Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 115
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: Futurosophics - Gravity is deceiving - E = m x d - predestination ?

  1. #1 Futurosophics - Gravity is deceiving - E = m x d - predestination ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Hello


    Last edited by Noa Drake; January 28th, 2014 at 02:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 E = m x d - Think about it 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    These comments are under construction


    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 1st, 2014 at 02:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    You have summarized your idea in another thread.
    Is it therefore necessary to do an Internet search?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    wegs likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Einstein developed E=mc^2 in 1918! Long before there was a nuclear explosion.
    The mushroom cloud has nothing to do with the nature of the neuclear explosion it is just the klind of cloud you get with that big a burst of instaneous heat in an atmosphere.
    Mass is demonstratably not constant.
    In your theory it appears that the neuclear reaction would consume energy not release it. Energy acts on mass to make it increase in distance ( from itself, ie spreading it out). Actually you have that right. The nuclear ission rection takes place, releases vast amounts of raw energy, which causes matter to rapidly spread out, which forms the shock wave of the explosion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Thank you for your comments.

    I have deleted the first 2 wrongfull paragraphs.

    May i note that Nasa scientists in 2011 have proven the equasion wrong, because of particles discovered travelling faster than the speed of light.

    My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently.

    Only with an open mind will you find new insights.

    It is not because part of my comment is incorrect that the suggestion is a bad reasoning.

    (quote Sealeaf : "Energy acts on mass to make it increase in distance")


    Remember Galilei friends, stay open minded.
    Try to suggest solutions, not only pointing out a mistake.



    True , i am not a specialised scientist , but i do have a Master Degree in Product Developement, 5 years of University.


    I'm convinced that finding new insights results from interdisciplinary thought, and non-obvious combinations, the core priciples of any succesfull design effort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    E = m x d instead of E = m x cē




    Einstein came to his theory observing nuclear explosions, and had limited proof of particles smaller than atoms at the time, thus deceiving his judgement, not his intelligence.

    Not true. is direct consequence of Lorentz invariance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    May i note that Nasa scientists in 2011 have proven the equasion wrong, because of particles discovered travelling faster than the speed of light.
    There are no particles travelling at superluminal speeds, and NASA scientists have not discovered any such thing. If you think otherwise, then please provide an appropriate reference to the published papers, and we will be happy to take a look.

    It remains to be noted that E=mc^2 is valid only for particles at rest, so your claim is nonsense anyway.

    My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently.
    That's not how things work. Everything that goes contrary to established physics is wrong by default until proven otherwise; the onus thus lies on you, and not the other way around.

    Try to suggest solutions, not only pointing out a mistake.
    Solution to what ? There isn't any problem to be solved here - energy is a well understood concept which fits perfectly in the overall picture of relativistic physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have deleted the first 2 wrongfull paragraphs.
    Now delete the rest. That's just as wrong.

    May i note that Nasa scientists in 2011 have proven the equasion wrong, because of particles discovered travelling faster than the speed of light.
    Citation needed.

    My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently.
    Bullshit.
    As has been pointed out: the units don't work.
    Einstein's equation has been shown to be correct.
    Yours isn't even wrong.

    Only with an open mind will you find new insights.
    Typical crank statement.

    It is not because part of my comment is incorrect that the suggestion is a bad reasoning.
    There was reasoning involved?
    Ask for a refund.

    I'm convinced that finding new insights results from interdisciplinary thought, and non-obvious combinations, the core priciples of any succesfull design effort.
    Just because you're convinced doesn't mean you're right.

    Trash please mods.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    The link holds much more information than the E = m x d, yet more philosophic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    There's no philosophy involved.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Some years ago , i was sitting at a dinner with an Oxford Professor.
    I explained that i was, in some context, seeking on 'images'.

    This was at the beginning of the google era.

    He kept bashing me saying 'Images of what ????' eventually ordering me to shut up, saying i was ignorant.

    Is was however his not knowing that you could not only search on textual content, but also on images as results for your query.

    So utter nonsense may only appear as utter nonsense sometimes...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    He kept bashing me saying 'Images of what ????' eventually ordering me to shut up, saying i was ignorant.
    Given what you've posted here (and on your blog) he was correct.

    So utter nonsens may only appear as utter nonsense sometimes...
    But what you have keep in mind is that most things that appear as utter nonsense actually are utter nonsense.
    Such as your ridiculous speculations.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Just inventing a meaningless string of symbols is not physics; this doesn't belong in this section.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    [COLOR=#000000]E = m x d instead of E = m x cē
    Are you so proud of the fact that you are completely ignorant of basic science that you feel the need to demonstrate it on a science forum? Why?

    Wouldn't it be more productive to study and learn?

    random Einstein quote as used by crackpots
    Why not learn from people like Einstein? He spent many years studying mathematics and science and then published a great many ground breaking papers in science journals.

    What he didn't do was walk down the main road in Bern with a sandwich board saying, "I am an ignorant dolt". So why are you doing the modern equivalent?
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Threads merged and sent to Pseudoscience.

    explofusional
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Remember Galilei friends, stay open minded.
    Is this an attempt to play the Galileo Card?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Original, open-minded, outside-the-box thinking is a valuable skill and an important element in scientific discovery. In order to use such thinking effectively one must have a good understanding of current conventional thinking. In the absence of such understanding the potentially valuable skill becomes a means of being very wrong. Unfortunately, Noa, you appear to have fallen into this second category.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    May i note that Nasa scientists in 2011 have proven the equasion wrong, because of particles discovered travelling faster than the speed of light.
    This is remarkably ignorant. Firstly, no NASA scientist found particles travelling faster than light.
    Secondly, scientists from CERN thought they might have found such particles.
    Thirdly, they subsequently determined that there was a problem with their equipment that caused a faulty reading.
    Fourthly, even if they had found particles travelling faster than light this would not have invalidated the equation.

