Is Gravity Caused by the Motion of Particles in the Fabric of Space?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I have never seen chroot insult someone for mere disagreement. Care to back up this statement? (Keep in mind that this entails not only finding a time chroot insulted someone, but also demonstrating that the reason for the insult was mere disagreement)

No. I am not going to waste my time on that...well ok.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3617&highlight=idiot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AndersHermansson
If the same side of the moon is always facing Earth then it is not rotating around it's own axis at all. According to GR, the moon is following a "straight path" around the Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're an idiot.

- Warren

-------------------------------

apparently "idiot" was not the word he used for me, but this one example proves my point.

All of which does not make it wrong. In any case, you seem to refuse to consider this possibility at the present, which was the point of my comment.

Well I have seen a better model. What can I say?

 

[Hurkyl]

You've found an example of Chroot calling someone an idiot. Please continue.

Well I have seen a better model. What can I say?

Do you consider the possibility that you are incorrect and you have not seen a better model?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You've found an example of Chroot calling someone an idiot. Please continue.

I have reached the end of that insipid quest...

Do you consider the possibility that you are incorrect and you have not seen a better model?

Yes. I know that I am incorrect as are all humans. I do not seriously consider the possibility that the standard model is more correct than Sorce Theory, however. The degree of the difference in efficiency, comprehensivity and causality is too great to make such a consideration worthwhile.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You've found an example of Chroot calling someone an idiot. Please continue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AndersHermansson
If the same side of the moon is always facing Earth then it is not rotating around it's own axis at all. According to GR, the moon is following a "straight path" around the Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're an idiot.

- Warren

-------------------------------

The reason Warren insulted AndersHermansson was because Warren thought Anders' question was beneath Warren's intelligence. This, to me, is MUCH worse than a mere disagreement. It is an egomaniacal abuse of knowledge. ALL questions are valid! This is a place where we can learn from each other not a place to display superiority through base insults.

Anders' question was actually quite insightfull if you really look at it. According to the straight geodesic path of the moon wrt earth, as described by GR, the moon actually is NOT rotating!

Ok call me an idiot too. I am used to it!

 

[Hurkyl]

The degree of the difference in efficiency, comprehensivity and causality is too great to make such a consideration worthwhile.

So you refuse to properly learn a subject because it's clear it's not worth your time?

The reason Warren insulted AndersHermansson was because Warren thought Anders' question was beneath Warren's intelligence. This, to me, is MUCH worse than a mere disagreement. It is an egomaniacal abuse of knowledge. ALL questions are valid! This is a place where we can learn from each other not a place to display superiority through base insults.

Anders' question was actually quite insightfull if you really look at it. According to the straight geodesic path of the moon wrt earth, as described by GR, the moon actually is NOT rotating!

Ok call me an idiot too. I am used to it!

Yet further proving our theory that you don't understand noneuclidean geometry!


(a) Anders did not ask a question.
(b) Anders displayed a lack of understanding of general relativity.
(c) Anders bluntly contradicted a previously posted, well-presented description of the phenomenon in question complete with links.

IOW, chroot did not insult merely because of disagreement. (I'm not justifying the act of insulting another, merely pointout out that there is some substance to the accusation)


Since you've fallen prey to the same mistake, allow me to explain. Particles of the moon are not in free-fall; intermolecular (non-gravitational!) forces are acting between particles of the moon, holding it in a moon shape despite the tidal forces generated by the earth. If the moon was truly moving in a geodesic path, the particles of the moon nearest to the Earth would be revolving faster than those furthest from the moon and it would have been torn apart millenia ago to form a ring.

Secondly, the term "rotating" requires a frame of reference in which to observe the rotation. From a reference frame of an observer on the Earth who is constantly moving to be directly underneath the moon, the moon would not be rotating. Same in the reference frame of an observer on the moon... but in most reference frames (including the "natural" one of the stationary Earth observer) the moon is indeed rotating.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So you refuse to properly learn a subject because it's clear it's not worth your time?

