Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 111
Like Tree41Likes

Thread: How I can tell I'm a crack pot

  1. #1 How I can tell I'm a crack pot 
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    For me there is the entertainment of watching the world, forward thinking based on what I see, anticipating, and recollecting.

    And there is physics and cosmology. That is the hobby, the mental entertainment, the learning tool that keeps my mind active. It is good. It is organized into what I call my current version of my so called model of the universe. I generally have it all in my head, and the past year or so of internet threads generally covers it fairly well, with update threads from time to time.

    I just had a guy tell me to forget it, its not meaningful physics, and I gave him a thoughtful response. He replied back, its not meaningful physics.

    I now ignore him, which I pretty much did anyway, because in the thoughtful response I was kind enough to explain why I shouldn't forget it.

    The science forums are like that after you have a lot of years spent learning physics and cosmology online. People who think you are ignorant and haven't done the learning underestimate how a person with average intelligence can build an interconnected understanding of physics and cosmology, and from that gain a personal perspective and appreciation of the finer underpinnings of nature.

    If they don't know what you have learned, or how you have connected those things in a platform of understanding from which to learn the next thing, they underestimate you. Then those of lower character flame and troll where ever your paths cross, thinking they are belittling you, when really you are immune to it and are only pursuing your own humble efforts to reach out and continue the learning via the most accessible method, the Internet.

    I hope some of you understand that perspective and maybe some of you will agree that it is sometimes the case.

    I can tell I'm a crackpot because people tell me I am. Other wise I wouldn't know it, lol.


    sigurdV and scheherazade like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Without a crack, how would the light get in?

    The majority of people become habituated to thinking and acting in the most acceptable manner that will gain for them that which they wish to achieve. It is far easier to go along with whatever the current thinking is on a topic than to actually invest one's own time and energy in critical thinking.

    The most oxymoronic thing about our species is that we love new experiences yet also hate to change our established ways of thinking and doing things, lol...







    A piece of a broken pot is called an ostrakon (plural ostraka), from an Ancient Greek word meaning 'a piece of a broken pot'.

    Origin of OSTRACIZE Greek ostrakizein to banish by voting with potsherds, from ostrakon shell, potsherd First Known Use: 1649

    I thought this bit of trivia regarding pottery might be of interest to you.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    I hope some of you understand that perspective and maybe some of you will agree that it is sometimes the case.

    Here's a suggestion, look up and research something that you want to know more about before asking questions or making statement to anyone. That is of course if you don't mind doing that for it would insure yourself that what you say does have a link that you can show to prove anything that you come up with.
    bogie likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Are you suggesting I change the title of the thread? For all I know, that means something dirty.

    But it is always nice to have a pseudonym, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    By all means no. I just point out that if you don't like being called a crackpot then there are ways, my suggestion, that you can change yourself IF YOU WANT TO.
    Neverfly likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Here's a suggestion, look up and research something that you want to know more about before asking questions or making statement to anyone. That is of course if you don't mind doing that for it would insure yourself that what you say does have a link that you can show to prove anything that you come up with.
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    By all means no. I just point out that if you don't like being called a crackpot then there are ways, my suggestion, that you can change yourself IF YOU WANT TO.
    Hi CT, Lol, the name change response was to Schez. But the advice about having a link to back up a post is excellent.

    Two things though, 1) The things I post about are mostly aspects of physics and cosmology that science does not have definitive answers for, so links are not always available, and 2) alas, once an ostracon, always a crackpot, lol.

    For example, what caused the big bang? You have to speculate. That is enough to qualify as a crackpot because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    scheherazade and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I did not realize that you were replying to me, bogie and I think your thread title is just fine.

    The origin of the word ostracize from the practice of voting on pieces of broken pot sherd (ostrakon) just gives a whole new dimension to the term 'crackpot'.

    The whole concept of a universe from nothing as long as the math works seems just as fruit bat loopy to me as the multi-universe concept. I quite prefer the take of my horse on the matter. According to my red mare, it is 'now' and it is always 'now'. Her take on yesterday? "Yesterday is no longer 'now'." As for tomorrow, "We will see when tomorrow is 'now'".

    Speaking of horses, I have some related matters to attend. Laters...
    bogie likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    So you think people who ask for evidence are trolls? This is sheer ignorance and to me cements your status as a "crackpot", the scientific method relies on evidence. Armchair speculation without evidence, logic or knowledge which seems to be your forte, is not science...
    Good point.

    Are you able to provide me with evidence that precedes the hypothetical 'Big Bang'?

    All is conjecture.

    Math is a contrivance of the human mind.

    The universe existed prior to our existence and it will in all probability continue after our existence.

    All of our theories are as writing on water and while our attempts to comprehend our origins set us apart from other species (excepting my red mare ), none of it makes a whit of difference. I recall asking a more learned one than any here (at another place and time) what it would mean for humanity if the Theory of Everything was ever discovered.

    His reply, "It won't change a damn thing in the day to day life of anyone."

    However, it is very nice of you to join us on this thread with the rubber walls and jackets with the arms that tie in the back. Now about my question...What came before the big bang?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    What came before the big bang?
    Since time began with the BB, the question is meaningless.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Lol, you know they say if you built it they would come. Don't hurt then now, Schez.
    Last edited by bogie; May 17th, 2013 at 08:16 PM.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    What came before the big bang?
    Since time began with the BB, the question is meaningless.
    Prove it.
    Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory
    This is an artist's concept of the Universe expansion, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the Universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development.


    While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions. Moreover, general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the would-be singularity.[94]
    Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

    • Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[95]
    • Big Bang lattice model states that the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang consists of an infinite lattice of fermions which is smeared over the fundamental domain so it has both rotational, translational, and gauge symmetry. The symmetry is the largest symmetry possible and hence the lowest entropy of any state.[96]
    • Brane cosmology models in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.[97][98][99][100]
    • Eternal inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[101][102]

    Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in either a much larger and older Universe, or in a multiverse.

    Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The big bang just happens to be the prevailing model or theory at present. It is far from 'a done deal.'

    Why don't you post some links instead of just vocalizing your opinion?

    The last material I read, not everyone even agrees on 'time'. There's a good starting point. Please provide your definition of 'time' and let's see if we can find a consensus.

    Speaking of time, I have to tend to the back yard physicist and get some sleep. I'll catch you up, somewhere up the trail.
    bogie likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Oh, these guys did not learn their lesson. I love to watch your work, Schez!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I've posted a link to this thread in the chat box, requesting proof that time began with the big bang. Have fun until I get back from work tonight.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The big bang just happens to be the prevailing model or theory at present. It is far from 'a done deal.
    That's correct. It just the best one we have now, and so that's what we work with. There's quite a bit of supportive evidence, and there's no other theory or hypothesis which provides any better predictions or answers.

    requesting proof that time began with the big bang
    Nothing in science is ever 'proved'.


    Please provide your definition of 'time' and let's see if we can find a consensus
    I like John Wheeler's definition, 'Time is what prevents everything from happening at once'.

    Time is the interval between events. Before the BB, there were no events.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    Oh, these guys did not learn their lesson. I love to watch your work, Schez!
    The only lesson we've seen here is that you are truly a crank. Not only don't you know anything about physics, but you are unable to even argue for your own nonsense.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    So you think people who ask for evidence are trolls? This is sheer ignorance and to me cements your status as a "crackpot", the scientific method relies on evidence. Armchair speculation without evidence, logic or knowledge which seems to be your forte, is not science...
    Strawman. You rephrase it into your own words and then respond to your own words. That is a common tactic of a troll. To be clear, if a person speculates, and than someone comes right out and calls them a crank, saying they have no evidence, then they are trolling. If they just ask for evidence, without the crank ad hominem, then they are not trolling. By that definition, you would be a troll if I remember your posts correctly.
    Last edited by bogie; May 17th, 2013 at 08:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    Oh, these guys did not learn their lesson. I love to watch your work, Schez!
    The only lesson we've seen here is that you are truly a crank. Not only don't you know anything about physics, but you are unable to even argue for your own nonsense.
    No, you were embarrassed by me and Schez, and you insist on following me around with you claims of "crankdom". I'm afraid you are taking your poor intuition that I know nothing, considering it evidence that I am a crank, and using it as an ad hominem. Strawman, to claims of crank, to ad hominem = trolling. I am going to report you the next time you do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    No, you were embarrassed by me and Schez


    A very weak grip on reality to boot.

    I'm afraid you are taking your poor intuition that I know nothing
    It's your own posts which have demonstrated that.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I've posted a link to this thread in the chat box, requesting proof that time began with the big bang. Have fun until I get back from work tonight.

