th dimensions are fine?
Kai:
Those experimental observations are meaningful, they're just not resolute. Do you even know what my claims about identifying the 5th & 6th dimensions are?
AN:
Nice hypocrisy.
Kai:
A well tailored oxymoron - in two words. You seem to specialize in reverse confessions, and: inducing guilt and passing the hat.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
And,
in this same thread, you proclaim that "black holes are not controversial (in the physics community')", while you just jauntily launched that subject; after having earlier argued that 'black holes are popular only in 'pop physics' sources: while the fact is, you just exemplified the hang-over 'midstream physics' is still suffering from, in the wake of the dominantly foregrounded celebration of black holes, from the time of their appearance upon the (humorously misnomered) 'physics community' stage. ”
AN:
I said nothing of the sort. Provide links to the posts where I said black holes are only popular in pop science books. I have
never said that.
Kai:
Page 15, post 147
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Whereas: 'Particles' are surfaceless electric charges that possess mass value and occupy at least three dimensions of space - becoming more dense toward their centers. ”
AN:
So me talking about Kerr black holes is not justified but your claims about particles being 3d is?
Kai:
'Particles' are generally
perceived as being 3-D, though Einstein proved them and everything constituted of them, to be 4-D.
A list of professional statements that the 4th D is 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable' is in post 88of this thread.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
musn't say 'creation' in your company - it's ok with Stephen Hawking, but it's beneath your - ostensibly intimidated - miscreant standards ”
AN:
My point was there's nothing to do with the religious notion of 'Creation' in the big bang.
Kai:
I understand your point, AN. I don't even disagree with it (as far as it goes). Yet, the last sentence from the Stephen Hawking quoted paragraph on this subject (as posted in this thread), is:
[I
]"No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church's ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning."[/I]
What we apparently don't agree on is the BBT's premise that nothing begat something, or in other words, something came out of nothing. That's what I mean by my usage of the word 'creationist' - a 'beginning' of the ('expanding') universe, which I maintain had no 'beginning'; that matter 'and' space (including the dynamics of same) always has been and always will be approximately as we observe them (SST) - based on the Conservation of MassEnergy Law. Einstein's CC is the converse of gravity, and again I allude to Friedmann's having pointed out that E's CC can easily be interpreted as a 'repelling force'; causing the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
That cop-out (that the laws of physics 'break down' at the moment of the BB), right alongside your denial that heading for the measurements beneath Planck length isn't 'fudging', when you can rescue yourself with 'sub quantum' mathematics. ”
AN:
Once again you try to tell me my research. The Planck length is not a 'minimum length', its just the distance where gravity becomes comparable in strength to the other forces and quantum gravity cannot be ignored. Before that you can use classical approximations to gravity. I have published work which talks about objects ~1 Planck length in size. Part of the requirement in that was to make them larger than 1 Planck length else quantum corrections become unavoidable.
Telling you a fact about something you've never studied is not a 'cop out'.
Kai:
Sub quantum computations are confined to mathematics: is not physics.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
What you call 'a trivial fact of geometry...'
if you're alluding to the time line in the perpendicular projection of a 4-D hypercube: massive portions of post-modern physics are compromised therein. ”
AN:
You make claims about geometry, a subject you admit you can't do. Rational people realise it's a good idea not to make claims about things they don't know about.
Kai:
Make your allegory case against what I say about the modern-classic hyper cube/super cube'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
That pensive consideration is hardly 'trivial'. ”
AN:
That Cartesian coordinates form an orthonormal basis is trivial. It's pretty much the first thing anyone studying vectors learns. . Never heard of the 'dot product'?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Were I you, I would pounce on this 'factually trivial' opportunity to disqualify my work."
Ok. This trivial fact has been underestimated,to say the least. Make your case.
AN:
You have no derived results, no quantitative logic, no predictions, no working models. You have no results. What am I to disqualify when a model can't model Nature?
Kai:
Post 138. Quantitative models derived from nature.
AN:
Provide me one phenomenon in Nature which you can model, with your own work, and show how you construct that model. Neither you nor q_w have ever stood up to that challenge.
Kai:
Post 138. Quantitative models derived from nature.
It is also noteworthy that you should be redundant in that false denial, since
posts 141 and 141 - in your own words - concede that 'there are no quantitative models for string theory.'
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Until you prove other wise, you can't disqualify the 'stupid', 'idiotic', 'hypocritical', 'lying' statement that the physical-material universe is constantly growing larger - along with the more conventionally referenced and understood 'expanding universe'. ”
AN:
I can't disprove that every time I am not looking the oceans turn to custard and the Moon into a giant banana, only to turn back to normal when I look back, but that doesn't mean such claims are worthwhile. When you make a claim its up to you to support it. You can't.
Kai:
The 4-d universe doesn't vacillate (when you turn your back on it), as you imply. The real question to be addressed to it, is, 'Where and when is it not?'. Your ocean custard and moon banana may draw some disarming laughs, but they do not disarm the unanswered challenge put to you - where and when doesn't the 4th D manifest?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Mr. 'Ph.D thesis completed'. ”
Wow, what an insult. I love it when cranks insult me because I have achieved something. Yeah, you're really going to hurt my feelings by pointing out I've completed 3.5 years of research, published original work in reputable journals, and passed peer review on the accumulation of my research. Yeah, that's so terrible for me.....
Kai:
You are free to feel insulted. You are righfully proud of your formidable achievements. My objective is to point out that credentials do not make you invulnerable to meaningful argument - which you hysterically deny encountering, in my disagreements with you.
AN:
I guess you don't like that fact I've managed more than you in your 40 years. Boo hoo.
Kai:
Your volunteered 'guess' sounds more like an awkwardly vanquished segment from a 2nd grade skunk fight.
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Ouch! ”
AN:
Yeah, it is pretty painful reading Kai's nonsense, I agree.
Kai: Yeah. Calling a turtle a giraffe does not a giraffe make. The encountered/unexpected nemesis throughout this thread, with the unanticipated provision of the (demanded & provided) posts and the information brought forth within them are pretty 'nonsensical'. Sort of like your vacuous metaphor of alleging to have brought peace to Angola because you shook hands with a black guy, or, the irony of a creationist rap about the popularity of evolution.
As one who emphasizes his presence within the 'science community', it mismatches your
method of name-calling: particularly when there is no need, call-for or substantiation of it.
Occasional unconventional and out of character - colorful - remarks can be stylish and effective, but, only when they are true and constructively contribute to whatever targeted objective.
(Neener-neener?)
Noteworthy - your empty purportations that I do not qualify my allegations, which is much more a reflection of your communications inadequacies than mine, or those of QuantumWave.
Post Script:
Although undergoing renovation, all articles including Total Field Theory have been vacillating on and off the air. It seems to be stabalizing lateley.
The url is:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