I am a physics major at the local University, BTW.

Yet further proving our theory that you don't understand noneuclidean geometry!

nope. just that I am free to understand it as i wish.

(a) Anders did not ask a question.
(b) Anders displayed a lack of understanding of general relativity.
(c) Anders bluntly contradicted a previously posted, well-presented description of the phenomenon in question complete with links.

IOW, chroot did not insult merely because of disagreement. (I'm not justifying the act of insulting another, merely pointout out that there is some substance to the accusation)

An insult is an insult and one out of a need to display superiority is worse than one out of disagreement.

Secondly, the term "rotating" requires a frame of reference in which to observe the rotation. From a reference frame of an observer on the Earth who is constantly moving to be directly underneath the moon, the moon would not be rotating.

EXACTLY! That is basically what Anders and I were saying. Rotation is relative to the frame of reference. [ according to relativity anyway ]

Same in the reference frame of an observer on the moon... but in most reference frames (including the "natural" one of the stationary Earth observer) the moon is indeed rotating.

To say that there is a natural or preferred frame of reference is to contradict Einstein's Relativity. It is Natural to want to contradict a theory which is incorrect, however. You cannot be blamed for that.

 

[chroot]

Rotation, like all accelerations, is not relative. You can build a rotation-o-meter and see how fast the Earth is rotating from within your locked, windowless laboratory.

- Warren

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by ofikn
Quote:
This is false. SOME PEOPLE DO CARE WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY, including Newton who tried long and hard to find it, and failed, as proven by his private papers which were studied by his biographers, particularly Richard Westfall.

RESPONSE:
That it true, he did look for it for a while, but then the light bulb went on and he said the EMPIRICAL result is good enough! Newton sat on his writings for you know how many years and refused to publish, as he could not find the why. Thank g_d that you know who caught him by the neck on his you know which birthday and said, "hey buddy either you publish or what's his name in Switz will" (since I am so ignorant on Newton I will let you fill in the missing bits).

QUOTE:
Your interpretation of science seems to be MATHS. You want to impose the view of Einstein until 1920 that "God is a mathematician".
RESPONSE:
No, it is _you_ who claim over and over again check the math, check my 16 points and so on and so on. Remember just as the drawing of an atom is a model to help students understand, and the flow of current as a drawing in a textbook is a MODEL, it is important to separate the PHYSICS from the MODEL. That is why so many people do not understand quantum physics, they can't get past the difference between the two. Math is only part of the system, there are physical conditions that have to relate to the system as well.

QUOTE:
This makes you think of science as a religion prejudiced in favour of a mathematical solution with no understandable interpretation. Your prejudice is then used to attempt to discredit other people. That such prejudice is manifested in teachers is diabolical, think of what prejudice has done throughout history.

RESPONSE:
Here again the paranoid response, When Whiley published his work on Fermat's theorem people said hokum, but they read the book, and asked for new proofs to different parts of it, and only after Whiley responded with the proofs was his proof accepted. The difference between his response and yours is gigantic. Yes I am prejudiced as to what I present. My religion of science is get it out there, let people present as much critism as they want, and refine the theory according to the responses. Only somebody who puts out a complete "dogma" which cannot be changed, is in my mind not science. I have printed out your article and most of my 12th graders are able to point out the epistimological mistakes. Perhaps in a later posting I will explain them to you. Again, if you fight about MODELS, then any MODEL, explains everything, so just find out in what physical systems the given equations work, and try to find under which conditions they WOULD NOT work (that is the fun part) and then try to modify them to explain.
Again I do not discredit work that is properly presented, as in the Milgrom article, even though in my gut I cannot believe that that is the way that the world works.
When I first read Guth's paper on Inflation I was amazed at convinced, basically because that there _were_ holes in the theory. A good scientist presents the FAULTS of his theory together with its good parts.