    Of course there is no evidence of that. For discussion purposes, given the current theory, as interpreted by some, like the uninformed AlexG, time began with the big bang, but that is not part of BBT, it is implied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    So you think people who ask for evidence are trolls? This is sheer ignorance and to me cements your status as a "crackpot", the scientific method relies on evidence. Armchair speculation without evidence, logic or knowledge which seems to be your forte, is not science...
    I don't think bogie meant it the way you are taking it. But observation and evidence can only take you so far, after that all you have is speculation based on what you know. So when you want to talk about say what came before the BB or what's going on, on the other side of the event horizon, it's really all speculation for everybody. However, I would suggest that when one expresses an opinion, that it should clearly be labeled IMO or IMHO. Next, I don't think anybody should pick up a label of crackpot that follows him or her around. Each post should be judged on it's own merits from one thread to the next. If the new guy needs some help with how he's expressing himself on the forum. Give him some good advice on how he might say the same thing without appearing to be a crackpot.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    No, you were embarrassed by me and Schez


    A very weak grip on reality to boot.

    I'm afraid you are taking your poor intuition that I know nothing
    It's your own posts which have demonstrated that.
    That is obvious trolling because any independent party would see a great deal of knowledge in my posts. I have proven you wrong on other occasions and you are a very sad loser to retaliate by following me around and trolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    What came before the big bang?
    Since time began with the BB, the question is meaningless.
    I don't happen to believe that crap, and I know there's a lot of support being developed for there being something before the BB by many scientists. One could ask you where your proof is that time started with the BB.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    [QUOTE=AlexG;423248]

    Time is the interval between events. Before the BB, there were no events.
    That's pure speculation on your part. Since the BB happened there must have been events leading up to it. Just because we don't know what they were doesn't mean there were no events.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    So you think people who ask for evidence are trolls? This is sheer ignorance and to me cements your status as a "crackpot", the scientific method relies on evidence. Armchair speculation without evidence, logic or knowledge which seems to be your forte, is not science...
    I don't think bogie meant it the way you are taking it. But observation and evidence can only take you so far, after that all you have is speculation based on what you know. So when you want to talk about say what came before the BB or what's going on, on the other side of the event horizon, it's really all speculation for everybody. However, I would suggest that when one expresses an opinion, that it should clearly be labeled IMO or IMHO. Next, I don't think anybody should pick up a label of crackpot that follows him or her around. Each post should be judged on it's own merits from one thread to the next. If the new guy needs some help with how he's expressing himself on the forum. Give him some good advice on how he might say the same thing without appearing to be a crackpot.
    You are right, thank you for your opinion and for the good advice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    [QUOTE=Bad Robot;423260]
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post

    Time is the interval between events. Before the BB, there were no events.
    That's pure speculation on your part. Since the BB happened there must have been events leading up to it. Just because we don't know what they were doesn't mean there were no events.
    You are correct again, lol. BBT does not start at t=0, AlexG is mistaken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    BBT does not start at t=0, AlexG is mistaken.
    Your 'proof'?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    ...

    Speaking of horses, I have some related matters to attend. Laters...
    While you are at it, let us know if you come across any interesting wild life. Here is a video of some wild life (sorry, not in the wild any more) not far from my house: Love those cats. Big Cat Rescue, Tampa FL - YouTube
    Last edited by bogie; May 17th, 2013 at 11:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    If someone feels some unjustified bullying is taking place on the forum, I am in full support of one standing up against it.

    However, considering the criticism that Neverfly and I received many months back for doing the very same thing. Perceived by others as simply starting flame wars for sake of ego, I am shocked to see Scheherazade co-instigating a thread that seems to be doing nothing more than the very same thing she criticized us for. If bogie feels he is being wrongly persecuted that is one thing, and he should do what he can to vindicate himself. But it has been shown on this forum, and supported by direct criticism from scheherazade to neverfly and myself that to intentionally start threads in order to draw out those you are contentious with is to be unclassy, uncouth. It's always a disappointment to see someone who seems to know what is and isn't socially appropriate to violate her own declared rules. Seems scheherazade is no different than the rest of us after all.

    Good luck on your quest to start a fight thread.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    All is conjecture.

    Math is a contrivance of the human mind.

    The universe existed prior to our existence and it will in all probability continue after our existence.

    All of our theories are as writing on water and while our attempts to comprehend our origins set us apart from other species (excepting my red mare ), none of it makes a whit of difference. I recall asking a more learned one than any here (at another place and time) what it would mean for humanity if the Theory of Everything was ever discovered.

    His reply, "It won't change a damn thing in the day to day life of anyone."


    However, it is very nice of you to join us on this thread with the rubber walls and jackets with the arms that tie in the back. Now about my question...What came before the big bang?
    If this is what you think- why do you partake on science forums?
    Your friend is wrong. It makes a difference to me. I am one. And while I am one out of 7 billion, one is all it takes to say your friend is mistaken.

    I do not understand the purpose of this thread. Bogie- are you feeling picked on? You've been clear that what you were doing was not science an just arm chair speculation. While I support that you can do that- no one can deny that it did not follow the scientific method.

    Lambda CDM model does follow the scientific method. Both of you are behaving quite childishly, at this point and frankly, you should quit while you are ahead.

    If all you wanted to do was lash out at Phdemon and AlexG for being harsh, you should have just settled for saying, "You guys are harsh."
    This mad charade about pretending to operate scientifically is uncalled for.

    Now, Bogie, you and I go a ways back. I remember you talking about this topic back on BAUT- I remember telling you and Tom about "Responsible Speculation." That was years ago. And the only reason I've been friendly is because I've believed that you are not a Crank as you do not align to the standard definition of crank.

    Speculation, even when it's not scientific, is essential to science. It's the asking of "what if" or "What can I do to understand the world?"
    But speculation does not end at the conclusion of speculating. You must formulate a hypothesis and then conduct experiments, observation and testing to see how well your speculations match observation.
    Your 'pre-big bang' speculations do not follow the scientific method so if someone comes along and harshly says it is not science, he can do that.

    That you two have allowed your misconceptions and your emotions to cause this thread should be enough embarrassment for the both of you that you will step back, in your self righteousness, and really put some thought into what you're really trying to do.
    Think hard.
    You're not 'proving' ideas and you're not 'disproving ideas.'
    You're defending your ego.

    And doing so poorly.

    I would recommend that you abandon this thread and start a new thread in the "Forum Feedback" section or, alternatively, request Moderator and Administrator input on your complaints.
    Stay focused on what your actual complaint is. This tilting at windmills is only a sideshow.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    BBT does not start at t=0, AlexG is mistaken.
    Your 'proof'?
    I guess you didn't say BBT starts at t=0 after going back and looking closer. As for the earliest time in BBT, which I guess you did not claim was t=0, though there is the BBT with Inflation, and without, I think both include The Planck Epoch, the name given to the earliest ~10^-43 seconds if I recall correctly. Before 10^-43 there was a period when all of the forces were unified, so there was no universe for time to be ticking in. I think that the reason BBT does not describe time before 10^-43 is that there was a period of particle antiparticle annihilation which left a small amount of matter unannihilated, and after that the universe of BBT began. Google it because I'm sure I have it exactly right according to BBT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because I'm sure I have it exactly right according to BBT.
    As a laymens description, it's mostly accurate.
    But theory is a bit more involved than how you described it.
    In this case, you're correct- BBT does not start at t=0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because I'm sure I have it exactly right according to BBT.
    As a laymens description, it's mostly accurate.
    But theory is a bit more involved than how you described it.
    In this case, you're correct- BBT does not start at t=0.
    Thanks. You seem to like to play the role of mediator, and yet you "like" a lot of what PhDemon says about me. You don't see what he did in that post you "liked" to create a straw man? And then used the straw man to justify the ad hom? Why do I see you "liking" so many post of these flamers. Look around at the other forums, I don't know about this one, and see where AlexG has been infracted or banned for flaming and trolling.

    Is that the kind of people you want to be buddies with. I thought you were the level head, but I think you should be ashamed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    If someone feels some unjustified bullying is taking place on the forum, I am in full support of one standing up against it.

    However, considering the criticism that Neverfly and I received many months back for doing the very same thing. Perceived by others as simply starting flame wars for sake of ego, I am shocked to see Scheherazade co-instigating a thread that seems to be doing nothing more than the very same thing she criticized us for. If bogie feels he is being wrongly persecuted that is one thing, and he should do what he can to vindicate himself. But it has been shown on this forum, and supported by direct criticism from scheherazade to neverfly and myself that to intentionally start threads in order to draw out those you are contentious with is to be unclassy, uncouth. It's always a disappointment to see someone who seems to know what is and isn't socially appropriate to violate her own declared rules. Seems scheherazade is no different than the rest of us after all.

    Good luck on your quest to start a fight thread.
    I started the thread to make the point that the crackpot as homonyms with out any discussion or evidence is not just flaming, but trolling. I found it to be much worse here because people team up, flame and name call, and then "like" each others flames and ad homs until there is moderator action taken. The moderator of course makes his/her own decisions, but don't you think they would tip in favor of the squeaky wheels against a newcomer?

    As for your rant against Schez, I have know her for years and have never seen her instigate any such trouble. Could you be slanting your case against her?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    Thanks. You seem to like to play the role of mediator,
    Hardly.
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    and yet you "like" a lot of what PhDemon says about me. You don't see what he did in that post you "liked" to create a straw man? And then used the straw man to justify the ad hom? Why do I see you "liking" so many post of these flamers. Look around at the other forums, I don't know about this one, and see where AlexG has been infracted or banned for flaming and trolling.

    Is that the kind of people you want to be buddies with. I thought you were the level head, but I think you should be ashamed.
    Let's examine the full post:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    So you think people who ask for evidence are trolls?
    PhDemon is correct. Not only is it encouraged to ask for evidence, but one could even go so far as to say it is required.
    Now, Bogie, you were the one who brought up the issue of "trolling," here. So when he asked if you were saying that 'asking ofr evidence is trolling,' he was entirely within bounds.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    This is sheer ignorance and to me cements your status as a "crackpot", the scientific method relies on evidence.
    This statement is true. Evidence is required or what you're doing is not science. Since you have been very adamant up until now in saying that you're aware that you've not engaged in the scientific method, I'm surprised by your disagreement with what PhDemon said.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Armchair speculation without evidence, logic or knowledge which seems to be your forte, is not science...
    This is still mostly true. There is no evidence for your speculation. The questionable words are "logic, or knowledge" but I wasn't going to allow that one bit to detract from liking the post as a whole.

    Is your complaint that they are too harsh to you?
    Why not stick to that complaint instead of trying to "disprove" the BBT?

    Maybe on BAUT you could claim that it was an Ad Hom attack, but not so much on other forums. BAUT was Iron Fisted in its approach. An Ad Hom is when someone claims that your argument is wrong because of "attack on character."
    So, if I say, "Your argument is wrong because you're too stupid to formulate the correct argument" - that is Ad Hom.
    If I say, "Your argument is wrong because you failed to account for the established observations. Oh, and you're stupid." - that is not Ad Hom; it is an argument followed by a derisive opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    If someone feels some unjustified bullying is taking place on the forum, I am in full support of one standing up against it.

    However, considering the criticism that Neverfly and I received many months back for doing the very same thing. Perceived by others as simply starting flame wars for sake of ego, I am shocked to see Scheherazade co-instigating a thread that seems to be doing nothing more than the very same thing she criticized us for. If bogie feels he is being wrongly persecuted that is one thing, and he should do what he can to vindicate himself. But it has been shown on this forum, and supported by direct criticism from scheherazade to neverfly and myself that to intentionally start threads in order to draw out those you are contentious with is to be unclassy, uncouth. It's always a disappointment to see someone who seems to know what is and isn't socially appropriate to violate her own declared rules. Seems scheherazade is no different than the rest of us after all.

    Good luck on your quest to start a fight thread.
    I started the thread to make the point that the crackpot as homonyms with out any discussion or evidence is not just flaming, but trolling. I found it to be much worse here because people team up, flame and name call, and then "like" each others flames and ad homs until there is moderator action taken. The moderator of course makes his/her own decisions, but don't you think they would tip in favor of the squeaky wheels against a newcomer?
    I don't disagree that things like this take place. It's common and an unfortunate social norm. A norm that it seems everyone is a victim of at some point in their life. Any individual that finds themselves outside the collective agreement of things will be the victim of this norm. We grow thicker skins and deal with it. At least that is what many on here has suggested to others who complain as you, I , and many others have complained.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    As for your rant against Schez, I have know her for years and have never seen her instigate any such trouble. Could you be slanting your case against her?
    You weren't here. Some time back, Neverfly and I took up a stand against what we perceived as unfair bullying as you have here. Schez called us drama queens and said such drama was beneath her. She has barely spoken to either of us since then. I am only pointing out her hypocrisy. And the fact that all the respect and admiration I had for her previously is now gone, having shown that she too is as much a drama queen as anyone she has criticized for being so.

    As far as your complaints are concerned. I haven't witnessed you being called a crackpot but I don't tend to follow the cosmology and physics threads. I am not formally educated in those areas and would worry that any improperly analyzed observations I may make would make me look like a crackpot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    On topic:

    The thread in question is called, "My So Called Model" Under the "New Hypotheses and Ideas" sub-forum. It is not called the "New Theories" sub-forum.

    As such, I think that while asking for evidence or methods of testing are perfectly acceptable, it should be tempered by the nature of that title: it is a hypothesis and not a theory and as such; awaits testing. Demanding evidence at that point lest you be called a crank is not a fit. Otherwise every "String Theorist" out there would qualify as a crank hands down.
    Such discussion is good for science and for a science forum as it piques interest and allows for speculative discussions.

    I agree with Bogie that being too demanding and too harsh on that topic is not conducive.

    I disagree with Bogie and Scheherazade that the proper response is to "disprove" established theory or claim that established theory does not do any good at all and makes no difference whatsoever.

    AlexG is his own man and I will not bother. PhDemon, however, is more reasonable and if you can make a strong case, he's been directly observed on this forum to listen.
    I think, in my opinion, that PhDemon could stand to listen for the reasons I've listed above.

    However, I do not have "Crank-dar" whereas others seem to.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I found a rather interesting first chapter to another book before I retired for a short sleep. The following are excerpts. Gee, fellas, this crackpot author actually has published a textbook.

    Did Time Begin? Will Time End? Maybe the Big Bang Never Occurred

    By (author): Paul H Frampton (University of North Carolina, USA)

    Book Description Publication Date: September 16, 2009 | ISBN-10: 9814280585 | ISBN-13: 978-9814280587
    Although everyone is familiar with the concept of time in everyday life and has probably given thought to the question of how time began, latest scientific developments in this field have not been accessible in a simple understandable form. This book is important as it presents to readers current ideas about the role of time in theoretical cosmology. Recent observational discoveries, especially that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, have revolutionized the understanding of the energy content of the universe (only a small fraction of about four percent is normal matter; the remainder is about twenty-four percent dark matter and seventy-two percent dark energy). Thus the dark side of the universe, especially dark energy, leads to new possibilities for the beginning and end of the universe. This book emphasizes the notion of entropy and describes how it is theoretically possible that the universe may end in a finite time. Although this book does not provide definitive answers to the questions posed in the title, it provides 21st century scientific knowledge, written by a leading theoretical physicist, that will better enable an informed reader to discuss the nature of time.



    One may ask what happened before the Big Bang, if it did occur?
    This is beyond scientific investigation and it is easier to assume that
    time began then. Very ambitious and speculative theories discuss
    prior times using ideas such as T-duality in string theory or eternal
    inflation with its resultant multiverse. If such theories become testable
    and shed light on the physics of our universe, then they must be taken
    very seriously in a more general domain of applicability. At present,
    such ideas remain speculation.
    Another question which we shall address at length in this book
    is what will happen to the universe in the future? This is less well-
    understood than the past, and depends critically on the properties
    of the newly-discovered Dark Energy which comprises almost three
    quarters of the total energy density of the universe.

    DID TIME BEGIN? WILL TIME END? - Maybe the Big Bang Never Occurred

    © World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.


    http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/7393.html


    July 20, 2009 14:36 9in x 6in b799-ch01
    Why do Many Other Scientists Believe Time Began at a Big Bang? 17

    I find it more satisfactory to make a cosmological model where the
    density and temperature are never infinite.This precludes a Big Bang

    and replaces it with a different picture of time where time never begins

    and never ends. This is in contrast with the standard cosmological
    model where time begins at the Big Bang and never ends during an
    infinite future expansion.
    While I cannot prove rigorously that the conventional wisdom is
    wrong, it does entail the singularities and concomitant breakdown of
    general relativity that we have mentioned. The existence of plausible
    alternatives now, however, makes the Big Bang idea less plausible.
    As we shall show later in the book, there is an alternative version
    where time begins at a Big Bang and ends in a “Big Rip” at a finite
    time in the future. I regard this as preferable aesthetically to the
    conventional picture. But best of three possibilities about time is
    the “infinite in both directions, past and future” as exemplified by a
    cyclic model that my student and I constructed only in the twenty-
    first century based on the dark energy component. Observations of
    dark energy and its properties, especially its equation of state, will
    confirm or refute such more satisfactory ideas about time which
    insist there was never a Big Bang.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Scheherazade, if you were trying to make a point, going off the deep end doesn't seem the most effective way to go about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I did not realize that you were replying to me, bogie and I think your thread title is just fine.

    The origin of the word ostracize from the practice of voting on pieces of broken pot sherd (ostrakon) just gives a whole new dimension to the term 'crackpot'.

    The
    whole concept of a universe from nothing as long as the math works seems just as fruit bat loopy to me as the multi-universe concept. I quite prefer the take of my horse on the matter. According to my red mare, it is 'now' and it is always 'now'. Her take on yesterday? "Yesterday is no longer 'now'." As for tomorrow, "We will see when tomorrow is 'now'".

    Speaking of horses, I have some related matters to attend. Laters...
    Hi!
    Lover of Life!

    Lets define "nothing" since defining nothing is a contradiction...eh...
    Ok... ill begin by doing the impossible just to show:

    (1) nothing=

    DONE! there MUST be nothing to the right of "=" since "nothing" is on the left!
    By quoting both sides we get:

    (2) "nothing"=""

    And now we have it ...
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    because the argument against whatever cause you suggest is, you have no evidence, i.e. you are a crackpot to the trolls .
    So you think people who ask for evidence are trolls? This is sheer ignorance and to me cements your status as a "crackpot", the scientific method relies on evidence. Armchair speculation without evidence, logic or knowledge which seems to be your forte, is not science...
    The Scientific Method rested on experiment
    to disprove a proposed hypothesis.
    The last time Popper described it.

    There is a New Method?
    Using evidence to PROVE a hypothesis?
    Please provide a link to it! (Or describe it.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    since defining nothing is a contradiction.
    What nonsense.
    Words aren't reality.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    In the pursuit of the truth you come across people who don't want you to pursue the truth, they want to pursue the person who is pursuing the truth. The person who discovers science, asks questions, listens and does his or her own research as well, becomes a pursuer of the truth. Humbly, I have been one of those since the turn of the century, lol.

    If I took all of the Internet identities of the two or three real people in my forum life who have been my detractors, I know that the truth would show that among them by now they have used ten or more different identities across three or four forums and ten years, to follow and disrupt me and my threads. It isn't just me, but I am one of the targets.

    Two of those ten identities are posting here on this thread. I consider it possible that those two account for three or four more of the identities who have singled me out in other forums as a pursuer of the truth, and not one to automatically espouse mainstream views.

    The trigger for them may be as simple as to have be proven wrong in some small point of physics or cosmology, and I have shown tens of people to be wrong in there flaming claims of my ignorance. Me feeling is that the repeat detractors are from among those whom I have rightfully corrected, or haven't agreed with in some way that they twisted into an aggressiveness. If I knew all of their alter egos I would have a large bunch of the total people who love to disrupt my research and discover because they know it is cumulative.

    I have been presenting my so called model for discussion for many years and it has been subject to many corrections of flat out errors on my part. But my process of bottom up hypothesis building, using the famous known observations and experiments of the great names in history as my basis and departure point, is an evolving alternative so-called model. Now it has evolved to its current state, and it is very good IMHO. Almost no one has been able to show any internal inconsistency for the past year or so. No one has shown it to be inconsistent with any generally accepted scientific observations and data. My detractors hate how it is always improving and how it includes ideas that they can see are drawn from various aspects of the major theoretical physics of our day, general relativity and quantum physics, as well as the major alternative cosmologies. It has a quantum aspect and a macro aspect that work together, and so they can't find internal inconsistencies like you find between GR and QM.

    I am a simple layman science enthusiast, but I have a stick-to-itiveness that is hard to deny. Even that, which I call one of my good traits, is subject to disparagement by the detractors. "Why don't you quit your foolishness", "Why don't you realize your are a crank or a crackpot", "understanding physics is understanding the pages of equations", "we told you that idea is not true", "that idea is delusion", and many others, and yet those very naysayers cannot show what I have wrong.

    They like to refer to the pink unicorns as if my so called model was so fanciful that it compares to that fantasy, but fantasy is easy to recognize, and any fantasy in my model should be easy to point out. They don't point it out, they only imply that it is all fantasy or not what their pet theory says or that I am "not even wrong". I admit I am wrong, and I am wordy, but it takes a lot of words to set straighten out one small straw man, and one small misrepresentation of what I have said.

    Over in another forum I saw a post this morning from Cheezle that is probably one of his many IDs. It is a perfect example of many of the points I just made, and I will be glad to link anyone who wants to PM me if you need an example, but I seriously doubt if anyone of you think I am making it up.

    That said, and forgive me for being offensive, I am taking the hard experience of having a current thread about my so call model sent to the trash, and I am blaming the detractors who couldn't make a case but who could get the ear of an administrator. I do not expect an administrator to read that entire thread, and I don't say a moderator or administrator is wrong even if they don't read it, and I have no evidence to say any action was taken without adequately considered cause. My thread is in the trash. I can't very well start another thread about my so called model here at The Science Forum with out antagonizing everyone, and especially an administrator, and so I have to just lump it. I'm getting over it slowly, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I cannot believe what I just read.

    Really?!

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    In the pursuit of the truth you come across people who don't want you to pursue the truth, they want to pursue the person who is pursuing the truth. The person who discovers science, asks questions, listens and does his or her own research as well, becomes a pursuer of the truth. Humbly, I have been one of those since the turn of the century, lol.
    You were speculating about things in which the TRUTH™ is unknown!
    Unknown with a capital "P" Period.
    You just went full crank AFTER the guy that said your ideas were lacking in evidence went and admitted being too harsh and said he'd tone it down. Why didn't you just act like a grown man and accept it? No, you went full throttle B.S., instead.
    You have No Idea, not a freaking clue, what happened if anything happened before the Big Bang. Declaring now that you're searching for TRUTH™ is the biggest load of hooey, ever.
    No wonder your thread got trashed. It was trashed because you were pretending to speculate but in reality, you were promoting your ideas as TRUTH™.
    I have lost any sympathy for your complaints with this alone but no... no... you go even further.
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    If I took all of the Internet identities of the two or three real people in my forum life who have been my detractors, I know that the truth would show that among them by now they have used ten or more different identities across three or four forums and ten years, to follow and disrupt me and my threads. It isn't just me, but I am one of the targets.

    Two of those ten identities are posting here on this thread. I consider it possible that those two account for three or four more of the identities who have singled me out in other forums as a pursuer of the truth, and not one to automatically espouse mainstream views.
    Unless you have evidence of these so called stalkers who are switching identities in order to torment you across the interweb, I strongly suggest you drop the conspiracy 'theory' claim.
    Adding this to the full throttle crackpot TRUTHER™ tangent above and you get a strong case for heavier stuff than beer.
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    I am a simple layman science enthusiast, but I have a stick-to-itiveness that is hard to deny. Even that, which I call one of my good traits, is subject to disparagement by the detractors. "Why don't you quit your foolishness", "Why don't you realize your are a crank or a crackpot", "understanding physics is understanding the pages of equations", "we told you that idea is not true", "that idea is delusion", and many others, and yet those very naysayers cannot show what I have wrong.
    Because you went outside of the known universe with your claims. I supported you in speculation but I do not support you in such dishonest Crap as this.
    You are fully aware that you went outside of anything that can currently be tested, observed or measured.
    Acting, after the fact, like they cannot prove you wrong is crank behavior.

    And if you NOW want to say, "Golly gee willikers! Neverfly sure is harsh," you had it commin.'
    I went to bat for you and you turned right around and made a fool out of me for so doing.

    As the cranks always do when I defend them.
    Speculation is fine. Cranking it- is not.
    And you just cranked the hell out of it.
    Now consider, Bogie: If I defended and encouraged you on BAUT, defended and encouraged you on SciForums and defended you here, why would I suddenly turn around and chew you out now?
    Is it because I am bi-polar?
    Am I a stalker switching mental identities in order to torment you on the interweb?

    Or is it just possible that you really did go full throttle crank, just now?

    I'll give you a subtle hint: You went full throttle crank. Not the most subtle- but it seems subtle wouldn't work, anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    That said, and forgive me for being offensive,
    No, you stabbed me in the back for sticking up for you with this line of conspiracy laden TRUTHER™ whining and I will show you no mercy from here on out.

    You are not forgiven. You are an offense to science. You shoulda bucked up and taken your licks like a man.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    I can tell I'm a crackpot because people tell me I am. Other wise I wouldn't know it, lol.
    It's good that you know you are a crackpot, but it would be better to know why you are a crackpot. I don't think that will happen, though, based on my experience with other crackpots we've seen here. It's a kind of delusion that crackpots don't give up easily, especially if they've been at it for a very long time.

    Word salad. This is the hallmark of a crackpot. Crackpots really believe the words they throw around have some deep meaning, even if they can't explain it to someone else. With you, it's waves. Waves have a meaning in physics, and can be described mathematically. That's not how you are using the word. I don't think you have an inkling about the mathematical description of a wave. In fact you have an aversion to mathematics. Another sign of a crackpot.

    Models are used in science as an easier way of understanding some more complex or less visible process. In order for a model to be valid, there has to be a legitimate relationship - preferably a mathematical relationship - with the process that is being modeled. There's that word again - mathematics. Your model does not contain any features of a real science model. It's just based on word salad.

    The New Hypotheses and Ideas sub-forum is a funny kind of sub-forum. We don't expect to see any ground-breaking science being done there. It's a place to kick around ideas outside of mainstream science without the stigma of the pseudoscience label. It doesn't need to be as rigorous as the hard science forums. On the other hand, I don't like to see it being used for all-out full-bore crackpottery.
    tk421, AlexG, Neverfly and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    since defining nothing is a contradiction.
    What nonsense.
    Words aren't reality.
    You mean "this" is not real?
    OR: "What nonsense." is not real?
    Excuse me friend, but your words are real and youre nonsensical!

    Some words "REFERE" to objects like the word "word".
    Both word and object are REAL in this case, but in the case of "nothing"
    only the word is real since there is no object x such that: nothing=x

    If you find such an x please publish it in here!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    since defining nothing is a contradiction.
    What nonsense.
    Words aren't reality.
    You mean "this" is not real?
    OR: "What nonsense." is not real?
    Excuse me friend, but your words are real and youre nonsensical!

    Some words "REFERE" to objects like the word "word".
    Both word and object are REAL in this case, but in the case of "nothing"
    Keep trying.
    A word is a reference used by US to refer to something that does (or doesn't) exist.

    only the word is real since there is no object x such that: nothing=x
    If you find such an x please publish it in here!
    Nothing to do with what you posted: since defining nothing is a contradiction.
    A human defintion is not the actual reality.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    since defining nothing is a contradiction.
    What nonsense.
    Words aren't reality.
    You mean "this" is not real?
    OR: "What nonsense." is not real?
    Excuse me friend, but your words are real and youre nonsensical!

    Some words "REFERE" to objects like the word "word".
    Both word and object are REAL in this case, but in the case of "nothing"
    Keep trying.
    A word is a reference used by US to refer to something that does (or doesn't) exist.

    only the word is real since there is no object x such that: nothing=x
    If you find such an x please publish it in here!
    Nothing to do with what you posted: since defining nothing is a contradiction.
    A human defintion is not the actual reality.
    Ahaaa! You took me too literally: My point IS that for no x the expression "nothing=x" is true! Since nothing is allowed in the position of "x". NOT EVEN THIS IS TRUE: nothing=nothing.
    Since the words have no referential content! There IS nothing that is identical to something!
    So the LAW of IDENTITY is not broken. You see non existing objects ARE contradictory!

    Can you explain and give a good example of what you think this pseudointellectual expression
    means to you: Words aren't reality.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Ahaaa! You took me too literally
    No, I read what you wrote.

    My point IS that for no x the expression "nothing=x" is true! Since nothing is allowed in the position of "x". NOT EVEN THIS IS TRUE: nothing=nothing.

    Supposition.
    Wrong.
    Can you explain and give a good example of what you think this pseudointellectual expression means to you: Words aren't reality.
    It's quite simple - a word is a descriptor of actuality, not the actuality itself.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    It's quite simple - a word is a descriptor of actuality, not the actuality itself.
    Sorry you cant prove your belief!

    Or it is no problem for you to prove that the word "this" never is the reality it describes!

    Or that the sentence: "You now read these six words!" does not correctly describe itself?

    It is foolish to believe your God Alfred Korzybski because...

    The Map sometimes IS the territory!

    When you think of some word you MAY think of "word"
    but if you do then the object you think of is
    ,contrary to your statement, the reality it describes!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    For me there is the entertainment of watching the world, forward thinking based on what I see, anticipating, and recollecting.

    And there is physics and cosmology. That is the hobby, the mental entertainment, the learning tool that keeps my mind active. It is good. It is organized into what I call my current version of my so called model of the universe. I generally have it all in my head, and the past year or so of internet threads generally covers it fairly well, with update threads from time to time.

    I just had a guy tell me to forget it, its not meaningful physics, and I gave him a thoughtful response. He replied back, its not meaningful physics.

    I now ignore him, which I pretty much did anyway, because in the thoughtful response I was kind enough to explain why I shouldn't forget it.

    The science forums are like that after you have a lot of years spent learning physics and cosmology online. People who think you are ignorant and haven't done the learning underestimate how a person with average intelligence can build an interconnected understanding of physics and cosmology, and from that gain a personal perspective and appreciation of the finer underpinnings of nature.

    If they don't know what you have learned, or how you have connected those things in a platform of understanding from which to learn the next thing, they underestimate you. Then those of lower character flame and troll where ever your paths cross, thinking they are belittling you, when really you are immune to it and are only pursuing your own humble efforts to reach out and continue the learning via the most accessible method, the Internet.

    I hope some of you understand that perspective and maybe some of you will agree that it is sometimes the case.

    I can tell I'm a crackpot because people tell me I am. Other wise I wouldn't know it, lol.
    Hi bogie!
    Im very sorry if I disturb the piece in here.
    Hopefully you will not accuse ME of trolling?
    Im just a poor lonesome Logician
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Since Scheherazade brought attention to this thread through the chatbox, I will repeat my commentary to her here for the benefit of those readers that do not read the chatbox:
    [17-05, 20:07] scheherazade: The 'Dynamic Duo' has decided to join us on bogie's new 'Crackpot Thread' which is placed under 'General Discussion'. http://www.thescienceforum.com/gener...crack-pot.html I have requested a definition of time since it has been declared that time began with the big bang. I require proof of this statement.
    I responded to this:
    [18-05, 11:49] Neverfly: Requiring "proof" is a very unscientific statement and you know it. Now, if you want evidence, that can be provided:
    Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory
    First, read and understand the theory of Relativity.
    Then get a strong understanding of the Lambda CDM model ( You won't get a strong grasp using just wikipedia...) Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Now, other hypothesis, such as Branes, allow for "time" before "time" if you will. But these are hypotheses and not theories. When debating the validity of something, you must stand by that which is currently supported by the best evidence.
    Hypotheses without observational evidence do not qualify- nor does mindlessly and unscientifically spouting nor demanding proof.
    In short, you can demand "proof" until you are blue in the face with purple oozing out of your ears. You won't get any. Not now, not a million years from now.
    Evidence is based on current theory and remember that theory is something that is supported by observational or empirical evidence and not whimsy.
    Here is what you are going up against:
    Relativity, Lambda CDM model or BBT.
    If you want to claim that these do not provide evidence, then you must be claiming that the current theory is wrong.
    If so, you must provide a better theory that is supported by observational evidence and empirical evidence to replace current theory.

    The "proof," as they say, is in the puddin'. It is solidly contained in current theory. If you want to claim otherwise, you best be prepared to replace current theory and you better have your homework done. Stamping your feet and making demands that others do your work for you simply won't cut it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Not a single comment on the book by the following author? He is a physicist and he is questioning the Big Bang theory.

    Did Time Begin? Will Time End?

    Maybe the Big Bang Never Occurred By (author): Paul H Frampton (University of North Carolina, USA)

    Although everyone is familiar with the concept of time in everyday life and has probably given thought to the question of how time began, recent scientific developments in this field have not been accessible in a simple understandable form. This book is important as it presents to readers current ideas about the role of time in theoretical cosmology.
    Recent observational discoveries, especially that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, have revolutionized the understanding of the energy content of the universe. This development leads to new possibilities for the beginning and end of cosmological time. This book emphasizes the notion of entropy and describes how it is theoretically possible that the universe may end in a finite time or that time can cycle and never end.
    Provided here is twenty-first century scientific knowledge, written by one of the world's most eminent theoretical physicists, that will better enable the public to discuss further the fascinating idea of time. It is ideally suited also for young people considering a career in scientific research.
    Sample Chapter(s)
    Chapter 1: Why do Many Other Scientists Believe Time Began at a Big Bang? (92 KB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    That would be this Paul H Frampton

    CHAPEL HILL — A 68-year-old UNC-Chapel Hill physics professor with three degrees from Oxford University is being held in an Argentine prison on charges of trying to smuggle two kilograms of cocaine.Paul H. Frampton, who holds the title Louis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy, said in a telephone interview that he was arrested Jan. 23 at the airport in Buenos Aires after the drugs were found in his checked luggage en route to Raleigh-Durham International Airport.
    Frampton said he was confident that he would be exonerated and seemed less upset by the drug charges than of his treatment by the university, which he said had stopped his pay for reasons of petty academic jealousy.

    Read more here: CHAPEL HILL: Drug smuggler? Victim of scholar envy? UNC prof in Argentine jail | Crime | NewsObserver.com
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    LOL....that's excellent, AlexG. I guess we know where he found his inspiration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Not a single comment on the book by the following author? He is a physicist and he is questioning the Big Bang theory.
    What's your point? There's a neurologist that wrote a book declaring there is life after death, too.
    Does that physicist provide a better model or doesn't he?
    Hell, I question big bang theory. It doesn't mean diddly squat. ANYONE can question it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Not a single comment on the book by the following author? He is a physicist and he is questioning the Big Bang theory.

    Did Time Begin? Will Time End?

    Maybe the Big Bang Never Occurred By (author): Paul H Frampton (University of North Carolina, USA)

    Although everyone is familiar with the concept of time in everyday life and has probably given thought to the question of how time began, recent scientific developments in this field have not been accessible in a simple understandable form. This book is important as it presents to readers current ideas about the role of time in theoretical cosmology.
    Recent observational discoveries, especially that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, have revolutionized the understanding of the energy content of the universe. This development leads to new possibilities for the beginning and end of cosmological time. This book emphasizes the notion of entropy and describes how it is theoretically possible that the universe may end in a finite time or that time can cycle and never end.
    Provided here is twenty-first century scientific knowledge, written by one of the world's most eminent theoretical physicists, that will better enable the public to discuss further the fascinating idea of time. It is ideally suited also for young people considering a career in scientific research.
    Sample Chapter(s)
    Chapter 1: Why do Many Other Scientists Believe Time Began at a Big Bang? (92 KB)
    Hopefully you read it? Can you head line the bold part above? It might be of interest!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    What's your point?
    My point?

    I haven't been posting much here of late although I usually stop by to see what cosmic, Bad Robot, shlunka and a few others are up to. I had noticed that yourself and seagypsy had not been as active of late either and was concerned about her health after the incident in December. She has a good way of engaging the younger posters, many of whom seem to be absent as well. The end of winter in the northern hemisphere is finally in sight and I suppose folks are starting to be more active outdoors also.

    I know Bogie from a few forums and when I saw this thread, I dropped a few shards upon it mostly because it was too windy yesterday to do much outdoors. I find it very interesting that it is very difficult for our species to stay on topic...any topic...and the title of this thread was a curiosity to me, one which was interesting to observe.

    I had the luxury of 'time' on my hands...which reminds me that no one offered their definition of time for further discussion. Ah, well, no matter, I have many things in need of my attention.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I had the luxury of 'time' on my hands...
    Are you saying that the luxury of time on your hands means that you will go full throttle into crankhood? You were complete with oversize multicolored font- which I took to be intentional and not psychosomatic...
    Either way;
    -You demanded proof of an assertion (which is well founded in two current dominating mainstream theories.)
    -Responded to questions for evidence with attacks on mainstream theory (questioning it is fine- using it as a windmill to tilt at to avoid providing evidence is not)
    -Provided no material nor evidence for anything to show actual error in theory nor offered a better model
    -Pretty much just stirred the pot
    -Were as scientific as Pope Constantine.
    If you think I am being harsh- it is warranted by the machinations above. You didn't think it through. And while I note and appreciate your kind words for SeaGypsy and concern for her health, it is not relevant to the chewing out you received for going off the deep end.
    You're not alone in thinking Big Bang leaves much to be desired. Any astronomer would agree with you. That is not relevant as to whether or not it is the best supported model of our time. Only a valid replacement can assist in further understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    ...which reminds me that no one offered their definition of time for further discussion.
    I did- complete with two links to get you started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Hello sigurdV,

    The link in my post goes to the first chapter, 17 pages, which I found rather interesting. I have read Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book, The Grand Design, and find it rather humorous that the well known Stephen Hawking can take a walk on the wild side yet no one is calling him a crank, lol... Plenty of people do not agree with him on this one, calling it 'Popular Science', yet they are careful to call him on his work, but not put down the man personally.

    That is a very important distinction, IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Hello sigurdV,

    The link in my post goes to the first chapter, 17 pages, which I found rather interesting. I have read Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book, The Grand Design, and find it rather humorous that the well known Stephen Hawking can take a walk on the wild side yet no one is calling him a crank, lol... Plenty of people do not agree with him on this one, calling it 'Popular Science', yet they are careful to call him on his work, but not put down the man personally.

    That is a very important distinction, IMO.
    I will read them pages then! I noticed youre interested in defining time, and that you want personal opinions and the dummies around you wont deliver? You need brains for that. Here is my personal opinion:

    Theres two opposing schools: The static and the dynamic. Represented by Parmenides and Herakleitos.
    Modern examples are Minkowsky (Einstein.) and Henri Bergson.

    The static view thinks a straight line consisting of points is a good model of time. A point is before or after another and if two points are at they same time then they are the same point. The problem is that Reality IS not a completed thing. Theres more future to come so the line has a fixed beginning but an expanding end called "NOW". And theres no good way to modek it. Within the past momentsin the model you could alwas take a pencil and follow the line towards the last point but then the pen stops... theres nowhere to go! Still the picture of the past is clarifying things and the rule governing it is that segments and moments stay in place...
    The rule is simple: A=A.

    But against this simplicity the dynamic school claims (I propose) that A="A" . It is the law governing the present: Any moment, A ,becomes the next moment, "A" , Somehow they are ,not the same but, continuous: A ="A".
    Now three kinds of existence are possible:

    1 if A=A then A has static existence (is a thing)
    2 if A="A" then A has dynamic existence (is a segment/concept?)
    3 if A satisfies both equations then A is real.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Thank you for your input, sigurdV. My horse is of the opinion that it is always 'now', merely that some 'nows' include things that she enjoys while the others are just ordinary 'now'.

    The Three Minute Philosophy of Heraclitus & Parmenides covers a lot of detail in a very short interval.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    So your horse is now an expert in science. And you are somehow mind melding with the horse to know what it thinks or even that it thinks about complex concepts such as time.

    And to think I used to look up to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Enjoyable video, plus an added chuckle that I'm not sure if it was intended... or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    So your horse is now an expert in science. And you are somehow mind melding with the horse to know what it thinks or even that it thinks about complex concepts such as time.

    And to think I used to look up to you.
    Read the title of this thread....and please attack the content and not the posters.

    Glad to see you are your usual acerbic self, despite your lack of sleep and the tonsil issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Enjoyable video, plus an added chuckle that I'm not sure if it was intended... or not.
    It was sigurdV's reply that made me do a quick search and so I came upon the vid. There's a whole listing of them, something to enjoy on a rainy day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    <facepalm>

    Are you saying that the whole thing was an act in order to fulfill the title of the thread as humorous? Well, don't I feel kind of dumb now... That went sailing right over my head.
    Although, it does make me wonder then why you referred to the Dynamic Duo and specified certain members in the manner that you had...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Actually, my horse is considerably better at chess, is the standing joke at the chess forum. Regarding physics, she merely has the advantage of unbiased observation and perhaps animals have a more accurate perception of matters regarding the elemental forces. I enjoy observing how the horses react to new situations, changes in the weather and seasons etc. They were all downright cranky from tiptoeing around on a yard glazed in ice for several weeks with spring coming so late. They are creatures that enjoy movement and with the unsafe conditions, they could not run and play nor could I take them riding because of the unsafe footing.

    Horses 'frown' and get a stiff lip when they are displeased or concerned, very similar to human facial expressions and they pay attention to our body language, movements and tone of voice as well. It is really quite interesting how observant they are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    <facepalm>

    Are you saying that the whole thing was an act in order to fulfill the title of the thread as humorous? Well, don't I feel kind of dumb now... That went sailing right over my head.
    Although, it does make me wonder then why you referred to the Dynamic Duo and specified certain members in the manner that you had...
    A good show requires audience participation. This place has been just a tad dull of late and it also afforded an opportunity for all students of psychology.

    I think I called Bad Robot a badass or something of the kind to see if he might come out and play.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    OMG! This is so bad as to be absolutely hilarious.

    Leonard Nimoy...I will never be able to regard you in quite the same way after watching this... You're still my favorite Star Trek character but this has got to be serious 'character assassination' for a Vulcan, even a half-Vulcan?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    <facepalm>

    Are you saying that the whole thing was an act in order to fulfill the title of the thread as humorous? Well, don't I feel kind of dumb now... That went sailing right over my head.
    Although, it does make me wonder then why you referred to the Dynamic Duo and specified certain members in the manner that you had...
    A good show requires audience participation. This place has been just a tad dull of late and it also afforded an opportunity for all students of psychology.

    I think I called Bad Robot a badass or something of the kind to see if he might come out and play.
    I'm not buying it at all. I think it was simply an attempt to correct people and it failed and this was simply a convenient manner of back peddling.

    Unless she is of course also mocking and making fun of bogie who seemed to have a genuine concern and complaint. IMO that is the only way her sudden explanation makes any sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    So your horse is now an expert in science. And you are somehow mind melding with the horse to know what it thinks or even that it thinks about complex concepts such as time.

    And to think I used to look up to you.
    Read the title of this thread....and please attack the content and not the posters.

    Glad to see you are your usual acerbic self, despite your lack of sleep and the tonsil issue.
    I did attack the post. You stated what your horse thinks. AS if you actually know. And you stated your assumed horses thoughts as if they are evidence to support some scientific idea. That was attacking the content, not you. The last sentence was simply a statement that I USED to look up to you.

    I don't any more. Is that an insult to you? Do you have some psychological need for me to look up to you? Too bad, I see you as a mere equal now.

    Acerbic, despite my ill health. Wow, how many people do you know that are all rose petals and puppies when they are sick. Long term illness tends to wear down a persons ability to lay on thick the false pleasantries and fake friendliness. At least I am honest and not pretending to be nice and friendly.

    BTW, you also attacked me personally while neglecting to address what I actually stated in my post. Nice way to show an example of attacking the poster and not the content of the post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Heres the first part I object to:

    So whereas we can reach the Sun in twenty
    years at the speed of an airplane, to reach the nearest star in twenty
    years would require a two million times faster speed. A quick calculation shows that this takes six hundred miles per hour into thirty-five
    thousand miles per second. To put such a speed into perspective, the
    speed of light is about one hundred and eighty thousand miles per
    second. This means our imaginary airplane, suitably coverted as a
    spacecraft, must travel at one fifth of the speed of light just to reach
    the nearest star in twenty years.


    Here we see the limitations to any travel possibilities not only in
    our lifetime but what would seem to be forever. According to the
    theory of relativity, which there is no reason to doubt, nothing can
    travel faster than the speed of light. So even if the human lifetime
    is extended by medical advances to two hundred years or even a
    thousand years, it is impossible to travel during one lifetime to more
    than a few hundred times the distance to the nearest star.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    According to the
    theory of relativity, which there is no reason to doubt, nothing can
    travel faster than the speed of light
    Also according to the theory of relativity, time dilation at relativistic speeds would allow far greater distances to be traveled in less proper time.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    According to the
    theory of relativity, which there is no reason to doubt, nothing can
    travel faster than the speed of light
    Also according to the theory of relativity, time dilation at relativistic speeds would allow far greater distances to be traveled in less proper time.
    So why cant we get to Andromeda in a lifetime?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    According to the
    theory of relativity, which there is no reason to doubt, nothing can
    travel faster than the speed of light
    Also according to the theory of relativity, time dilation at relativistic speeds would allow far greater distances to be traveled in less proper time.
    So why cant we get to Andromeda in a lifetime?
    We can.

    At a constant 1 g acceleration, a ship would reach Andromeda in 28 years, ship time, reaching a relative velocity of 0.9999999999995305 c. That would take 2000002 years earth time.

    Here's a relativistic time and velocity calculator: http://mysite.verizon.net/res148h4j/..._starship.html
    sigurdV likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    This is not intended to be a challenge to time dilation or anything like that. It's just that I hear about how we can get going to such great speeds but I never hear any suggestions about how one would stop once they reach that speed. Even star trek seems to have overlooked brakes.

    I know very little when it comes to physics but isn't there some law of motion or something like that, that says objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless something of equal or greater energy disrupts that motion. I know I have the wording wrong, so I trust I'll be corrected.

    I'm not really expecting an answer, it more just something I found kinda funny. It seems being able to stop just seems to be a low priority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    It's just that I hear about how we can get going to such great speeds but I never hear any suggestions about how one would stop once they reach that speed
    You turn the ship around and thrust in the direction of motion. The velocity given in my post is the maximum velocity at midpoint turn around.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It's just that I hear about how we can get going to such great speeds but I never hear any suggestions about how one would stop once they reach that speed
    You turn the ship around and thrust in the direction of motion. The velocity given in my post is the maximum velocity at midpoint turn around.
    hmm sounds painful ... unless similar to jet engines where it seems the engines themselves are thrown into reverse rather than turning the body of the plane backwards. Is that what you meant?

    Still, sounds like a vicious case of whiplash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Judging from what I've read within this thread, thescienceforum can sometimes be a hostile environment for cranks.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It's just that I hear about how we can get going to such great speeds but I never hear any suggestions about how one would stop once they reach that speed
    You turn the ship around and thrust in the direction of motion. The velocity given in my post is the maximum velocity at midpoint turn around.
    hmm sounds painful ... unless similar to jet engines where it seems the engines themselves are thrown into reverse rather than turning the body of the plane backwards. Is that what you meant?

    Still, sounds like a vicious case of whiplash.
    I'm not sure what you mean.

    Jet engines are not thrown into reverse, they use thrust deflectors to channel the thrust forward.

    In our hypothetical space ship, we thrust for 1 g for 14 years (ship time), then we turn the ship 180 degrees and thrust at 1 g for another 14 years (ship time) arriving at Andromeda with a relative velocity of zero. Unless the captain is completely ham handed there's no whiplash, instead just a steady 1 gravity.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It's just that I hear about how we can get going to such great speeds but I never hear any suggestions about how one would stop once they reach that speed
    You turn the ship around and thrust in the direction of motion. The velocity given in my post is the maximum velocity at midpoint turn around.
    hmm sounds painful ... unless similar to jet engines where it seems the engines themselves are thrown into reverse rather than turning the body of the plane backwards. Is that what you meant?

    Still, sounds like a vicious case of whiplash.
    I'm not sure what you mean.

    Jet engines are not thrown into reverse, they use thrust deflectors to channel the thrust forward.

    In our hypothetical space ship, we thrust for 1 g for 14 years (ship time), then we turn the ship 180 degrees and thrust at 1 g for another 14 years (ship time) arriving at Andromeda with a relative velocity of zero. Unless the captain is completely ham handed there's no whiplash, instead just a steady 1 gravity.
    I usually sit in a wing seat when I fly somewhere and it seems like when we land, the engines on some planes I've been on seem to change position. where they would be blowing downward rather than towards the rear of hte plain. when the wing flaps come down. Maybe I am confused about what is happening. With my luck I've been on planes that were falling apart and didn't realize it.

    I was told on other planes that the turbines stop turning for a moment then reverse direction. Is this incorrect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Is this incorrect?
    Yes, it is incorrect. What you see is a curved metal shield which redirects the thrust coming out of the rear of the engine forward. That's the thrust deflector. Jet engines are not designed to run in reverse.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    This just crossed my radar on another forum and it seemed like it might fit in with the present discussion:

    In the "Star Trek" TV shows and films, the U.S.S. Enterprise's warp engine allows the ship to move faster than light, an ability that is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical."
    However, there's a loophole in Einstein's general theory of relativity that could allow a ship to traverse vast distances in less time than it would take light. The trick? It's not the starship that's moving — it's the space around it.
    In fact, scientists at NASA are right now working on the first practical field test toward proving the possibility of warp drives and faster-than-light travel. Maybe the warp drive in "Star Trek Into Darkness," the franchise's latest film opening this week, is possible after all. [Warp Drive: Can It Be Done? (Video)]
    Warp Speed, Scotty? Star Trek's FTL Drive May Actually Work | Space.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    According to the
    theory of relativity, which there is no reason to doubt, nothing can
    travel faster than the speed of light
    Also according to the theory of relativity, time dilation at relativistic speeds would allow far greater distances to be traveled in less proper time.
    So why cant we get to Andromeda in a lifetime?
    We can.

    At a constant 1 g acceleration, a ship would reach Andromeda in 28 years, ship time, reaching a relative velocity of 0.9999999999995305 c. That would take 2000002 years earth time.

    Here's a relativistic time and velocity calculator: Relativistic Star Ship
    Ahem...you surprised me! Very unusual event I assure you!
    I usually look upon you as an irritating mosquito...
    I now temporarily (?) changed my mind. Im open to facts: Thank you!

    Heres my suggestion:
    1 Build a sond designed to survive in the sun
    (except for pressure...youll see why soon.)
    It should have a surface hotter than its surroundings
    (Plasma for its hull?) except for its energy intake area...

    2 Collect LOTS of concentrated sunshine into a ray hot enough to
    burn any (ordinary) resistance out of its path and let the sond travel in it!
    It CAN accelerate ALL the time since it carries no fuel for its engine,
    because it travels within its fuel, and its path is cleared.

    PS: Isnt the calculation too optimistic since the same amount of spent energy
    will have a diminishing effect on acceleration as speed gets faster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Judging from what I've read within this thread, thescienceforum can sometimes be a hostile environment for cranks.
    Stimulating...shlunka...I think the word you are seeking is 'stimulating'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Is this incorrect?
    Yes, it is incorrect. What you see is a curved metal shield which redirects the thrust coming out of the rear of the engine forward. That's the thrust deflector. Jet engines are not designed to run in reverse.
    Well that's a relief. It was someone at the airport that told me this stuff. Granted I was pretty distracted by my own wanderings so I may not have been paying enough attention to what they said, but if I did hear them right, they should be taken out and beaten.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    This just crossed my radar on another forum and it seemed like it might fit in with the present discussion:

    In the "Star Trek" TV shows and films, the U.S.S. Enterprise's warp engine allows the ship to move faster than light, an ability that is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical."
    However, there's a loophole in Einstein's general theory of relativity that could allow a ship to traverse vast distances in less time than it would take light. The trick? It's not the starship that's moving — it's the space around it.
    In fact, scientists at NASA are right now working on the first practical field test toward proving the possibility of warp drives and faster-than-light travel. Maybe the warp drive in "Star Trek Into Darkness," the franchise's latest film opening this week, is possible after all. [Warp Drive: Can It Be Done? (Video)]
    Warp Speed, Scotty? Star Trek's FTL Drive May Actually Work | Space.com
    The Alcubierre Drive is completely hypothetical and would require both negative mass and negative energy, neither of which exist in our universe. Also, calculations based on the existence of negative energy have indicated that when the vehicle breaks the warp bubble, dropping out into normal space, the universe is destroyed. You get where you're going really fast, but when you get there, it isn't anymore.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    This just crossed my radar on another forum and it seemed like it might fit in with the present discussion:

    In the "Star Trek" TV shows and films, the U.S.S. Enterprise's warp engine allows the ship to move faster than light, an ability that is, as Spock would say, "highly illogical."
    However, there's a loophole in Einstein's general theory of relativity that could allow a ship to traverse vast distances in less time than it would take light. The trick? It's not the starship that's moving — it's the space around it.
    In fact, scientists at NASA are right now working on the first practical field test toward proving the possibility of warp drives and faster-than-light travel. Maybe the warp drive in "Star Trek Into Darkness," the franchise's latest film opening this week, is possible after all. [Warp Drive: Can It Be Done? (Video)]
    Warp Speed, Scotty? Star Trek's FTL Drive May Actually Work | Space.com
    The Alcubierre Drive is completely hypothetical and would require both negative mass and negative energy, neither of which exist in our universe. Also, calculations based on the existence of negative energy have indicated that when the vehicle breaks the warp bubble, dropping out into normal space, the universe is destroyed. You get where you're going really fast, but when you get there, it isn't anymore.
    lol the football/ring thing does remind me of vulcan ship design.

    Wow, this thread has really gone off topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    crackpots need to tell em original pot lovers that we can be just as good as original pots!
    But wait! how will cracked pots do a original pots job? Hmm, shrug, Some pickle we are in huh
    Last edited by Japith; May 19th, 2013 at 01:08 AM.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by bogie View Post
    The science forums are like that after you have a lot of years spent learning physics and cosmology online. People who think you are ignorant and haven't done the learning underestimate how a person with average intelligence can build an interconnected understanding of physics and cosmology, and from that gain a personal perspective and appreciation of the finer underpinnings of nature.
    The problem is that you are not building "an interconnected understanding of physics and cosmology" and gaining an "appreciation of the finer underpinnings of nature". All you are doing is creating your own erroneous and (I'm sorry) largely meaningless ideas based on whatever science you have learnt. It is pretty much impossible to tell from what you write how much science you have read about, much less understood.

    I can tell I'm a crackpot because people tell me I am. Other wise I wouldn't know it, lol.
    Sadly, that seems to be one of the defining symptoms of crackpottery: certainty that you are right and everyone who tries to explain why you are mistaken is either aggressive, a troll or has just failed to "understand".

    Ho hum. I guess I am on your ignore list anyway.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Speaking as a member and an observer, Strange, there is considerably more aggression and lack of professionalism on this forum than on some others.
    Many responders here do not offer constructive criticism, they merely default to name-calling.

    It is far easier to mock and criticize than it is to question and educate is my own hypothesis for this phenomenon.
    Strange, Boing3000 and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Interesting that you point that out Scheherazade, because you did the same thing in this thread, you couldn't refute the content of one of my posts and so called me acerbic. Oh the irony. see post #73

    There has also been a huge influx of cranks lately. Probably because they are being banned from other forums and flocking here.

    And Boing3000 has no room to complain considering he hasn't really offered anything of substance to the forum in a long while, he is attracted to conflict and then zeros in on it to inflame it beyond comprehension.

    Of course, cranks can always just put those who hurt their feelings on ignore.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I am directly making the point that it is our use of language that at times intentionally and at other times unintentionally contributes to the escalation of emotion on many threads.

    The impression for some observers is that this becomes a 'game' for some, to provoke in such a manner that they cannot be censured directly.

    'Emotions' may be subjective, yet there is considerable science behind the chemistry of how and why we act and react as we do.

    My observations are not offered as direct criticism against any individual poster or posters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    But doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical for a member to be complaining in a thread about how members call each other names while in the same thread, resorts to ad hom attacks herself?

    Not only that, you falsely accused me of attacking you rather than the content of one of your posts when it is plainly clear that I criticized the words of your post and not you personally.

    For someone who seems to feel justified in pointing fingers at "others" you'd think that person would be big enough to admit their own mistake and make some retractions rather than sweep it under the rug as if it didn't happen while continuing to complain about the practice when done by others.

    My observations are offered as direct criticism of one particular poster. I can't help it, I like to be honest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Speaking as a member and an observer, Strange, there is considerably more aggression and lack of professionalism on this forum than on some others.
    Many responders here do not offer constructive criticism, they merely default to name-calling.

    It is far easier to mock and criticize than it is to question and educate is my own hypothesis for this phenomenon.
    You have a point, but bogie could also do much better by making sure his ideas are clearly labeled as his opinion. Secondly, it would help his cause a bit if he could take a little time and demonstrate he does have an understanding of the accepted models of physics and the universe. While he's doing that, maybe he could get to know some of the regulars on this forum. If he can do that they will cut him some slack. Impatience will be his undoing. There are lots of science forums, but some clearly seem better than others and it doesn't seem wise to burn any bridges until you've found your happy place.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Interesting that you point that out Scheherazade, because you did the same thing in this thread, you couldn't refute the content of one of my posts and so called me acerbic. Oh the irony. see post #73
    For context, I direct observers to note the title of this thread and also posts #64, #70, #72 and now I see, post #97.

    Seagypsy seemingly dislikes me and likes to tout her honesty in such matters. She has also been dealing with health issues and medications by her own postings throughout this forum and for that reason I seldom reply to her personally.

    I neither like or dislike this poster.



    I admittedly do not understand her and therefore I frequently do not engage with her. I observe by the replies of several others on other threads that I am not the only one who finds her challenging to converse with.

    See posts #100, #102 and #104.
    Last edited by scheherazade; May 20th, 2013 at 05:01 PM. Reason: Edited to add content.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Speaking as a member and an observer, Strange, there is considerably more aggression and lack of professionalism on this forum than on some others.
    Many responders here do not offer constructive criticism, they merely default to name-calling.

    It is far easier to mock and criticize than it is to question and educate is my own hypothesis for this phenomenon.
    You have a point, but bogie could also do much better by making sure his ideas are clearly labeled as his opinion. Secondly, it would help his cause a bit if he could take a little time and demonstrate he does have an understanding of the accepted models of physics and the universe. While he's doing that, maybe he could get to know some of the regulars on this forum. If he can do that they will cut him some slack. Impatience will be his undoing. There are lots of science forums, but some clearly seem better than others and it doesn't seem wise to burn any bridges until you've found your happy place.
    Oh don't worry Scheherazade doesn't really support bogie, she was just joking around due to the title of the thread. Just mocking him for fun. She clarified this in posts #66 & 70.

    Unless of course she was doing the typical crank move of realizing she made a fool of her self so tried to play it off as if she was just kidding. And of course she is back in kidding mode again as she defends bogie and criticizes others. She really is good at playing the role isn't she. A real natural at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Speaking as a member and an observer, Strange, there is considerably more aggression and lack of professionalism on this forum than on some others.
    Many responders here do not offer constructive criticism, they merely default to name-calling.

    It is far easier to mock and criticize than it is to question and educate is my own hypothesis for this phenomenon.
    You have a point, but bogie could also do much better by making sure his ideas are clearly labeled as his opinion. Secondly, it would help his cause a bit if he could take a little time and demonstrate he does have an understanding of the accepted models of physics and the universe. While he's doing that, maybe he could get to know some of the regulars on this forum. If he can do that they will cut him some slack. Impatience will be his undoing. There are lots of science forums, but some clearly seem better than others and it doesn't seem wise to burn any bridges until you've found your happy place.
    You likewise make a good point, Bad Robot.

    My observation is that Bogie has posted his conceptual model on other forums and the reception and style of questioning has been considerably different. Other posters have asked questions of him without the threads becoming a total waste of anyone's time.

    Admittedly, not too many seem inclined to participate on some of his cosmology threads but I don't meet a lot of people in my own life who ponder such things in the detail that Bogie seems to contemplate. There can be a fine line between brilliance and lunacy where many things are concerned. Many of today's great historical scientists did not garner much attention in their time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,103
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Interesting that you point that out Scheherazade, because you did the same thing in this thread, you couldn't refute the content of one of my posts and so called me acerbic. Oh the irony. see post #73
    For context, I direct observers to note the title of this thread and also posts #64, #70, #72 and now I see, post #97.

    Seagypsy seemingly dislikes me and likes to tout her honesty in such matters. She has also been dealing with health issues and medications by her own postings throughout this forum and for that reason I seldom reply to her personally.

    I neither like or dislike this poster.

    I admittedly do not understand her and therefore I frequently do not engage with her. I observe by the replies of several others on other threads that I am not the only one who finds her challenging to converse with.
    Really, the only people who have trouble conversing with have shown themselves to be cranks and a good many of them end up banned, not on my account but generally because they can't converse with anyone. And I did not dislike you until your posts in this thread. Even when you called people drama queens when standing up against the same behavior you are claiming to stand up against now. I respected your resolve to not get involved. But you have shown your true colors now and I realize my admiration of you was unfounded.

    but go ahead and do your best to distract from your mistakes in this thread. Try to convince people that you are the poor victim of a psychotic over medicated poster. My medications are fine, thanks for bringing my personal issues into this. Nice low blow there, classy I must say. You know Scheherazade. pretending as if you have always had trouble with me is absurd considering how frequently we have interacted in threads often liking each other's posts and joking around in the chat box. Are you having trouble remembering reality now?

    Maybe you just don't like having your own mistakes pointed out to you. Ever consider that as a possibility?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    This thread is truly living up to it's billing. It has potential as required curriculum for a psychology course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. if someone were to crack the space-time code.......
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: May 19th, 2013, 01:32 AM
  2. if someone were to crack the space-time code.......
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Physics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 1st, 2012, 02:18 PM
  3. Voice crack in grown ups
    By Raziell in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 26th, 2011, 06:44 AM
  4. yet another tin pot bbt lol
    By danny burton in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 06:23 AM
  5. Growing pot for profit.
    By Godless in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: December 21st, 2005, 03:51 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •