Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote. 'Science', writes Snow, 'had seemed to be without people or contradictions.'
"The knowledge that physics is not as unanimous or bloodless as it may appear from the outside came as a surprise to me also. I wanted to know more..." ”
AN:
Wow, anacdotal evidence from a pop science book. That's obviously superior to reading papers, talking with physicists and attending conferences!
Kai:
Noticed that you didn't include the entire quote - you omitted the title and author of The Men Who Made a New Physics, by Barbara Lovett Cline. This book is mostly documentary and biographical, featuring, indeed, The Men Who Made a New Physics. It is a world class 'popular physics' book and renowned and recognized as such by all of its reviewers.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Enter 'Arguments against quantum gravity' in google. ”
AN:
And? If I enter "Global Illuminati conspiracy" I get hits. If I enter 'Proof of God' I get hits. If I enter 'Disproof of God' I get hits. The fact someone has a website with those words in doesn't mean what they say is valid. All you learn from that is that someone else has said something on the matter, it tells you nothing about the validity of what they say.
Kai:
Everything you just said is true. Whereas, the information must be triaged - properly evaluated and categorized. That is no less true than the process of separating the wheat from the chaffe in papers, mid stream physics books and conferences
AN:
We're already been over the whole Mattis (or whatever his name was) being wrong on numerous things so the fact Google brings up his page is irrelevant.
Kai:
His name is Miles Mathis and his partial credentials include his having come nine credits short of a Master's in Physics. Your disagreement with him was based on his alleged statement that all dimensional coordinate lines are time lines. As far as I know, that is true, and you are right about that. His point was that geometric lines in the time of Euclid were hand drawn, and it took time to diagram a one dimensional straight line, for example; etceteras.
AN:
You seem to have no understanding of how to actually provide support for your points of view. The fact someone else might agree with you doesn't make it right. Catholics agree with one another. Muslims agree with one another. They can't both be right.
Kai:
Acknowledging your metaphor, as far as it's compass goes, each of those religions are agreed on an 'intelligent design'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As I've said (and you have 'scrolled past') before, there are as many estimates of what the CMB should be as there are cards in a poker game - it's a figure of speech, meaning there's no patent agreement on the mean value of CMB. As regards the expansion effects, you admit you haven't read my book so you aren't familiar with a lot of unprecedented alternatives. ”
AN:
And none of the alternatives provide as accurate a description of the CMB as the mainstream one does. As this diagram of prediction vs measurement illustrates.
Kai:
Although there are many other estimates, allow the review of three of them, culminating in an important qualification about the difference between predictions and measurement.
In 1948, Alpher and Herman calculate 5 K above Zero K.
About 15 years later, R. H. Dicke calculated 10 K.
Subsequent observations of the CMB resulted in a refination of 2.73 K.
Note that the arrival upon a measurement was finally based on 'subsequent observations' - it was (by then) a measurement, not a prediction; accepted by most astronomers as confirmation of the BB.
Notably, you do not attempt to pass that measurement off as being or having been a 'prediction'. Good for you.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your self-answering question of 'Nope', is preceded by a question of whether I've done FRW metrics, which you know I haven't done. It does not disqualify the points I made in the context they occur in. ”
AN:
You make claims about GR while admiting you don't know any GR.
Kai:
Operative words - "you don't know any". Fact: I know quite a bit about GR.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Great brochure material, AlphaNumeric. Terrific flexing of muscles. Meanwhile, I'm having delusions that you haven't read the book that you're critiqueing. ”
You claimed I don't know about 4d space-time. That has nothig to do with reading your book, it's about my level of knowledge with regards to space-time. And by 'flexing my muscles' I demonstrate I have knowledge is said area. You admit you don't know any GR or even any geometry so you can hardly talk.
You try to disregard my knowledge because you know you can't make any claims of knowledge on any of these topics.
Kai:
Again, operative words, '...don't know any' and 'can't make any'. Moreover, you attempt to pass this off as something I admit. What I admit is that I have a learning handicap, esp. w' regard to mathematics. That does not mean I 'don't know any' and/or 'can't do any' of (FILL IN HERE).
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Yes. A black hole singularity is a static, non-expanding 3-D entity in a 4-dimensionally expanding universe, where the former entity gets as small and dense as the expanding 4-D universe becomes large and tenuous around it; squared. ”
Arm waving. Nothing you just said can be tested or gives any quantitative predictions or is derived rigorously from basic postulates. You simply make up claims, like q_w. The Schwarzchild metric in GR is the metric which describes the space-time around the Earth. It's tested everyday through the use of GPS navigation. Experimental justification. Where's yours? You can't say the Kerr metric is just an assumption or unjustified and then pretend your unjustified assumptions are anything but.
Kai:
The R. Von Eotvos measurements cogent to establishing the identity of gravitational and inertial mass values is not any kind of 'unjustified assumption'. It's a null experiment that has since tested out inside the confines of a nanosecond. These results constitute empirical evidence that the frame of reference (coordinate system) is accelerating 'upward' to meet 'descending' test objects. It is the central axis of GR.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It is unlikely that you understand a word of that, because you've deprived yourself of the opportunity of knowing of it, whether it's to agree or disagree with it. You aren't qualified for either alternative. ”
AN:
Yet ore hypocrisy. You admit you can't do geometry and you don't know any mainstream stuff but you somehow think you're qualified to talk about it.
Kai:
Again, you say I admit to no ability to do geometry. I do some geometry, and, I learn from those who do. You go on to falsely proclaim that I 'don't know any mainstream stuff'. Not true. Won't call you a liar for this, will simply observe and note that you are (conspicuously) 'mistaken'.
AN:
I have published work in differential geometry applications to space-time, black hole physics and a degree and masters which involved courses like 'Black holes' (lectured by someone who had Hawking as his PhD supervisor and now works along side him) and somehow I'm 'unqualified'.
Kai:
You are not qualified to speak with authority of the contents of any book you haven't read. You have said many times that isn't true, but, it is.
AN:
You cannot call me 'unqualified' or 'uneducated' or 'inexperienced' with regards to any of these things without also calling yourself the same, since I have more qualifications, more experience and more education in these things than you. If I'm wrong about this please outline your qualifications, education and experience. Reading pop science books and using Google is not included.
Kai:
Is Ideas & Opinions by AE a 'pop science' book - the second half of which is 'Contributions to Science'? Is The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein and Infeld, a 'pop science' book? Are all of the accurate informations available via Google disqualified as source references? This is to say, I cannot agree with the restrictions you have placed on where information comes from.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
A lot of physicists have taken notice. ”
AN:
Its just they don't mention it, don't buy your books and do nothing based on your work. You are making a totally baseless claim.
Kai:
In saying 'they don't mention it', I guess you mean they aren't publishing anything about it that accredits me for any of their inspiration. In saying they 'don't buy your books', You'd have to poll the physics professors in Berkeley Campus' Physics habitue - The Birge Building; although it's been sold out of print in Berkeley (repeatedly) for decades. Yours is the baseless claim.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
and what it establishes is being increasingly encountered. ”
And how are you measuring this 'increase'? No one cites your work, no one builds on your work, no one does anything on your work. An increase of zero from zero to zero is still zero.
Kai:
When I first learned of LCDM, the lettering was projected, just as you see it here. I asked 'What's LCDM?' They told me and then added in a huff: 'You say you know about physics and you don't know what LCDM is?' This is how I learned that the expanding universe was being explained by Einstein's application to so called 'Dark Matter'. I predicted the reinstatement of E's CC. There isn't a way of knowing what scientists were 'influenced' by my work, or when.
Moreover, you may be happy to learn, the first two editions were published by a comic book company - although they weren't comic books, they were in a staple back comic book format. If any physicists were influenced by it (since it was all over Berkeley - including the Campus bookstore, as welll as those on Telegraph Ave.), it isn't likely they're in a hurry to accredit me with whatever they may indeed have gleaned from it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I have repeatedly backed up many claims, you repeatedly 'scroll past', and/or deny them. ”
AN:
Provide the page references in your book where you construct, from basic postulates in a rigorous manner, a model of a particular phenomenon, make predictions, compare them with experiment and find you have a working experimentally justified model of said phenomenon. Neither you nor q_w have anything like that yet you claim to have experimentally consistent or justifiable results.
Kai:
Referencing the Total Field Theory thread:
Page 25, Post 245 (Partial auto-bio w' cogent physics info).
Page 5, Post 43 (Cubism myth)
Post 110 - thematic condensation of book.
Posts 141 & 142 'no quantitative model for string theory' - proclaimed by AlphaNumeric.
Post 138 - 'Quantitative models derived from Nature'.
Post 147 p. 15 - "Black holes are not controversial in the science community" - AlphaNumeric
AN:
Both of you whine about how string theory doesn't have any predictions (so you claim) but it describes a hell of a lot more than either of your two's work.