QUOTE:
However, you are interpretated to your weird view. I just hope that your students take your arrogant unproven assertions and ignorance of Newton with a large pinch of salt!

RESPONSE
I think you mean WORLD view and not WEIRD view. (and i think you mean entitled not interpreted) What held back science before G. and N. was the attempt to find a Primus Mobilus. I am so glad that you know all of my ignorance about Newton from one posting! How grand you must be that you can tell what I know and don't know!
As to "arrogant unproven assertions" I could think of other examples...

The trick here is that there is no such thing as "Proof" in physics, thus all of my statements are of course unproven. I take your statement as a compliment! Physics is the science of the unknown, once it becomes known, it becomes an engineering problem. The goal of physics is to come up with experiments or observations that can differentiate between two world systems. If two systems can not be differentiated by any known experiment, then they are both equally valid until then. It doesn't matter if gravity if push/pull/or imaginary. Until you can provide (as you try to do with the supernovae data) a compelling experiment or observational prediction then you will not be published.

I notice that, as with many people, you have chosen to argue with points on a personal level. I thought that I was very generous and would like to see your work published, as you may have some interesting results! What I am trying to convey to you is that you present them in a way that will make you unpopular. Read the Milgrom article, read the Multiverse article, or read any article in any refereed publication, (especially the clasics, such as Eugene Parker's 1966 article on solar corpuscular radiation, or Van-Allen's 1948 article on ...) Even Gallelio in the Simplico dialogues presents a demonstration but leaves the conclusion to the reader. As long as you refuse to play by the rules of the game, you will be stuck in an alternative Universe, and even if what you say is true, it will be ignored. Would it kill you to write a paper according to the contemporary standards? WHY were two of the three papers published in 1905 by Einstein adopted almost immediatly by those in the know? People do care about revolutionary theories, when they are presented in a standard form.
Please keep working on your theory, and keep posting here, I am interested to see where it is going from here. (finally remember the Lamb shift, and how that teeny tiny splitting changed history!)

Ofek
(P.S. you still haven't answered the rest of my questions, or solved the model vs reality debate, some words that Newton searched doesn't solve the problem)

No, Newton came up with the maths first, in 1665, and tried to find a cause AFTERWARDS.

Again, you keep to your Popperian philosophy that there is no such thing as proof in science, just disproof. The flaw in such philosophy is that it is a definition fun and games. If I say that the cause of gravity is proven, based on the Hubble expansion and the electromagnetic theory of the properties of the dielectric of the vacuum, I thus refute Popper.

Actually, Popper did a lot of interesting work in attacking the Bohr/Heisenberg nonsensical Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery".

If you think that the presentation of my paper can be improved by damping down the use of the word "proof" you are mistaken. See the PDF file attached to my webpage. Nature will not publish it until it becomes popular. It is a chicken-and-egg situation.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Rotation, like all accelerations, is not relative. You can build a rotation-o-meter and see how fast the Earth is rotating from within your locked, windowless laboratory.

- Warren

Thank you Warren for demonstrating that motion is absolutely relative to the local motions of the fluid medium.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Thank you Warren for demonstrating that motion is absolutely relative to the local motions of the fluid medium.

I thought you knew relativity? Your mistake that rotation is relative is a conceptual error. I thought you were very well educated on the concepts of relativity.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
I thought you knew relativity? Your mistake that rotation is relative is a conceptual error. I thought you were very well educated on the concepts of relativity.

- Warren

Yes but I get it confused with reality! That is my main problem with relativity! Oh well... There is no turning back...

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by yogi
To correct some of the posts - first both Newton and Einstein were deeply interested in gravitational cause - Newton said ... "but I have not been able to discover the cause, physical or metaphysical, occult or mechanical ..." So any effort to find an acceptable model should be looked upon with unbiased enthusiasm - but as pointed out in the posts - certain statements are red flags - and the transition from one type of mathematical physics (e.g., mechanical physics) to another (e.g., electromagneic factors) such as ohms, impedance and the like are going to require more than just assertions. There needs to be a rosetta stone - something which transforms the mechanical properties of mass, motion, and the like to permeability and permittivity - For those interested in an alternative derivation of G, take a look at the cartoon on page 16 of part I in http://cosmodynamics.com

I agree with the first part. AFTER Newton got the inverse square law of gravity, he then spend twenty years trying to find the cause, and failed. He failed because he had no access to modern astronomy, the recession of the distant clusters of galaxies. I believe Newton would have got the mechanism right, if he knew the speed of recession was proportional to distance. He wrote in one letter that ether (physical space) pressure might be the cause of gravity, but was unable to go further. When pushed finally into publishing by Halley, Newton had to fend off criticisms of lacking a proven mechanism. He did this by reverting to Aristotle's philosophy of "laws of nature", even though that was clearly a step back from science in pursuit of cause and effect mechanism. The same was repeated by Mach in regard to everything unseen, including atoms, and Mach's approach was popularised as the ridiculing of any interpretation of chemistry in terms of atoms, because at that time no body had seen, nor had any prospect of seeing (due to the wavelength of light) atoms.

However, ridiculing and holding back new developments is anti-science. If they are wrong, show they are wrong, don't behave like the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.

Now the second part, Yogi. You are undoubtedly aware of V = IR, ohm's law, where V is the electric field potential in volts, I the current in amps, and R is resistance in ohms. All matter is basically electrical, so electrical properties are directly effects of mass, charge, etc. The atom is a charged capacitor, with a positive part separated from a negative "shell". Resistance relates the potential to the current. Increasing resistance reduces current. It is a quantum-mechanical drag due to the binding of the outermost electrons in matter. While textbooks talk of "conduction electrons", the electrons involved in copper wire are the 4s electrons, which are just regular Schroedinger wave electrons. They are not special because they take part in conduction, nor are they "free" - they don't fall off the wire on to the floor due to gravity. They are tightly bound. Forget the "free electron" nonsense. A longer wire has more electron's resisting in proportion to length, so the resistance is measured in ohms/metre of wire.

Impediance is measured in just ohms. It is a geometric effect for multiple wires, but simply 377 ohms for a single wire (aerial). It is 377 ohms for an aerial in air regardless of the length of the aerial. It is due not to the number of electrons along the length of the aerial, but to the characteristics of physical space.

377 ohms is a measure of the inertia of electrons in space, the resistance to acceleration and deceleration. Energy is lost by accelerating charge as radio waves, emitted at right angles to the motion of the charge. If the charge oscillates back and forward, you get oscillating radiowaves. If the charge accelerates via circular spin type motion, you get radiation without oscillation, and this is the cause of electromagnetic force.

 

[ofikn]

Hello again!
I think that you are Nigel is so afraid of any form of criticism that he cannot see the forest for the trees.
His main claim is that :
"Until something is accepted it will not be published, a chicken and egg philosophy"

My claim, that he refuses to even deal with is that in the last 12 months I have shown 2 major articles in major scientific publications that are _NOT_ accepted by the general establishment, but still got published! Over the last 20 years I can find over 20 examples of very radical thinking that did get published, even though they go against the establishment theory. This proves that you can get published if you present your theories in a standard method.

The reason that you do not get published in "Nature", or any other major REFEREED journal is for the reasons stated in my first two posts.

Newton's theory was good enough to send a man to the moon, and probes to the edge of the solar system, even without a complete understanding of the mechanism.

There are at least three different world views that are not mutually exclusive. There is the religious world view, that is an all knowing being created the Earth 5800 years ago. According to this view any observations were put in by this being to confuse the true believer. This view is NOT disprovable, and thus your "proof" goes away as it is not able to deal with this world view. The second world view is the one made popular originally by Kant, and later by the Matrix set of movies. The world does not exist, we are just some sub program in a big computer. This is not either provable or disprovable. (I personally think that this is hooey, but as a toy problem leave it as is) Thus in this case as well your "proof" is no longer a proof. The third world view is that what we observe exists and is consistent with a general world view. You can debate Popperism until you are blue in the face, but until you understand that this you will not get published.
Every time I write that I am _NOT_ trying to attack you, I am trying to get you to change the _FORM_ of your paper to one that could be published.
You claim that there is a problem with the supernovae data, but nowhere in the pdf do you give the numbers, then you claim that your equations solves this discrepancy in the numbers, but you never show that part of the math. I believe you may you have solved that problem, but you do not present this data. Just sending me back for the 5th time to the pdf (which is on my desktop) will not get you published.

A potential title to a publishable paper:
A potential solution to the discrepancy between general relativity and the supernovae recession data.

An abstract:
According to measurements by ... and ... it can be shown that the quantity _____ is ______ where G.R. predicts it to be ... (with references of course) The equation ... derived in this paper shows that this can be repaired with the results of the calculation given as ... with a relative error of ... This set of equations is consistent with other measurements such as the Mossboher (sp) effect etc.

If the numbers check out then this will be published.

I suggested you read several historical articles. One of the best is the original Penzias and Wilson article. "Excess antenna temperature" of 3.5 ± 1.0 K at a wavelength of 7 cm" They made no claims at the time. Peebles article that was published back to back made some claims. Read the papers presented at this site http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kstanek.../Fall2002.html. Notice the titles.

I have feeling that you are so into you cocoon of self thinking that you cannot think outside the box, and just make some minor changes in the METHOD of presentation to be expected.

Why should I care if you get published or not? Either you are correct, and you have changed the world view, but because you are not willing to play the game you are getting lost in the chaff, or you are not correct, but your numbers are correct, and you will get credit for that part of your work.

Even though you did not respond to any of my specific charges, and decided to just personally attack me, I still believe that you can find the path to finding converts. In a refereed setting you will have to respond.

Also why do you quote entire posts, when you don't even intend to reply to most of the items in them?

I am not out to "flame" you or knock you down, and I hope that it didn't come out that way in my posts. You can disagree with my philosophy all you want, but it is still the accepted philosophy, you are asking the potential convert to do three things:
1) Discard his conventional philosophy of what science is. (see the papers referenced above)
2) Discard his/her philosophy as to gravity as a deformation of space with all of the results, and accept your philosophy as to the cause of gravity.
3) Accept your results without the data presented in scientific form.

You can ask me or the readers of this forum to do this, but I would suggest that you don't do that with the whole world. Start small, and correct then build up to your final theory.

Have a great weekend! I am off to sunnier climes for a few weeks, so keep up the good work, and maybe try to change just a little. (My shrink told me not to be confrontational you should try it!)

Ofek

 

[Hurkyl]

nope. just that I am free to understand it as i wish.

When one (such as myself) talks about "understanding" a subject, that typically entails being able to make correct conclusions within that subject.


Before you go off again on how great and super your interpretation of things is... if you are correct that you do have a greater understanding of the things noneuclidean geometry are used to describe, that does not mean you understand noneuclidean geometry.

An insult is an insult and one out of a need to display superiority is worse than one out of disagreement.

I'm curious how you inferred that? Is it not a reasonable conclusion that chroot is frusterated and annoyed with people spreading misinformation as if they are authorities on a subject?

EXACTLY! That is basically what Anders and I were saying. Rotation is relative to the frame of reference. [ according to relativity anyway ]

That is not what you were saying. Recall that geodesics are not relative; all coordinate charts agree on what the geodesics of space are. Your statement "According to the straight geodesic path of the moon wrt earth" is gibberish, not an insightful observation.

To say that there is a natural or preferred frame of reference is to contradict Einstein's Relativity. It is Natural to want to contradict a theory which is incorrect, however. You cannot be blamed for that.

If I was using "natural" in that context. This is another problem that arises from not having (properly) studied the subjects involved; you do not understand the contextual meaning behind words and you make the fallacy of the four terms.

"Natural" in this context meant I was referring to one of the typical coordinate charts chosen by astronomers to perform calculations; in particular I was referring to the geocentric chart whose coordinates are distance, azimuth, and altitude.

Rotation, like all accelerations, is not relative. You can build a rotation-o-meter and see how fast the Earth is rotating from within your locked, windowless laboratory.

When I said that rotation is relative, I meant in the fully diffeomorphic sense; we can always pick a coordinate chart so that the object in question is not rotating with respect to the coordinates.

Of course, any deviation from geodesic paths can be detected from inside a locked, windowless laboratory.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
When one (such as myself) talks about "understanding" a subject, that typically entails being able to make correct conclusions within that subject.

The problem is that I am not sticking within the bounds of relativity theory because they are incorrect wrt Sorce Theory. So if you wish, my "understanding" of Relativity has been "corrupted" by my understanding of Sorce Theory. So be it.

Before you go off again on how great and super your interpretation of things is... if you are correct that you do have a greater understanding of the things noneuclidean geometry are used to describe, that does not mean you understand noneuclidean geometry.

A geometry system is useful for the quantification of a system. Each mapping system has its pluses and minuses. The particular system employed is a choice depending on which properties one wishes to map.

I'm curious how you inferred that? Is it not a reasonable conclusion that chroot is frusterated and annoyed with people spreading misinformation as if they are authorities on a subject?

It was obvious especially considering the rest of the discussion. He is simply not the authority and thank God for that. All we need is a tyrant running around calling us idiots if we step out of line with what he feels is "reasonable".

That is not what you were saying. Recall that geodesics are not relative; all coordinate charts agree on what the geodesics of space are.

That is not true. From a cartesian system the "geodesics" are curved lines and NOT the straightest path.

Your statement "According to the straight geodesic path of the moon wrt earth" is gibberish, not an insightful observation.

Gibberish to you, but it makes perfect sense to my gibberized brain. It is only a straight line (geodesic) wrt the gaussian system mapping the g-field of the earth.

If I was using "natural" in that context. This is another problem that arises from not having (properly) studied the subjects involved; you do not understand the contextual meaning behind words and you make the fallacy of the four terms.

"Natural" in this context meant I was referring to one of the typical coordinate charts chosen by astronomers to perform calculations; in particular I was referring to the geocentric chart whose coordinates are distance, azimuth, and altitude.

excuses excuses...

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
That is not true. From a cartesian system the "geodesics" are curved lines and NOT the straightest path.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp* *pant*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp* *pant*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

- Warren

too obvious for you?

Relativity thinks that space has a preferred mapping system. This is false. Space does not have any mapping system. Our maps are completely arbitrary mental constructs.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
too obvious for you?

It's obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. How does a Cartesian coordinate system apply to, say, the manifold S²? Go on, tell me how it applies.

Relativity thinks that space has a preferred mapping system. This is false.

Of course it's false. You can use any coordinate system you'd like -- that's what charts are for. You do know what a chart is -------- don't you? This is the second time in a handful of posts that you've demonstrated ignorance of a concept about relativity -- a theory you've already claimed 10⁹ times to understand conceptually.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
It's obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. How does a Cartesian coordinate system apply to, say, the manifold S²? Go on, tell me how it applies.

You are so superior because you know esoteric mathematics. Too bad you don't know what the force of gravity actually is nor what the g-field is nor what all the other forces of nature are and how they are unified via a single causal system. To you these things are a mystery, or at best a paradox.

Of course it's false. You can use any coordinate system you'd like -- that's what charts are for. You do know what a chart is -------- don't you? This is the second time in a handful of posts that you've demonstrated ignorance of a concept about relativity -- a theory you've already claimed 10⁹ times to understand conceptually.

- Warren [/B]

get over yourself... I am not talking about relativity from within its confines. I am talking about Sorce Theory in contrast to relativity.

You are simply trying to discredit me based on the difference between Sorce Theory and Relativity theory. Yes I am not using Relativity "properly", but that is because it is erroneous and Sorce Theory does not need it.

Relativity says that space is curved. It is not. It is the maps of space that are curved.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The problem is that I am not sticking within the bounds of relativity theory because they are incorrect wrt Sorce Theory. So if you wish, my "understanding" of Relativity has been "corrupted" by my understanding of Sorce Theory. So be it.

You miss the point. The point (if I may, Hurkyl) was that you HAVE claimed to understand what relativity SAYS, and from that you know that relativity is wrong. But then you have demonstrated numerous times (no, I will not list them all again) that you do NOT even understand what relativity (among other things) SAYS. So if you don't understand what relativity says, how can you know it is wrong?

Btw, in this quote you seem to be acknowledging that at the very least you are misrepresenting Relativity (either on purpose, meaning you are a liar, or because you don't understand it):

Yes I am not using Relativity "properly"...

If you don't use it "properly" then how can you know that it is wrong when it is used "properly"?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You miss the point. The point (if I may, Hurkyl) was that you HAVE claimed to understand what relativity SAYS, and from that you know that relativity is wrong. But then you have demonstrated numerous times (no, I will not list them all again) that you do NOT even understand what relativity (among other things) SAYS. So if you don't understand what relativity says, how can you know it is wrong?

You see your system from the inside because you have nothing to compare it with. I see it from the outside because I know a different model. From the Sorce Theory perspective Relativistic interpretations are useless and they only get in the way of correct understanding. I do not claim to understand Relativity in its entirety nor nearly as well as you people who need it to "understand" and quantify reality. It is simply superfluous to me, thus I do not need to know its details.

The only motivation for me to study relativity is to debate it's uselessness. This is simply not motivation enough (as of yet) to get into the details of this useless system. I can refer you to Sorce Theory arguments, of which I obviously am not the author, which demonstrate the uselessness of Relativity theory if you wish. [ see : http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm ] Otherwise I do not care to debate it.

The fact is that I do have a quite peculiar knowledge of Relativity theory as it is "tainted" with my knowledge of its irrelevance and the system which supercedes it via Sorce Theory. My knowledge is a more global and historical knowledge and it is what it is. You have established that it is quite different from your knowledge of it, but the theory is useless to me. So be it.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
You are so superior because you know esoteric mathematics... get over yourself... You are simply trying to discredit me... Yes I am not using Relativity "properly"

Beware the cornered wolverine -- he nips!

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
If you don't use it "properly" then how can you know that it is wrong when it is used "properly"?

It is not wrong when used properly. It is wrong wrt reality, but quite self consistent so long as you don't ask the forbidden questions.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am not talking about relativity from within its confines.

We are all quite aware of this. We are trying to make you aware that this implies that your "understanding" of relativity is an understanding of a strawman (aka cartoon theory), not an understanding of relativity.

It's easy to prove any theory incorrect if I'm allowed to impose external restrictions.

You are simply trying to discredit me based on the difference between Sorce Theory and Relativity theory.

You have been discredited based solely on your lack of understanding of relativity.

The difference between Sorce Theory and General Relativity is only indirectly related; you have boxed your mind into the Sorce Theory paradigm and that seems to be what is preventing you from understanding relativity... but the discreditation is based solely on your lack of understanding of relativity.


Given the circumstances, it seems awfully strange to say this, but you need to learn to think outside of your box.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Beware the cornered wolverine -- he nips!

- Warren

grow up

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
We are all quite aware of this. We are trying to make you aware that this implies that your "understanding" of relativity is an understanding of a strawman (aka cartoon theory), not an understanding of relativity.

I am not offering my own proofs that relativity is incorrect so discredit my knowledge of relativity all you want. It is irrelevant to Sorce Theory.

It's easy to prove any theory incorrect if I'm allowed to impose external restrictions.

Dispite the errors in Relativity, there is simply a replacement that works better.

You have been discredited based solely on your lack of understanding of relativity.

Good. Now you can safely ignore me. Go your own way and get off my back. You Relativity experts.

The difference between Sorce Theory and General Relativity is only indirectly related; you have boxed your mind into the Sorce Theory paradigm and that seems to be what is preventing you from understanding relativity...

If only you knew just how funny that really is!

Relativity has replaced reality! Good for you.

Given the circumstances, it seems awfully strange to say this, but you need to learn to think outside of your box. [/B]

yeah ok. thanks for that advice mr. expert.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Good. Now you can safely ignore me. Go your own way and get off my back. You Relativity experts.

Why don't you get off our backs, you goddamned uneducated, whiny crackpot? You're the one posting 30+ times a day about how relativity is wrong, and you'd like us to get off your back? You don't like to play fair? Hint: sulk elsewhere.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Why don't you get off our backs, you goddamned uneducated, whiny crackpot? You're the one posting 30+ times a day about how relativity is wrong, and you'd like us to get off your back? You don't like to play fair? Hint: sulk elsewhere.

- Warren

lol

chill dude... I am here to contribute an alternative theory. If you don't like it then ignore it. I am not ganging up on you. I am after-all one measly person. What have you got to be afraid of?

I was having a friendly discussion in this thread about an alternative theory of gravity when you came in here and assaulted me. Go harrass someone else.

BTW, my posts deal with a replacement for relativity. Relativity works within its sealed chamber but it does not correspond correctly to reality.

 

[Hurkyl]

If your goal is to promote Sorce Theory... and the question of relativity's correctness is irrelevant to Sorce Theory... then why do you spend so much time harping in the incorrectness of it?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
chill dude... I am here to contribute an alternative theory.

*ahem*

*clears throat*

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

THIS IS THE WRONG GODDAMN FORUM FOR PUSHING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY. ALTERNATIVE THEORIES ARE WELCOME ONLY IN THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM.

- Warren

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If your goal is to promote Sorce Theory... and the question of relativity's correctness is irrelevant to Sorce Theory... then why do you spend so much time harping in the incorrectness of it?

Most of my time is spent defending myself from attacks to my credibility. Otherwise I am simply offering a replacement.

Also, it is important for people to see the flaws in relativity in order to open their minds for a replacement. I realize that I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to convince the "experts", but I doubt anyone could be.

My purpose is to help those already on the path to a better theory. The people content with the standard model will never leave it.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
*ahem*

*clears throat*

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

THIS IS THE WRONG GODDAMN FORUM FOR PUSHING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY. ALTERNATIVE THEORIES ARE WELCOME ONLY IN THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM.

- Warren

This thread was ABOUT an alternative theory until you came here and attacked me and started filling it up with combatitive banter.

I did not start the thread, but it was just fine before you got here and started making a mess of things.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The people content with the standard model will never leave it.

The standard model is wrong, idiot. We all know the standard model is wrong. It must be replaced by a generalization which can include both QFT and GR as special cases. No one in their right mind thinks physics is "done," as you constantly seem to misunderstand.

Your goddamn "sorce theory" is just some hocus-pocus English prose thrown together to emulate scientific demeanor. It's horse****. It's worthless. It doesn't belong in this forum.

- Warren

 

[Hurkyl]

Most of my time is spent defending myself from attacks to my credibility. Otherwise I am simply offering a replacement.

If you weren't harping on the validity of mainstream physics, nobody would be questioning your credibility to talk about the validity of mainstream physics.

Also, it is important for people to see the flaws in relativity in order to open their minds for a replacement.

If the theory isn't good enough to stand on its own merit, then it isn't good enough to be a replacement.

 

[Arc_Central]

I did not start the thread, but it was just fine before you got here and started making a mess of things.

Aint that the truth!
You must realize Sub - My buddy Warren can't help himself.

Just ignore him - He will go away.

Or NOT!