    That is a large combination of being badly wrong on several points Noa. It suggests that you are ill-informed, ignorant of the actual meaning of Einstein's work and very lazy (or incompetent) in seeking out information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently.
    This is a stupid statement, Noa. Einstein's equation has been validated in multiple ways many thousands of times. Your equation, as has been pointed out, is not even dimensionally consistent. Unfortuntely, you appear to lack sufficient knowledge about science to understand the importance of dimensional consistency. That alone renders anything you propose worthless, in a scientific sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Only with an open mind will you find new insights.
    Absolutely true, but those insights must be based upon observation, must not be in conflict with well validated observations and must be logical and self-consistent. Your insights do not meet these conditions. You need to apply your open mind to your own idea and thereby recognise that it is nonsense. If you fail to do this you are dmeonstrating that your mind is tightly closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    It is not because part of my comment is incorrect that the suggestion is a bad reasoning.
    As far as I can see all of your comments are incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Remember Galilei friends, stay open minded.
    Frankly, that remark is very offensive. Galileo was a hard working, dedicated scientist. He made himself familiar, in detail, with the principles of science as understood at that time. He then embarked on exhaustive experiments over a period of many years, gathering data, making hypotheses, then testing these. Then, at great risk to his life, he published his conclusions.

    In contrast, you come into an arena you are wholly ignorant of, you misinterpret some very well understood science, you spout nonsense and you ask that we should take you seriously. That is not only extremely ignorant, it is hugely disrespectful of the memory of Galileo. You owe the man an apology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Try to suggest solutions, not only pointing out a mistake.
    The solution is simple: get an education in science, then return and have a good laugh at the silly ideas you expressed here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    True , i am not a specialised scientist , but i do have a Master Degree in Product Developement, 5 years of University.
    In that case you should be ashamed of yourself for making baseless, wrong, wholly ignorant suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I'm convinced that finding new insights results from interdisciplinary thought, and non-obvious combinations, the core priciples of any succesfull design effort.
    This is the only true statement in your entire thesis. However, interdisciplinary thought requires a knowledge of the disciplines involved. You have demonstrated that you are ignorant of these areas.

    An interest in science and desire to make discoveries are wonderful things. I congratulate you on your enthusiasm, but you need to set aside your arrogance and realise that the work of tens of thousands of scientists mean that you are wrong. Members on this forum will be happy to help you dispel your ignorance in the field, but you first need to admit to yourself how large that ignorance is.
    Last edited by John Galt; September 10th, 2013 at 07:14 AM. Reason: Correct five or six examples of very sloppy typing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Thanks John. You made all the points I wanted to make (but I have exhausted my patience with people like this). And very probably better than I would have made them. We should turn this into a template of how to respond to this sort of thing.
    wegs likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post

    Noa Drake, you are not in the same league as Galileo, in fact not even the same sport. His game was science, yours in unsupported nonsense.
    Your assessment strikes me as being far too generous!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Truly excellent post, John !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,077
    I’m gathering that you’re bringing Galileo into the conversation to illustrate that he was vehemently opposed by his peers and the Catholic Church, as to his scientific beliefs. Um, he was going up against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time, who wanted to control the masses. He was imprisoned for being considered a heretic. We here are not the Inquisition and you are not Galileo. A little dramatic. lol Like others have said, being open to the wonderment of the world and all its possibilitiesis a beautiful thing, but don’t be presumptuous and belittling to those whom you are trying to ‘convince.’
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I’m gathering that you’re bringing Galileo into the conversation to illustrate that he was vehemently opposed by his peers and the Catholic Church, as to his scientific beliefs. Um, he was going up against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time, who wanted to control the masses. He was imprisoned for being considered a heretic. We here are not the Inquisition and you are not Galileo. A little dramatic. lol Like others have said, being open to the wonderment of the world and all its possibilitiesis a beautiful thing, but don’t be presumptuous and belittling to those whom you are trying to ‘convince.’
    Basically. The Galileo Card is a way of saying that, much like the crank view of Galileo, they are not appreciated in their time because their ideas push the boundaries of mainstream thought, but history will vindicate them.

    I'm surprised how few cranks play the Nikola Tesla Card. "Why do people think I'm crazy? Is it because my best friend is a pigeon and I can taste purple? Science!"
    tk421 likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I’m gathering that you’re bringing Galileo into the conversation to illustrate that he was vehemently opposed by his peers and the Catholic Church, as to his scientific beliefs. Um, he was going up against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time, who wanted to control the masses. He was imprisoned for being considered a heretic. We here are not the Inquisition and you are not Galileo. A little dramatic. lol Like others have said, being open to the wonderment of the world and all its possibilitiesis a beautiful thing, but don’t be presumptuous and belittling to those whom you are trying to ‘convince.’
    Basically. The Galileo Card is a way of saying that, much like the crank view of Galileo, they are not appreciated in their time because their ideas push the boundaries of mainstream thought, but history will vindicate them.

    I'm surprised how few cranks play the Nikola Tesla Card. "Why do people think I'm crazy? Is it because my best friend is a pigeon and I can taste purple? Science!"
    Yep! Thing is...people who retort with this type of thing...'''Galileo was thought to be wrong, and I’m thought to be wrong…soeventually, everyone will see that I’m right''…sometimes fail to make thedistinction that being suppressed isn’t synonymous with being right. lol
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Let's also be clear that very few people who were geniuses in their time were regarded as madmen. I've heard people say that Einstein was laughed at by his peers, that he was a nobody working in a patent office, that he was terrible in school. That's like me saying, "Stephen Hawking? That idiot? He's just some guy in a wheelchair. Nobody takes him seriously."
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    It seems that Mr. John Galt is a man to be respected.

    Still , no contradiction in E = m x d to be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Apart from the fact it is dimensionally inconsistent and therefore makes no sense which I pointed out in post #7 when I said "E= m x d - the units don't work.".
    Which means it can't even be experimentally tested because it makes no sense. It is like trying to measure the fuel consumption of your car in squirrels per cubic kilogram.
    KALSTER and tk421 like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Still , no contradiction in E = m x d to be found.
    No meaning either.
    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  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Still , no contradiction in E = m x d to be found.
    Again you post utter nonsense.
    Apart from the multiply-mentioned fact that it is dimensionally inconsistent (energy is NOT measured in kg.m) how about this:
    If I am 4 metres away from you and I weigh (for the sake of ease) 75 kg then according to you the "energy" is 300 [whatevers].
    If I run to increase the distance to 4 km then, again, according to you, the new value is 300,000 [whatevers].
    How would you measure that energy?
    How would you account for the fact that in running to increase the distance I have actually expended energy?
    If I lifted myself into the air (by whatever means) how does your "equation" account for the fully-tested and daily used fact that my potential energy has increased on this occasion, compared to zero increase in PE if I moved horizontally?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Comparing, proving analogy : the beginning of the universe
    ...
    Identically, in fusion the opposite takes place
    ...
    An excellent comparison we all understand is the boiling of water
    You do realise, don't you, that we have precise, mathematical, quantitative (and therefore testable) theories for all of these things. And they have been tested by observation and experiment, and the results compared with experiment.

    That is how science proceeds.

    It does not advance by people just making up random shit and saying "prove me wrong". That is not how Galileo, Einstein or any scientist works.

    But, not surprisingly, it is how the depressingly large numbers of cranks and crackpots behave on the Internet. God only knows what is wrong with you all.

    Ignorance + hubris = idiocy.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Still , no contradiction in E = m x d to be found.
    Of course there is; energy is not measured in units of kgm. The above equation basically says that x amount of apples is equal to z amount of bananas; it is completely meaningless.
    You would have been much better off to actually read and understand what John Galt has written, instead of continuing to make a complete fool of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    34
    The principle objection to your equation "E= md" has been that it is dimensionally incorrect and, through all of this, you have not addressed that. Do you know what that means? Do you know what "dimensions" are? Do you know what dimensions Energy, mass, and "distance" have?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Still , no contradiction in E = m x d to be found.
    Again you post utter nonsense.
    Apart from the multiply-mentioned fact that it is dimensionally inconsistent (energy is NOT measured in kg.m) how about this:
    If I am 4 metres away from you and I weigh (for the sake of ease) 75 kg then according to you the "energy" is 300 [whatevers].
    If I run to increase the distance to 4 km then, again, according to you, the new value is 300,000 [whatevers].
    How would you measure that energy?
    How would you account for the fact that in running to increase the distance I have actually expended energy?
    If I lifted myself into the air (by whatever means) how does your "equation" account for the fully-tested and daily used fact that my potential energy has increased on this occasion, compared to zero increase in PE if I moved horizontally?
    We're talking about elementary particles, as the core building stones of everything, not about a person or an objekt
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    The principle objection to your equation "E= md" has been that it is dimensionally incorrect and, through all of this, you have not addressed that. Do you know what that means? Do you know what "dimensions" are? Do you know what dimensions Energy, mass, and "distance" have?
    I centainly do, in high school i followed Latin-Science, the hardest choice in school education between 12 and 18 years old, at a well respected College,
    in which i succeeded properly without too much effort. SOme of my class mates became Professors in various fields and studied at Oxford also.
    During the 5 years in Master in Product Developement i received all physics courses of an engeneer education,
    scored year after year within the best 3 of my class of a 120 students.

    But these bases will not lead to new understandings, other tracks need to be explored.


    I will make an effort to specify my definition more clearly, but this will take some time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post

    I centainly do, in high school i followed Latin-Science, the hardest choice in school education between 12 and 18 years old, at a well respected College,
    in which i succeeded properly without too much effort. SOme of my class mates became Professors in various fields and studied at Oxford also.
    During the 5 years in Master in Product Developement i received all physics courses of an engeneer education,
    scored year after year within the best 3 of my class of a 120 students..
    No offence, but from what you have posted thus far, this is very hard to believe indeed.

    I hope you can dispel my disbelief with your next post.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post
    The principle objection to your equation "E= md" has been that it is dimensionally incorrect and, through all of this, you have not addressed that. Do you know what that means? Do you know what "dimensions" are? Do you know what dimensions Energy, mass, and "distance" have?
    I centainly do...
    Could you demonstrate that you understand the concept of dimensions and dimensional analysis by explaining the dimensions of the terms in your equation. This should help you to understand why people are somewhat sceptical.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I have often been called extremely creative by my peers and tutors, but at the same time extremely impatient.This causes sometimes incomplete statements by me, besulting in scepticism.Upto me to improve this, indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often been called extremely creative by my peers and tutors, but at the same time extremely impatient.This causes sometimes incomplete statements by me, besulting in scepticism.Upto me to improve this, indeed.
    This comment doesn't appear to answer any of the questions asked of you. You said you understand the concept of dimensional analysis.

    Could you demonstrate that you understand this by explaining the dimensions of the terms in your equation.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    For what it's worth, my lack of agreement with what you're saying does not appear to be rooted in the speed at which you typed or the clarity of your comments. My disagreement is purely fundamental.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Thank you for your comments.

    I have deleted the first 2 wrongfull paragraphs.

    May i note that Nasa scientists in 2011 have proven the equasion wrong, because of particles discovered travelling faster than the speed of light.

    My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently.

    Only with an open mind will you find new insights.

    It is not because part of my comment is incorrect that the suggestion is a bad reasoning.

    (quote Sealeaf : "Energy acts on mass to make it increase in distance")


    Remember Galilei friends, stay open minded.
    Try to suggest solutions, not only pointing out a mistake.



    True , i am not a specialised scientist , but i do have a Master Degree in Product Developement, 5 years of University.


    I'm convinced that finding new insights results from interdisciplinary thought, and non-obvious combinations, the core priciples of any succesfull design effort.
    (chose to bold the above statements of yours to illustrate my point) If I may add here, frankly, you will find a genuinely helpful bunch on this site, as to demonstrating new ideas. Personally, I think the reason you've run up against opposition, and some ridicule as you have, isn't so much in the content of your work (even though there were errors), it is more in HOW you delivered your message--over confident (slightly arrogant) and presumptuous. Never presume your 'audience' is dumber than you. Always presume it is smarter. And always be humble, even if you're right. Just something to think about, for what it's worth.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often been called extremely creative by my peers and tutors, but at the same time extremely impatient.This causes sometimes incomplete statements by me, besulting in scepticism.Upto me to improve this, indeed.

    You, Sir, are an asshole whether you realize it or no. I have nothing against people who come here asking questions because those people actually want to learn something. On the contrary I have absolutely no patience for faggots like you who come here wasting not only your own time but also time of people in here, who respond to your stupid bullshit, not to mention greenhouse gas you release sending your stupid posts throu wires. Only thing to your credit is that you donīt try to sell any stupid book about new theory of universe and shit to unknowing people. So, pretty please, GET THE FXCK OFF THIS FORUM!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often been called extremely creative by my peers and tutors, but at the same time extremely impatient.This causes sometimes incomplete statements by me, besulting in scepticism.Upto me to improve this, indeed.

    You, Sir, are an asshole whether you realize it or no. I have nothing against people who come here asking questions because those people actually want to learn something. On the contrary I have absolutely no patience for faggots like you who come here wasting not only your own time but also time of people in here, who respond to your stupid bullshit, not to mention greenhouse gas you release sending your stupid posts throu wires. Only thing to your credit is that you donīt try to sell any stupid book about new theory of universe and shit to unknowing people. So, pretty please, GET THE FXCK OFF THIS FORUM!
    um...that's the blunt version of what I said above. wow!
    Gere likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often been called extremely creative by my peers and tutors, but at the same time extremely impatient.This causes sometimes incomplete statements by me, besulting in scepticism.Upto me to improve this, indeed.

    You, Sir, are an asshole whether you realize it or no. I have nothing against people who come here asking questions because those people actually want to learn something. On the contrary I have absolutely no patience for faggots like you who come here wasting not only your own time but also time of people in here, who respond to your stupid bullshit, not to mention greenhouse gas you release sending your stupid posts throu wires. Only thing to your credit is that you donīt try to sell any stupid book about new theory of universe and shit to unknowing people. So, pretty please, GET THE FXCK OFF THIS FORUM!
    Is such language really allowed on this forum ? You may get lucky, i might just leave here. The narrowmindedness of this 'academic environment' is beyond my comprehension.


    And excuse my incorrect Engish, i also speak and write 'incorrect' French, German, Flemish and Italian.


    Goodbye to all, nice crowd you have here, oh man.


    My respect to those who understood at least the positive side of an exchange of ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often been called extremely creative by my peers and tutors, but at the same time extremely impatient.This causes sometimes incomplete statements by me, besulting in scepticism.Upto me to improve this, indeed.

    You, Sir, are an asshole whether you realize it or no. I have nothing against people who come here asking questions because those people actually want to learn something. On the contrary I have absolutely no patience for faggots like you who come here wasting not only your own time but also time of people in here, who respond to your stupid bullshit, not to mention greenhouse gas you release sending your stupid posts throu wires. Only thing to your credit is that you donīt try to sell any stupid book about new theory of universe and shit to unknowing people. So, pretty please, GET THE FXCK OFF THIS FORUM!
    Is such language really allowed on this forum ?

    Not according to the Forum Guidelines.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I think we will be lucky not if you leave, but if you accept your almost total ignorance of science and start learning rather than asserting nonsense
    I've never seen a crank do this. I don't think we'll start seeing thus now.
    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  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    [The narrowmindedness of this 'academic environment' is beyond my comprehension.
    And there you go. Like so many others, you fail to engage with any criticism of your idea. Anyone who fails to accept what you say is "narrow minded". Or failed to understand. Or is part of the establishment.

    You have closed your mind to learning and refuse to accept the idea that you might be wrong about anything.

    If you want a positive response, then how about addressing some of the reasonable criticisms of your ideas?

    How about the dimensional analysis that you "certainly understand"?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    There is nothing more i can and will state on this forum,because only dogmatic repetitive ideas of the past, and their spin-offs, are accepted.


    This probably roots in the fact that scientists have often a reputation to defend and dare not jump publically jump into the unknown,
    let alone debate on it.


    Why was the jpeg compress format revolutionary successfull ?
    The answer lies in the name itself Joint Photographic Expert Group.


    Good day and good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Gere, that is WAY over the line. I'll have to give you a day off.

    You have good reason to be irate, but please maintain at least a modicum of civility in future.
    John Galt likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    18
    John Gault,

    Your post #22 is much worse than what I was rebuked for, by you, the other day. You state the poster is ignorant and state that what they say is 'stupid'. This is definitely unacceptable if my own post, which was much milder, needed to be warned.

    I agree that as a Mod you needed to point out that the poster appeared to be writing opinion in an unscientific manner, coming most likely from an uninformed position. However, the way you have done so is not in the spirit of 'welcoming all-comers' as you lectured me on the other day. Pretty shameful, really.

    It appears there is one rule for some, and another rule for the others here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    There is nothing more i can and will state on this forum,because only dogmatic repetitive ideas of the past, and their spin-offs, are accepted..
    And yet, you refuse to discuss your idea. Why?

    This probably roots in the fact that scientists have often a reputation to defend and dare not jump publically jump into the unknown,
    let alone debate on it.
    If that were true, how have scientific and technical advances been made?

    Why was the jpeg compress format revolutionary successfull ?
    The answer lies in the name itself Joint Photographic Expert Group.
    So first you dismiss experts, and then you say that the only way to progress is by using experts? This makes little sense to me.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by NoCoolAvatar View Post
    John Gault,

    Your post #22 is much worse than what I was rebuked for, by you, the other day. You state the poster is ignorant and state that what they say is 'stupid'. This is definitely unacceptable if my own post, which was much milder, needed to be warned.

    I agree that as a Mod you needed to point out that the poster appeared to be writing opinion in an unscientific manner, coming most likely from an uninformed position. However, the way you have done so is not in the spirit of 'welcoming all-comers' as you lectured me on the other day. Pretty shameful, really.

    It appears there is one rule for some, and another rule for the others here.
    There is nothing wrong with his post. The OP is ignorant, and his unsubstantiated ideas are stupid. Everyone is ignorant in some way, and to deny that would be...well, stupid. You must just be upset for being called out earlier for your attacks on another member.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I was indeed angered by the reply of some posters because of their blunt intolerance.I tend to respond reasonably well to relevant arguments as also posted by some of you.
    Excuse me if i offended anyone in my anger.




    I'll make another attempt to clarify a.o. the 'd' in the proposed definition E = m x d :


    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles , measured concentrically, a variation of 'speed' if you will


    m is the total mass of a given cluster of elementary particles


    Elementary particles are the smallest particles emitted, given a certain energy input




    Thus applying energy to the cluster, the particles will lose their binding force and will start distancing from one another concentrically in an ideal situation.
    Thus the mass of the widening cluster stays the same.
    Eventually the initially applied energy will lose it's impact and the widening will stop.
    At that point an assumption is that the particals will be attracted by what is left of the ephemere core, and start tu clustef again.


    The parallel with our big bang started expanding universe is potentionally interesting, especially the suggestion of the contaction to be in phase 2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I'll make another attempt to clarify a.o. the 'd' in the proposed definition E = m x d :

    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles , measured concentrically, a variation of 'speed' if you will

    m is the total mass of a given cluster of elementary particles
    If d is change in distance over time then it is speed (or, more accurately, velocity).

    Now, how about the dimensional analysis that you "certainly understand"? Can you apply this to your equation? What does it tell you?

    If you don't know how to do this, then just ask. Someone here will be pleased to answer your question.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    There is nothing more i can and will state on this forum,because only dogmatic repetitive ideas of the past, and their spin-offs, are accepted..
    And yet, you refuse to discuss your idea. Why?

    This probably roots in the fact that scientists have often a reputation to defend and dare not jump publically jump into the unknown,
    let alone debate on it.
    If that were true, how have scientific and technical advances been made?

    Why was the jpeg compress format revolutionary successfull ?
    The answer lies in the name itself Joint Photographic Expert Group.
    So first you dismiss experts, and then you say that the only way to progress is by using experts? This makes little sense to me.
    The key words here are joint and group, obviously i respect the knowledge of an expert, i merely state that his expertise could be applied much more efficiently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoCoolAvatar View Post
    John Gault,

    Your post #22 is much worse than what I was rebuked for, by you, the other day. You state the poster is ignorant and state that what they say is 'stupid'. This is definitely unacceptable if my own post, which was much milder, needed to be warned.

    I agree that as a Mod you needed to point out that the poster appeared to be writing opinion in an unscientific manner, coming most likely from an uninformed position. However, the way you have done so is not in the spirit of 'welcoming all-comers' as you lectured me on the other day. Pretty shameful, really.

    It appears there is one rule for some, and another rule for the others here.
    There is nothing wrong with his post. The OP is ignorant, and his unsubstantiated ideas are stupid. Everyone is ignorant in some way, and to deny that would be...well, stupid. You must just be upset for being called out earlier for your attacks on another member.
    Hello Matt5592,

    It wasn't an attack - and I'm really not sore about it. I agree that the poster here is either ignorant or a troll; when I said similar (but not in such a direct manner) regards another poster on another thread, I was rebuked.

    This is double standards. If I, as new poster here, am to get 'a feel' for what is acceptable to post, as far as setting the example goes, the Moderator here has undermined his own credibility and done himself a dis-service.

    'Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I'll make another attempt to clarify a.o. the 'd' in the proposed definition E = m x d :

    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles , measured concentrically, a variation of 'speed' if you will

    m is the total mass of a given cluster of elementary particles
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.

    If d is change in distance over time then it is speed (or, more accurately, velocity).

    Now, how about the dimensional analysis that you "certainly understand"? Can you apply this to your equation? What does it tell you?

    If you don't know how to do this, then just ask. Someone here will be pleased to answer your question.
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I was indeed angered by the reply of some posters because of their blunt intolerance.
    But not as angry as we are because of your blatant ignorance.

    I'll make another attempt to clarify a.o. the 'd' in the proposed definition E = m x d :
    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles , measured concentrically, a variation of 'speed' if you will
    m is the total mass of a given cluster of elementary particles
    What makes you think there's a "concentric speed" of particles in a mass?

    Regardless, it's still incorrect as far as dimensional analysis goes.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    Sheer nonsense:
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles
    If all that's being considered is change of distance with respect to time then, by definition, it's velocity.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    i respect the knowledge of an expert,
    Evidently not, you are ignoring any criticism by people with significantly more expertise than you have. This is not respectful it is arrogantly stupid. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, it describes you perfectly.
    The atmosphere here is discouraging people from making statements, how can that have positive effects on progress ?


    As far as Dunning Kruger is concerned, it can be applied both ways, depending on your initial assumption. (See part on falsely assume)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    Sheer nonsense:
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles
    If all that's being considered is change of distance with respect to time then, by definition, it's velocity.
    I have noticed your negative attitude in many other topics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    More utter gibberish, please stop it.
    I'll do you a favor and stop here, continuing of course my quest for discovery, as i always have, sometimes very succesfully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    Sheer nonsense:
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles
    If all that's being considered is change of distance with respect to time then, by definition, it's velocity.
    I have noticed your negative attitude in many other topics.
    Then, presumably, you'll also have noticed that my "negative attitude" is generally reserved for the ignorant, the witless and those who don't actually reply to questions put to them.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No it's discouraging people from making STUPID statements. This has a positive effect on progress because it discourages the type of nonsense you are peddling. I'll ask again, why do you think making stuff up from a position of ignorance is an acceptable substitute for actual knowledge?

    I'm making no assumptions about your competence, it is very evident...
    Knowledge is not discovery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Please do stop. Not that I believe you will, as I pointed out earlier and you proved correct, cranks and trolls can't stop posting nonsense.

    Continue your nonsense fantasy physics if you must just don't post it here or expect to be taken seriously. The only success you will have is in making people who understand science laugh or pity you, it's not a marketable skill.
    If even this section on Pseudoscience does not allow experimentalism, then this is truly a sad place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Please do stop. Not that I believe you will, as I pointed out earlier and you proved correct, cranks and trolls can't stop posting nonsense.

    Continue your nonsense fantasy physics if you must just don't post it here or expect to be taken seriously. The only success you will have is in making people who understand science laugh or pity you, it's not a marketable skill.
    That is the problem exactly with many scientists today, in the old days they were seeking for the truth, today they are seeking to be marketable,luckely the are not all like that. Maybe more the fault of the institution rather than the individual scientist though.
    I have seen the same shift happening at my University in the nineties, ambitions drops to what is marketable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,077
    [QUOTE=Noa Drake;459605]
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No it's discouraging people from making STUPID statements. This has a positive effect on progress because it discourages the type of nonsense you are peddling. I'll ask again, why do you think making stuff up from a position of ignorance is an acceptable substitute for actual knowledge?I'm making no assumptions about your competence, it is very evident...
    Knowledge is power. Opinion is not knowledge. I think you're having a problem determining the difference. :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No sadder than buffons who think inventing nonsense is somehow admirable. I've used up my patience it's obvious to any casual reader you are talking nonsense. I'm wasting no more time with you.

    And hereby i rest my case on intolerance…


    Appreciated joke though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    [QUOTE=wegs;459615]
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No it's discouraging people from making STUPID statements. This has a positive effect on progress because it discourages the type of nonsense you are peddling. I'll ask again, why do you think making stuff up from a position of ignorance is an acceptable substitute for actual knowledge?I'm making no assumptions about your competence, it is very evident...
    Knowledge is power. Opinion is not knowledge. I think you're having a problem determining the difference. :/
    Knowledge is increasingly all around us and knowledge-bastions are threatened by this evolution.
    Differenciating oppinion and logic is what will matter most in the upcoming future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    How can it be, when you have said that d is change in distance over time? That is speed.

    Now, how about the dimensional analysis that you "certainly understand"? Can you apply this to your equation? What does it tell you?

    If you don't know how to do this, then just ask. Someone here will be pleased to answer your question.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    If even this section on Pseudoscience does not allow experimentalism, then this is truly a sad place.
    Except that experiment proves you wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    That is the problem exactly with many scientists today, in the old days they were seeking for the truth, today they are seeking to be marketable
    Bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Knowledge is increasingly all around us and knowledge-bastions are threatened by this evolution.
    That's true.
    Bastions of knowledge are always threatened (to an extent) by wilful and perverse ignorance.

    Differenciating oppinion and logic is what will matter most in the upcoming future.
    Again you're correct.
    But what you fail to grasp is that you are one posting opinion and you are the one that isn't using logic.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    The atmosphere here is discouraging people from making statements, how can that have positive effects on progress ?
    It is my aim to discourage people from making statements that are patently absurd. This has been true of a number of statements you have made. I detailed, in post #22, why your statements were wrong, foolish, ignorant, or ill-informed. You had two rational responses to my post:
    1) Acknowledge that your ideas expressed here were faulty and begin the process of properly educating yourself about scientific principles.
    2) Challenging my assertions by presenting evidence, citations, or well-reasoned arguments.

    You chose neither of these options. Instead you ignored my assertions. In science it is not acceptable to ignore criticisms of ones work. Now, we are not doing science here, but the ethos of the forum is to try to follow sound scientific practice in our posting. It would be nice to see you actually address at least some of the points I raised.
    Markus Hanke, RedPanda and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    How can it be, when you have said that d is change in distance over time? That is speed.

    Now, how about the dimensional analysis that you "certainly understand"? Can you apply this to your equation? What does it tell you?

    If you don't know how to do this, then just ask. Someone here will be pleased to answer your question.
    Kg x mxm / sxs = Kg x m/s x m/s if E = m x dxd (d being indeed meter per second being velocity)


    The kwadratation explained from the idea that the travelled distance between the particles is measured concentrically over the surfaces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    It is 24 hours here, so until later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Kg x mxm / sxs = Kg x m/s x m/s if E = m x dxd (d being indeed meter per second being velocity)
    Wrong!
    Quote Originally Posted by you
    E = m x d
    Thread title (by you): E = mx d.
    Note that in neither case is there a 2 term.

    The kwadratation explained from the idea that the travelled distance between the particles is measured concentrically over the surfaces.
    I'll repeat: What makes you think there's a "concentric speed" of particles in a mass?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    And a reversal of previous claims:
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    d is the change over time in distance between the elementary particles , measured concentrically, a variation of 'speed' if you will
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Speed or velocity is an incomplete therm in this context.
    d being indeed meter per second being velocity
    But not honest enough to acknowledge that it's a reversal.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    There is nothing more i can and will state on this forum,because only dogmatic repetitive ideas of the past, and their spin-offs, are accepted.]
    Standard crank crap.
    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  
     

  78. #77  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    I have no formal training in physics, but I do rate myself as at least an average autodidact, so I would like to know from one of the more knowledgeable members if the following statement from the OP demonstrates any coherent content at all? Or if it is as I suspect, just such word salad as to be not even wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake
    The kwadratation explained from the idea that the travelled distance between the particles is measured concentrically over the surfaces.
    While I haven't thoroughly researched the word "kwadratation" a quick Google search turns up one apparently Russian site that Google Translate appears unable to translate. Although I do recognize the picture of Bender.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Well Kw is phonetically equivalent to Qu, so the OP is sorta right about one thing. I bet it's an accident though.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I have no formal training in physics, but I do rate myself as at least an average autodidact, so I would like to know from one of the more knowledgeable members if the following statement from the OP demonstrates any coherent content at all? Or if it is as I suspect, just such word salad as to be not even wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake
    The kwadratation explained from the idea that the travelled distance between the particles is measured concentrically over the surfaces.
    Oh go on then...
    Ignoring "kwadratation" 1 even the rest of it is just salad; how do you measure a concentric (i.e. radial distance) over surfaces?
    His "equation" also implies that if a mass isn't expanding - i.e. there's no speed (or perhaps "variation of the word speed" or perhaps "incomplete therm of speed" 2) - then it doesn't/ can't produce energy. In contrast to Einstein's equation which doesn't require any movement (whether speedily or not) to calculate the energy "content".

    1 Apparently there's a vegan bistro in Poznan, Poland called Kwadrat: that would fit with the word salad, if it's any help.
    2 Presumably the exact choice of term (therm?) depends on mood, phase of the moon and how honest one is feeling at any given time.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    I'm wondering how he relates (if at all) his "equation" to gravity.
    And especially how he thinks it ties in to "predestination".
    Unless he realised that posting such crap was predestined to be jumped upon.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Oh, I get it now. A hundred kopecks equals a ruble. Duh!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
    I'm wondering how he relates (if at all) his "equation" to gravity.
    It relates thus; the actual content of any post by the OP is inversely proportional to the square of the verbiage, and then divided by goggle to the umpteenth power.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,077
    I think this thread should be closed. The reason being that the OP either has been playing everyone from jump street or just doesn't care to learn. Now, it's little more than a flame fest. Just my opinion. :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I think this thread should be closed. The reason being that the OP either has been playing everyone from jump street or just doesn't care to learn. Now, it's little more than a flame fest. Just my opinion. :/
    I like to think of it as a witty flame fest, and I would like to thank the OP for providing the opportunity to wittily flame.
    Really, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    In my post 2 at the beginning i described that the particles get further and further away from each other, that is my initial d as a widening, an expanding effect.This means that particles at a radius further away from the centre have more speed then particles at radius minus one.


    If you keep forcing me to call d speed then i get to the wrong coclusions in the definition concerning the units to fit.


    The widening effect should be put in the formula as d, as initially stated.


    And that is my first question on this forum.


    P.s kwadratation is just my English being incorrect, try and reason in a foreign language with scientists, not easy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    If attempts to find something are called dishonesty…

    In a brainstorming session, people make positive contributions and stupid ideas do not exist in the first phase of the brainstorming.
    Ideas on the board instigate combinations etc.


    These dynamics towards valuable concepts do not exist here at this moment , in my oppinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I think this thread should be closed. The reason being that the OP either has been playing everyone from jump street or just doesn't care to learn. Now, it's little more than a flame fest. Just my opinion. :/
    I like to think of it as a witty flame fest, and I would like to thank the OP for providing the opportunity to wittily flame.
    Really, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
    No one forces you to read these posts, it is a forum, remember,
    although it starts to look more like the Spanish Inquisition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    If attempts to find something are called dishonesty…

    In a brainstorming session, people make positive contributions and stupid ideas do not exist in the first phase of the brainstorming.
    Ideas on the board instigate combinations etc.
    You did not present your idea or your equation as a part of brainstorming. You presented it as an idea that was valid/true/correct.

    When members of the forum noted that you were mistaken you said "My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently. Only with an open mind will you find new insights." Those are not the words of someone who is engaged in a brainstorming session.

    However, I will take you at your word. I will accept that you intended this as a brainstorming session. Do you now, therefore, agree that your original idea was wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Reality was there long before man kind invented formulas, equasions to understand and structure that reality.Not the other way around.
    So my initial comment in post 2 and the debate on the logic or illogic of that, is obviously more important than getting the formula right.


    I is not a reproach, i simply understand now that we come from a different 'school' of problem solving and design.


    And maybe that is indeed a sign for me to go elsewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    If attempts to find something are called dishonesty…

    In a brainstorming session, people make positive contributions and stupid ideas do not exist in the first phase of the brainstorming.
    Ideas on the board instigate combinations etc.
    You did not present your idea or your equation as a part of brainstorming. You presented it as an idea that was valid/true/correct.

    When members of the forum noted that you were mistaken you said "My equasion , if wrong, is no more wrong than Einsteins until proven differently. Only with an open mind will you find new insights." Those are not the words of someone who is engaged in a brainstorming session.

    However, I will take you at your word. I will accept that you intended this as a brainstorming session. Do you now, therefore, agree that your original idea was wrong?
    My representation as a formula was wrong, my comment was going in the right direction, or at least worthy of debate, in my oppinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It has taken 113 posts for you to admit your equation was wrong. Physics is just about the weakest area of knowledge within science, but I was able to see the equation was faulty within seconds. You denied that it was incorrect for many, many posts. Do you understand now why people are reluctant to discuss it with you? If you are not clear, let me state it for you. No one is willing to discuss in a low key, friendly relaxed manner when the person asking for the discussion makes assertions that are clearly wrong, but takes 113 posts before they will admit they are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    The group dynamics using the intellectual capacity of each of you, could have pushed this initial post to an interesting level,yet people chose to focus on what was wrong, the result is zero.


    Let us all say hoera hoera now for it was wrong, and await the next freshman to put down.
    I am getting cynical, i shouldn't do that, but what else to do in a place where creativity seems to be dirty word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I seated in a jury for many years at a Post Master degree in Product Developement.If during the working year i had only pointed out what students were doing wrong, than ver few of them would have presented good results,
    the rest would have failed to get their qualities out there in a real result.


    Criticisers should in my oppinon also bring something of interest to the table, to encourage and revitalise things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Noa, you are still missing the point. Creativity, to be valuable, needs to based upon a sound foundation. The foundation of your idea was wholly wrong and you resisted any corrections made. You continued to argue you were right for a considerable length of time. That is not the action one expects from someone who is interested in finding novel and creative solutions.

    Members do not "put down freshmen". If you were to take the time you would find numerous examples of where I and those other members have attacked your idea have helped freshmen. Hiwever, we will "put down" freshmen who are so arrogant that they implicitly compare themselves with Galileo and then post rubbish.

    I suggest, if you are serious about wanting a discussion and some brainstorming about your idea that you restate it now, but you do so without the arrogance and with a request for individuals to comment on its weaknesses in a positive way. Do not assert that what you say is true, rather say "I think A beacuse of B. Does that seem logical? Does that seem to be supported by evidence?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I seated in a jury for many years at a Post Master degree in Product Developement.If during the working year i had only pointed out what students were doing wrong, than ver few of them would have presented good results,
    the rest would have failed to get their qualities out there in a real result.


    Criticisers should in my oppinon also bring something of interest to the table, to encourage and revitalise things.
    Noa, YOU are the one that is trying to present a new idea. Thus far you have done such a poor job at presenting just what it is, that we don't really have a clue what that is nor what gap in our current understanding it is supposed to fill. Our utility here through critiquing your idea is to test it for robustness. It failed that immediately and have not approached coherency ever since. If you were really interested in contributing to science, you should have been welcoming this critique. This isn't Product Development, this is Science.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Mr. Galt

    I understand that we differ in oppinion on creativity.You say it should be based on a sound foundation , i claim that creativity is part of building a sound foundation,
    if alternated repeatedly with assessment.


    And once again only half of my reply is used, i said that the initial comment in my oppinion was correct, the formula not.


    Also i invited people to feel free to comment, that is not arrogance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Also i invited people to feel free to comment, that is not arrogance.
    But when they did comment and pointed out errors, you .....

    1) Implicitly comapred yourself with Galileo
    2) Claimed they were close minded
    3) Waited till post 113 before you admitted your equation was wrong

    Those, in combination, are most certainly arrogant.

    I repeat, restate your hypothesis. Do so, not by asserting it is true and important, but simply as an idea you would like comments on. Then, when you receive those comments consider them with an open mind. Don't make members wait a further 113 posts for you to admit when you are in error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    @Noa Drake; Perhaps you should post your attempts at using English in conjunction with that text in your primary language. If you can spell correctly with your primary language then I can use Google translate.
    John Galt likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    i claim that creativity is part of building a sound foundation,
    The foundation of energy physics has been built a long time ago; we have known for a century that the energy of a relativistically moving particle is in fact



    We also know that this relation is a logical and rigorous consequence of the geometry of Minkowski space-time, it being the norm of the 4-momentum vector. It is the application of mathematical principles. I agree that a certain amount of creativity is required to derive new results in maths and physics, but that creativity does not take the form of just inventing a string of symbols and then claiming that it has deep philosophical meaning. Creativity in this context means being able to use and apply existing principles and methods to rigorously derive new results.

    Being creative in theoretical physics does not mean inventing, it means re-applying existing methods in new ways. Failing to understand this is your fundamental mistake, and it is the reason why this thread is going the way it is. I have no reason to believe that your are not a brilliant product developer, and in that area it is probably essential to be able to simply "invent" stuff that no one else has thought of. However, the physical sciences simply do not work that way; Einstein did not just "invent" his theories, he spent the better part of 20 years labouring to derive them from already known principles such as Newtonian physics and differential geometry.

    Also, you definitely need to fix your attitude; coming on here without a shred of knowledge in physics or maths and presenting yourself as having some superior insight over people who spent years studying this stuff just isn't going down well. It's like refusing to take your kid to hospital, with an attitude of "Ah sure, I don't need those surgeons, I can just invent my own technique of removing that appendix !". Can you not see just how arrogant and silly that is ? You may well be a brilliant product developer, but you don't even understand the basics of what it means to be a good mathematical scientist. I suggest you either get down and dirty and learn how to do physics ( we can help, if you genuinely want it ), or you just leave it at this and get back to what you are good at. The alternative is to continue being ridiculed.

    Your call.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Marcus Hanke

    Your comment makes good sense.


    You are also correct that i should make a decision on staying and playing the game your way, or leave and keep believing in another strategy.


    Although i don't think that we essentially seek different things to be found, and i do believe in a multi-disciplinary aproach, but that takes some tolerance from both sides and we got of on the wrong foot there.


    I'll stay away for now until i re-assess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I understand that we differ in oppinion on creativity.You say it should be based on a sound foundation , i claim that creativity is part of building a sound foundation,
    if alternated repeatedly with assessment.
    Here's one way to assess your "creativity": what evidence do you have to support your contentions?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gravity, anti gravity and the flow of time
    By drwelch in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 18th, 2013, 04:21 PM
  2. Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Physics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 12th, 2012, 11:06 PM
  3. Real Gravity vs. Pseudo-Gravity
    By kojax in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 18th, 2012, 12:20 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 29th, 2012, 01:06 PM
  5. Mathematical predestination?
    By Somanayr in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 17th, 2010, 11:19 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
  •