Kai:
How you do carry on sometimes, sir.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Since this thread started I have included 'Arguments against BBT' via Google. ”
AN:
So you don't like the BBT so you Googled and just posted any link you could find. You didn't check the claims, you didn't evaluate it's author's knowledge, you just parroted it back to us. If you knew any of the mainstream cosmology you denounce so much you'd see that the claims of the link you originally provided are either lies or in error.
Kai:
The link at the beginning of this thread is in fact flawed. You - and several others - made that clear. I have learned to be more discriminating about what I link the reader to. Meanwhile, I have also included the suggestion that arguments against the BBT are accessible via Google; user discretion is of course advised, while the qualified information is there.
AN:
I explicitly explained this for the neutrino mass section and you didn't retort what I said.
Kai:
Point taken, sir.
AN:
I don't deny that there are questions the BBT currently doesn't answer but that doesn't mean any and all made up complaints about it are true.
Kai:
Also agreed.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Draw your own conclusions. ”
AN:
Take your own advice! I read papers and then think "Do I agree with this? Does the author support his case?". You have made up your mind and then just parrot other people's views because you haven't bothered to actually look at the evidence or the theory yourself.
Kai:
'Just parrot other people's views'... There are times when I use the views of 'other people' (in particular) to establish and authenticate whatever points I happen to be demonstrating at the time.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
There is no precedent for the model presented in the issued work. You base your rejections on what you haven't given yourself the opportunity to qualify. ”
AN:
You claim to mathematically disprove the notion of point particles. You admit you can't do mathematics. See any problem with those two claims? I didn't even have to read your book!
Kai:
Fundamental geometry does not recognize a geometric point as occupyin any space at all. same thing with a straight line and a plane.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Heard these harsh allegations before, in Total Field Theory thread. ”
AN:
So the fact you've lied or misrepresented things before means I shouldn't mention it again?
Kai:
"Lied". One of your favored allegations. Not gonna grace that with a counterpoint any more than I already have. You're proclivity to reiterate your redundancies is a matter of thread record here, and especially on Total Field Theory.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
What's illogical about that? ”
AN:
You claim to mathematically disprove the notion of point particles. You admit you can't do mathematics. See any problem with those two claims?
Kai:
Refer above.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You certainly do gamble a lot against a source of information you've not read. ”
AN:
I haven't read 99.99999% of material written in books, so?
Kai:
That is a truly and undeniably large number of books you haven't read, whereas, presently, there's only one of them we're talking about.
AN:
It would appear you haven't read ANY research paper, journal, textbook or lecture notes from any area of physics pertaining to your claims. Those talk about models which have experimental justification, which provide experimental data to be explained, which provide methods, approaches and ideas you have never considered. So once again you're being a hypocrite if you claim I'm 'gambling' because I haven't read your work. I have read your posts and I find them fill of mistakes, lies, contradictions and nonsense. I have no reason to think your book will be any different. I ask you a direct question like "Provide a single phenomenon you can accurately model" and you can't answer. Why should I trawl through your book to find something you can't point me to? I don't believe the answer is in your book so I am not going to waste my time. Don't get me wrong, I read textbooks for fun, often material outside of my area of research, so its not like I'm not interested in expanding my horizons. It's just that nothing you've said gives me any reason to think my time would be spent well reading your book, just like I don't read 'Christian Science' books on intelligent design.
Kai:
"Mistakes, lies, contradictions and nonsense."
Well, 'mistakes' is right about that, anyway. Otherwise that's simply a windy, if familiar assemblage and index of previously discoursed repetitions.
Giving you the last word (as before, in the Total Field Theory thread); while qualifying again that it is ponderously repetitious, and, the latest edition of my book was sold out many years ago. Of course it is posted on the net so that I can talk it over with whomever wishes to subject it. I often learn that way, though it is difficult to learn from people who precede the reading of my book with their own - however formally established - 'belief systems'. As for my 'posts make it clear that you are very ignorant of science, you make claims you can't back up and you have the tendency to just parrot people'; that's an impressively mixed bag of allegations, we may agree on that.
AN:
If your purpose on this forum is to get people to read your book then your posts work against you because they make it clear that you are very ignorant of science, you make claims you can't back up and you have the tendency to just parrot people who you agree with without checking the accuracy of their comments. Two idiots agreeing doesn't make them right.
Post Script:
Total Field Theory is intermittantly on and off line due to reparations of the 'Articles' section, by the host. It looks like it's beginning to stabalize in terms of being on line more often than off, the url is:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote. 'Science', writes Snow, 'had seemed to be without people or contradictions.'
"The knowledge that physics is not as unanimous or bloodless as it may appear from the outside came as a surprise to me also. I wanted to know more..." ”
AN:
Wow, anacdotal evidence from a pop science book. That's obviously superior to reading papers, talking with physicists and attending conferences!
Kai:
Noticed that you didn't include the entire quote - you omitted the title and author of The Men Who Made a New Physics, by Barbara Lovett Cline. This book is mostly documentary and biographical, featuring, indeed, The Men Who Made a New Physics. It is a world class 'popular physics' book and renowned and recognized as such by all of its reviewers.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Enter 'Arguments against quantum gravity' in google. ”
AN:
And? If I enter "Global Illuminati conspiracy" I get hits. If I enter 'Proof of God' I get hits. If I enter 'Disproof of God' I get hits. The fact someone has a website with those words in doesn't mean what they say is valid. All you learn from that is that someone else has said something on the matter, it tells you nothing about the validity of what they say.
Kai:
Everything you just said is true. Whereas, the information must be triaged - properly evaluated and categorized. That is no less true than the process of separating the wheat from the chaffe in papers, mid stream physics books and conferences
AN:
We're already been over the whole Mattis (or whatever his name was) being wrong on numerous things so the fact Google brings up his page is irrelevant.
Kai:
His name is Miles Mathis and his partial credentials include his having come nine credits short of a Master's in Physics. Your disagreement with him was based on his alleged statement that all dimensional coordinate lines are time lines. As far as I know, that is true, and you are right about that. His point was that geometric lines in the time of Euclid were hand drawn, and it took time to diagram a one dimensional straight line, for example; etceteras.
AN:
You seem to have no understanding of how to actually provide support for your points of view. The fact someone else might agree with you doesn't make it right. Catholics agree with one another. Muslims agree with one another. They can't both be right.
Kai:
Acknowledging your metaphor, as far as it's compass goes, each of those religions are agreed on an 'intelligent design'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As I've said (and you have 'scrolled past') before, there are as many estimates of what the CMB should be as there are cards in a poker game - it's a figure of speech, meaning there's no patent agreement on the mean value of CMB. As regards the expansion effects, you admit you haven't read my book so you aren't familiar with a lot of unprecedented alternatives. ”
AN:
And none of the alternatives provide as accurate a description of the CMB as the mainstream one does. As this diagram of prediction vs measurement illustrates.
Kai:
Although there are many other estimates, allow the review of three of them, culminating in an important qualification about the difference between predictions and measurement.
In 1948, Alpher and Herman calculate 5 K above Zero K.
About 15 years later, R. H. Dicke calculated 10 K.
Subsequent observations of the CMB resulted in a refination of 2.73 K.
Note that the arrival upon a measurement was finally based on 'subsequent observations' - it was (by then) a measurement, not a prediction; accepted by most astronomers as confirmation of the BB.
Notably, you do not attempt to pass that measurement off as being or having been a 'prediction'. Good for you.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your self-answering question of 'Nope', is preceded by a question of whether I've done FRW metrics, which you know I haven't done. It does not disqualify the points I made in the context they occur in. ”
AN:
You make claims about GR while admiting you don't know any GR.
Kai:
Operative words - "you don't know any". Fact: I know quite a bit about GR.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Great brochure material, AlphaNumeric. Terrific flexing of muscles. Meanwhile, I'm having delusions that you haven't read the book that you're critiqueing. ”
You claimed I don't know about 4d space-time. That has nothig to do with reading your book, it's about my level of knowledge with regards to space-time. And by 'flexing my muscles' I demonstrate I have knowledge is said area. You admit you don't know any GR or even any geometry so you can hardly talk.
You try to disregard my knowledge because you know you can't make any claims of knowledge on any of these topics.
Kai:
Again, operative words, '...don't know any' and 'can't make any'. Moreover, you attempt to pass this off as something I admit. What I admit is that I have a learning handicap, esp. w' regard to mathematics. That does not mean I 'don't know any' and/or 'can't do any' of (FILL IN HERE).
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Yes. A black hole singularity is a static, non-expanding 3-D entity in a 4-dimensionally expanding universe, where the former entity gets as small and dense as the expanding 4-D universe becomes large and tenuous around it; squared. ”
Arm waving. Nothing you just said can be tested or gives any quantitative predictions or is derived rigorously from basic postulates. You simply make up claims, like q_w. The Schwarzchild metric in GR is the metric which describes the space-time around the Earth. It's tested everyday through the use of GPS navigation. Experimental justification. Where's yours? You can't say the Kerr metric is just an assumption or unjustified and then pretend your unjustified assumptions are anything but.
Kai:
The R. Von Eotvos measurements cogent to establishing the identity of gravitational and inertial mass values is not any kind of 'unjustified assumption'. It's a null experiment that has since tested out inside the confines of a nanosecond. These results constitute empirical evidence that the frame of reference (coordinate system) is accelerating 'upward' to meet 'descending' test objects. It is the central axis of GR.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It is unlikely that you understand a word of that, because you've deprived yourself of the opportunity of knowing of it, whether it's to agree or disagree with it. You aren't qualified for either alternative. ”
AN:
Yet ore hypocrisy. You admit you can't do geometry and you don't know any mainstream stuff but you somehow think you're qualified to talk about it.
Kai:
Again, you say I admit to no ability to do geometry. I do some geometry, and, I learn from those who do. You go on to falsely proclaim that I 'don't know any mainstream stuff'. Not true. Won't call you a liar for this, will simply observe and note that you are (conspicuously) 'mistaken'.
AN:
I have published work in differential geometry applications to space-time, black hole physics and a degree and masters which involved courses like 'Black holes' (lectured by someone who had Hawking as his PhD supervisor and now works along side him) and somehow I'm 'unqualified'.
Kai:
You are not qualified to speak with authority of the contents of any book you haven't read. You have said many times that isn't true, but, it is.
AN:
You cannot call me 'unqualified' or 'uneducated' or 'inexperienced' with regards to any of these things without also calling yourself the same, since I have more qualifications, more experience and more education in these things than you. If I'm wrong about this please outline your qualifications, education and experience. Reading pop science books and using Google is not included.
Kai:
Is Ideas & Opinions by AE a 'pop science' book - the second half of which is 'Contributions to Science'? Is The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein and Infeld, a 'pop science' book? Are all of the accurate informations available via Google disqualified as source references? This is to say, I cannot agree with the restrictions you have placed on where information comes from.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
A lot of physicists have taken notice. ”
AN:
Its just they don't mention it, don't buy your books and do nothing based on your work. You are making a totally baseless claim.
Kai:
In saying 'they don't mention it', I guess you mean they aren't publishing anything about it that accredits me for any of their inspiration. In saying they 'don't buy your books', You'd have to poll the physics professors in Berkeley Campus' Physics habitue - The Birge Building; although it's been sold out of print in Berkeley (repeatedly) for decades. Yours is the baseless claim.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
and what it establishes is being increasingly encountered. ”
And how are you measuring this 'increase'? No one cites your work, no one builds on your work, no one does anything on your work. An increase of zero from zero to zero is still zero.
Kai:
When I first learned of LCDM, the lettering was projected, just as you see it here. I asked 'What's LCDM?' They told me and then added in a huff: 'You say you know about physics and you don't know what LCDM is?' This is how I learned that the expanding universe was being explained by Einstein's application to so called 'Dark Matter'. I predicted the reinstatement of E's CC. There isn't a way of knowing what scientists were 'influenced' by my work, or when.
Moreover, you may be happy to learn, the first two editions were published by a comic book company - although they weren't comic books, they were in a staple back comic book format. If any physicists were influenced by it (since it was all over Berkeley - including the Campus bookstore, as welll as those on Telegraph Ave.), it isn't likely they're in a hurry to accredit me with whatever they may indeed have gleaned from it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I have repeatedly backed up many claims, you repeatedly 'scroll past', and/or deny them. ”
AN:
Provide the page references in your book where you construct, from basic postulates in a rigorous manner, a model of a particular phenomenon, make predictions, compare them with experiment and find you have a working experimentally justified model of said phenomenon. Neither you nor q_w have anything like that yet you claim to have experimentally consistent or justifiable results.
Kai:
Referencing the Total Field Theory thread:
Page 25, Post 245 (Partial auto-bio w' cogent physics info).
Page 5, Post 43 (Cubism myth)
Post 110 - thematic condensation of book.
Posts 141 & 142 'no quantitative model for string theory' - proclaimed by AlphaNumeric.
Post 138 - 'Quantitative models derived from Nature'.
Post 147 p. 15 - "Black holes are not controversial in the science community" - AlphaNumeric
AN:
Both of you whine about how string theory doesn't have any predictions (so you claim) but it describes a hell of a lot more than either of your two's work.
Kai:
How you do carry on sometimes, sir.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Since this thread started I have included 'Arguments against BBT' via Google. ”
AN:
So you don't like the BBT so you Googled and just posted any link you could find. You didn't check the claims, you didn't evaluate it's author's knowledge, you just parroted it back to us. If you knew any of the mainstream cosmology you denounce so much you'd see that the claims of the link you originally provided are either lies or in error.
Kai:
The link at the beginning of this thread is in fact flawed. You - and several others - made that clear. I have learned to be more discriminating about what I link the reader to. Meanwhile, I have also included the suggestion that arguments against the BBT are accessible via Google; user discretion is of course advised, while the qualified information is there.
AN:
I explicitly explained this for the neutrino mass section and you didn't retort what I said.
Kai:
Point taken, sir.
AN:
I don't deny that there are questions the BBT currently doesn't answer but that doesn't mean any and all made up complaints about it are true.
Kai:
Also agreed.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Draw your own conclusions. ”
AN:
Take your own advice! I read papers and then think "Do I agree with this? Does the author support his case?". You have made up your mind and then just parrot other people's views because you haven't bothered to actually look at the evidence or the theory yourself.
Kai:
'Just parrot other people's views'... There are times when I use the views of 'other people' (in particular) to establish and authenticate whatever points I happen to be demonstrating at the time.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
There is no precedent for the model presented in the issued work. You base your rejections on what you haven't given yourself the opportunity to qualify. ”
AN:
You claim to mathematically disprove the notion of point particles. You admit you can't do mathematics. See any problem with those two claims? I didn't even have to read your book!
Kai:
Fundamental geometry does not recognize a geometric point as occupyin any space at all. same thing with a straight line and a plane.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Heard these harsh allegations before, in Total Field Theory thread. ”
AN:
So the fact you've lied or misrepresented things before means I shouldn't mention it again?
Kai:
"Lied". One of your favored allegations. Not gonna grace that with a counterpoint any more than I already have. You're proclivity to reiterate your redundancies is a matter of thread record here, and especially on Total Field Theory.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
What's illogical about that? ”
AN:
You claim to mathematically disprove the notion of point particles. You admit you can't do mathematics. See any problem with those two claims?
Kai:
Refer above.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You certainly do gamble a lot against a source of information you've not read. ”
AN:
I haven't read 99.99999% of material written in books, so?
Kai:
That is a truly and undeniably large number of books you haven't read, whereas, presently, there's only one of them we're talking about.
AN:
It would appear you haven't read ANY research paper, journal, textbook or lecture notes from any area of physics pertaining to your claims. Those talk about models which have experimental justification, which provide experimental data to be explained, which provide methods, approaches and ideas you have never considered. So once again you're being a hypocrite if you claim I'm 'gambling' because I haven't read your work. I have read your posts and I find them fill of mistakes, lies, contradictions and nonsense. I have no reason to think your book will be any different. I ask you a direct question like "Provide a single phenomenon you can accurately model" and you can't answer. Why should I trawl through your book to find something you can't point me to? I don't believe the answer is in your book so I am not going to waste my time. Don't get me wrong, I read textbooks for fun, often material outside of my area of research, so its not like I'm not interested in expanding my horizons. It's just that nothing you've said gives me any reason to think my time would be spent well reading your book, just like I don't read 'Christian Science' books on intelligent design.
Kai:
"Mistakes, lies, contradictions and nonsense."
Well, 'mistakes' is right about that, anyway. Otherwise that's simply a windy, if familiar assemblage and index of previously discoursed repetitions.
Giving you the last word (as before, in the Total Field Theory thread); while qualifying again that it is ponderously repetitious, and, the latest edition of my book was sold out many years ago. Of course it is posted on the net so that I can talk it over with whomever wishes to subject it. I often learn that way, though it is difficult to learn from people who precede the reading of my book with their own - however formally established - 'belief systems'. As for my 'posts make it clear that you are very ignorant of science, you make claims you can't back up and you have the tendency to just parrot people'; that's an impressively mixed bag of allegations, we may agree on that.
AN:
If your purpose on this forum is to get people to read your book then your posts work against you because they make it clear that you are very ignorant of science, you make claims you can't back up and you have the tendency to just parrot people who you agree with without checking the accuracy of their comments. Two idiots agreeing doesn't make them right.
Post Script:
Total Field Theory is intermittantly on and off line due to reparations of the 'Articles' section, by the host. It looks like it's beginning to stabalize in terms of being on line more often than off, the url is:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
Last edited: