A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Yet another of my almost certainly incorrect puzzlings...

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#41  Postby newolder » Mar 05, 2017 9:51 pm

Handy andy wrote:
newolder wrote:...
How does the quon language extend to non-planar algebras such that it would find use in studies of gravity and spacetime?

Otherwise, how is it of reasonable interest here? :ask:


It seems a lot of people on this forum struggle with being nice.

This distracts from a free exchange of ideas.

When I posted the link above I was thinking of a new form of mathematics, but perhaps turning the posted idea on its head, and extending it a little. The concept I was thinking off would take a lot of development and time, something I am not prepared to commit. The chances of you understanding was thinking about is minimal. I Strongly suspect you are one of those very sad people that only learn something if it is written in a book.

Since the arsehole count on this forum seems to be disproportionate to other forums I sometimes play on, I am gone. :what:

I stumbled in here by chance, it was a mistake, to disturb your cosy little club. :lol:

Suggest name change of website to irrational belief, it is more suitable. :clap:

Well, that escalated quickly. Bye then. :wave:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6477
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#42  Postby crank » Mar 06, 2017 4:18 am

Handy andy wrote:
crank wrote:Spacetime is the gravitational field. Trying to bring the ether back seems like madness to me, what evidence is there that this is needed? What exactly do you mean by the ether is a substance? Saying particle theory looks at atoms as solids is ludicrous, thinking this evidences a profound ignorance of highschool chemistry and the impossibility of there being a chance in hell that you have a clue about the physics. Sorry, but pretty much everything you've said is beyond incoherent. Just an e.g., planets don't move through space, they drag it with them. What does that even mean? How would you measure the rate travel of the space? How does something drag space along with it? Is there an interaction, and if so, what's the force? How do you render Michelson-Morley irrelevant?


Can you read, All things are waves and vibrations. I made a couple of interesting to me remarks above, which you failed to understand.

I don't trade insults, with fanatics who believe everything they ever read.

We are done

How about trading answers and questions? Like, if space moves along with planets and the like, what is their velocity? Which velocity you might ask [I sure do].? Velocity relative to space, velocity relative to the sun? Extreme gravity fields in spinning black holes can drag spactime around with their rotation, but that's very different from planets dragging space along in a normal orbit. You didn't even try to defend your statement that particle physics treats atoms as solid objects. How much more wrong can that be? That definition would make their field of expertise one based on a fantasy. Obviously I'm not a fanatic, I didn't believe a fucking thing you wrote that I read. Of course I didn't understand what you wrote, it was incoherent, as I said. I din't really insult you, I just pointed out how badly you are disconnected from reality, it was an observation.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 4
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#43  Postby LjSpike » Mar 06, 2017 7:20 am

Ok, guys, really, chill out a minute. I started this thread to essentially provoke thought and differing theories to come to light, not for you guys to be dicks to eachother. Andy, stop getting so angry in the fact that they believe a differing theory to you. Crank, Newolder, Fallible etc. stop provoking him and being dicks yourself. You guys should be better as well.

All of you make valid/interesting points regarding gravity. Let me lay down a couple of ground rules, as you guys clearly can't be trusted to behave in a post of free discussion. Appreciate those ideas, and if you wish to shoot someone down, try to bring forth experimental and/or observed evidence, and if you have a differing theory, feel free to present it, but don't forget to acknowledge relevant points from others.

Also, Thank you Thommo for trying amidst this chaos to present some fact and keep topical, I appreciate it.

Finally, stop provoking, insulting and passing hate to each other. If real scientists did just that, we'd still be sitting around in a damp cave without anything productive to do. To iterate what I said above, this is meant to be a thread of FREE DISCUSSION, NOT HATRED.
LjSpike
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 89
Age: 19
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#44  Postby Fallible » Mar 06, 2017 8:33 am

I think you might be mistaken about a couple of things:
1) there is no hatred. Andy might be angry, but he's the only one who is. Perhaps chill out yourself.
2) you do not decide how people post here. If you wish to be able to do so, ask to become a moderator. They're a bit short handed at the moment.
3) most of the people in this thread have been here for a very long time and need no pointers from you in how to hold a discussion. The fact that they've been here a long time also means that they are more likely to recognise bullcrap and trolling when they see it.
4) no idea is sacred here, and people will be harsh with anything offered which looks like nonsense. Unfortunately neither you nor Andy has managed to make the distinction between attacking the post rather than the individual, which has led Andy to cross the line into personal attack, while it has led you into treating ruthlessness towards his claims as equal to personal attack. While you personally may not appreciate certain tones of response, it is perfectly allowable.

Incidentally, further notes on point 3 - this is now the second thread in which Andy had descended to personally attacking his interlocutors that I've found, and at least the second time that he has claimed that the forum is below his standards so he's leaving. Can you think of any reason that someone would hang around a forum they profess not to like, insulting people and avoiding direct questions?
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49260
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#45  Postby newolder » Mar 06, 2017 9:58 am

LjSpike wrote:... Crank, Newolder, Fallible etc. stop provoking him and being dicks yourself. You guys should be better as well.
...

Instead of name-calling, you could post quotes where such behaviour occurs. You'll have difficulty though since there has been no provocation from that named group in this topic (do we have a member named, etc. ?).

Your initial inquiry was about a putative 5th dimension that was answered in post #2 - have you read and understood the linked paper yet? I cannot tell because you have made no further mention of it since.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6477
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#46  Postby LjSpike » Mar 06, 2017 2:44 pm

Newolder, perhaps if you wish to provide a scholarly article of which I can access without having to subscribe, or potentially to even properly explain how such an article disproves the theory, rather than provide a link which does not provide access to any more but the abstract, then I could perhaps be disproved quickly here. Additionally, to hunt out quotes and collect them up from three pages is an unnecessary waste of time, when I can simply point out the involved parties. The use of "etc." was to include anyone I could have potentially overlooked.

Fallible, you and others may not have presented anger, but that is not the only way to negatively contribute to the situation.
Most people could see the wording and choice of phrase to personal attack, to please newolder I'll throw a quote in though:
You don't trade insults with fanatics, eh? That, sir, is priceless. :lol:

From page 2, your first and only input before now. Where is the comment even relating to the theories presented here. That is far more a personal attack then any comment on a theory presented here.

Ignoring punctuation/grammar, this is the only statement in your post that does not read like the wibble of a troll. :clap:

One of newolders inputs. Firstly why bring up grammar and punction, overall the sentence reads fine. This is a scientific thread in a scientific section of a scientific forum, not an English lesson. Also I see simply him commenting his view that Einsteins theories hold up in our solar system, no trolling visible going on there. It would seem to be just an attempt to shut up someone with a differing opinion so newolder can appear to be the only intellectual person around and thus enforce an image of superiority.

Repeated whining opinion and basic errors has 0 impact in a physics chatroom.

Free English lesson: Some of your words read like they may be questions but the missing punctuation mark, ?, suggests not.

Example question: Do you have a question?

"Whining" was not needed. 'Repeated point' would have been enough to say, and would have been less provocative. Also various regions of science do have wobbly mathematical equations, otherwise we'd already have a theory of everything. Some equations work at small distances, but fall apart when you scale up, visa versa. Also as you'd said, Einsteins theory would seem to fall apart quickly due to itself. Seems the point is valid even if not completely accurate, and so would have impact. Also another unnecessary grammar related comment. Also the quote you had contained no questions, so a doubly unnecessary comment on grammar.

Well, that escalated quickly. Bye then. :wave:

Further provocation to ensure you've defeated him and to allow you to have the last worst.

That please you, Quotes for my points? Your high post count does not make vindicate you from your actions. I may not be a mod, I do not have the wish to be a mod here, however I can tell you when you are being mean, when I would wish for your to be more respectful to users on my thread, and when your are breaking the rules. Another quote, as you love them so much:
1.2. not cause harm or disruption to the forum or other members, for example please don't:
a. post criminal content

b. post racist, sexist, homophobic content (and no Holocaust denial)

c. post personal attacks or insults towards other members

d. i. start threads outside of Feedback that are critical of the forum habits and/or behaviours of another member

d. ii. start threads that discuss the opinions, positions and/or arguments of another member without permission from that member
e. attempt to inflame or provoke another member(s)

f. post multiple copies of your posts

Additionally attacks of ideas seems to not align with the mission statement Fallible:
Our mission: We hold that we can escape from prejudices, presuppositions, and the memes imposed by organisations such as religions. The path to free thought is through questioning, learning from, and understanding ourselves, others, and our universe. rationalskepticism.org seeks to promote open and reasonable discussion to support free thinking and free people, and those who are not yet free.


If you however would prefer me to take this incident straight to moderators, rather then to give you a chance to redeem yourselves, then I can do that. (Side note: I apologise for mentioning cranks name above, I was quickly going through the posts to get the names of involved individuals, crank didn't attempt to provoke anyone here).
LjSpike
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 89
Age: 19
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#47  Postby scott1328 » Mar 06, 2017 3:12 pm

Perhaps a moderator can make a ruling on this matter.

Surely that is preferable to the tone trolling?
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8515
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#48  Postby newolder » Mar 06, 2017 3:12 pm

LjSpike wrote:Newolder, perhaps if you wish to provide a scholarly article of which I can access without having to subscribe, or potentially to even properly explain how such an article disproves the theory, rather than provide a link which does not provide access to any more but the abstract, then I could perhaps be disproved quickly here. Additionally, to hunt out quotes and collect them up from three pages is an unnecessary waste of time, when I can simply point out the involved parties. The use of "etc." was to include anyone I could have potentially overlooked.

The paper is accessible through the PDF link near the top right of the link I posted. Here it is in full:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9905221.pdf
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6477
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#49  Postby Fallible » Mar 06, 2017 4:05 pm

LjSpike wrote:Newolder, perhaps if you wish to provide a scholarly article of which I can access without having to subscribe, or potentially to even properly explain how such an article disproves the theory, rather than provide a link which does not provide access to any more but the abstract, then I could perhaps be disproved quickly here. Additionally, to hunt out quotes and collect them up from three pages is an unnecessary waste of time, when I can simply point out the involved parties. The use of "etc." was to include anyone I could have potentially overlooked.

Fallible, you and others may not have presented anger, but that is not the only way to negatively contribute to the situation.
Most people could see the wording and choice of phrase to personal attack, to please newolder I'll throw a quote in though:
You don't trade insults with fanatics, eh? That, sir, is priceless. :lol:

From page 2, your first and only input before now. Where is the comment even relating to the theories presented here. That is far more a personal attack then any comment on a theory presented here.


No, I'm afraid it isn't. It is a comment on what was posted, and in no way involves the person. As I said, you are not distinguishing between the two, and that is what is causing the problem here. Andy manages to make a claim and refute it within the same sentence. That tickled me, and, I felt, also hints at a larger problem in his posts. I've been watching our Andy here since he suddenly appeared last week, making bizarre, largely incoherent, sweeping claims and posting conspiracy theory claptrap. Then, somewhat inevitably, the personal attacks started.

If Andy was here to levelly discuss gravity and space-time, or indeed the role of religion in society, he would take the time to lay out his thoughts in a cogent, calm manner and stay around to straighten out any misunderstandings. Andy hasn't done that. He popped up last week claiming to want to talk with 'open-minded theists', then fairly quickly went on to say that he doubted that most of us were atheists. He's openly admitted being misleading :

Handy andy wrote:I did not state in the title, because I was very naughty and being misleading sorry.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/the-purpose-of-religion-in-society-t53879.html?start=20#p2530714

He's commenced an increasingly bizarre ramble about the possibility of Freemasons secretly running the world and enslaving people.

After having said several times that this forum does not have the people he is after, Andy announced that he was leaving. Lo and behold, he continued to post here until his final rant, during which he suggested the forum be renamed to 'irrational beliefs' or somesuch claptrap.

Ignoring punctuation/grammar, this is the only statement in your post that does not read like the wibble of a troll. :clap:

One of newolders inputs. Firstly why bring up grammar and punction, overall the sentence reads fine. This is a scientific thread in a scientific section of a scientific forum, not an English lesson.


Why bring up what? :wink: Newolder actually says he's going to ignore punctuation and grammar - you've quoted it.

Also I see simply him commenting his view that Einsteins theories hold up in our solar system, no trolling visible going on there. It would seem to be just an attempt to shut up someone with a differing opinion so newolder can appear to be the only intellectual person around and thus enforce an image of superiority.


Remember, this is a 'scientific thread in a scientific section of a scientific forum' (it isn't solely a scientific forum, but never mind). The kind of conjecture you yourself engage in here is not conducive to such a place.

Repeated whining opinion and basic errors has 0 impact in a physics chatroom.

Free English lesson: Some of your words read like they may be questions but the missing punctuation mark, ?, suggests not.

Example question: Do you have a question?

"Whining" was not needed. 'Repeated point' would have been enough to say, and would have been less provocative. Also various regions of science do have wobbly mathematical equations, otherwise we'd already have a theory of everything. Some equations work at small distances, but fall apart when you scale up, visa versa. Also as you'd said, Einsteins theory would seem to fall apart quickly due to itself. Seems the point is valid even if not completely accurate, and so would have impact. Also another unnecessary grammar related comment. Also the quote you had contained no questions, so a doubly unnecessary comment on grammar.


Well, that was an interesting exercise in tone policing. I don't know about newolder, but I don't give a single shit what you consider to be necessary or unnecessary. Everyone is free to post as they want unless it violates the FUA.

Well, that escalated quickly. Bye then. :wave:

Further provocation to ensure you've defeated him and to allow you to have the last worst.


Who? I didn't make this comment.

That please you, Quotes for my points? Your high post count does not make vindicate you from your actions.


You appear to have made up a position for me that I do not hold, if you are indeed addressing me - it's hard to tell. My post count is irrelevant. However, having been here for a number of years, I and some of the others in this thread have seen a fair few trolls come and go. If you are so worried about ill treatment of members, perhaps familiarise yourself with his brief posting history here, a précis of which I will provide at the end of this post.

I may not be a mod, I do not have the wish to be a mod here, however I can tell you when you are being mean, when I would wish for your to be more respectful to users on my thread, and when your are breaking the rules.


Oh, please do tell me when I am being mean because it's very important not to upset anyone. This is not your thread. You started it, but you have no ownership over it, and no say in what subsequently happens in it. As far as breaking the rules is concerned, you can only tell me that you think I am, not when I am. That is for the moderators. On this occasion you're just wrong.

Another quote, as you love them so much:


Again, who are you addressing this to? Where have I given the impression that I love quotes so much?

1.2. not cause harm or disruption to the forum or other members, for example please don't:
a. post criminal content

b. post racist, sexist, homophobic content (and no Holocaust denial)

c. post personal attacks or insults towards other members

d. i. start threads outside of Feedback that are critical of the forum habits and/or behaviours of another member

d. ii. start threads that discuss the opinions, positions and/or arguments of another member without permission from that member
e. attempt to inflame or provoke another member(s)

f. post multiple copies of your posts


Additionally attacks of ideas seems to not align with the mission statement Fallible:
Our mission: We hold that we can escape from prejudices, presuppositions, and the memes imposed by organisations such as religions. The path to free thought is through questioning, learning from, and understanding ourselves, others, and our universe. rationalskepticism.org seeks to promote open and reasonable discussion to support free thinking and free people, and those who are not yet free.


Yes, thank you for quoting back to me a document which I helped create and implemented for two and a half years, and telling me what it means. The irony is somewhat delicious. You are bothered by personal attacks, and yet you commit one in your previous post, by referring to the members here as dicks. Contrast your 'dicks' comment with me pointing out a contradiction in someone's POST without using any aggressive or insulting language. Which do you think actually breaks the rules? Perhaps you should report yourself to the mods. Passing a single comment on the post content of a member is not posting with intent to inflame. If a person can contradict himself in a single sentence, that sheds some light on their ability to present a reasoned argument. Highlighting that (especially when there are other hints that the individual may not be posting in good faith) is not an offence.

If you however would prefer me to take this incident straight to moderators, rather then to give you a chance to redeem yourselves, then I can do that.


Incident, eh? Well that certainly does make it seem rather serious. I'm terribly worried now. Yes, Spike, please do that. I'd prefer it to the increasingly condescending didacticism of your tone here. Where is your indignation over Andy calling members trolls:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/the-purpose-of-religion-in-society-t53879.html?start=20#p2530572

and fanatics:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2531748.html#p2531610

and arseholes and 'very sad people':

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2531748.html#p2531748

And saying that I am pathetic in my life and will be in everything I do, asking me if I was abused:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/the-purpose-of-religion-in-society-t53879-60.html#p2531653

What do you think the effect of that would have been if I had indeed been abused as a child? It's amazing to me that you let all these pass without comment, but still apparently feel justified in lecturing members who have done nothing which even approaches Andy's flagrant rule violations, while simultaneously violating them yourself. Less than a week he's been here, and he's clocked up all that.

You see how sometimes things are a little more complicated than they first appear, and why it might not always be a good idea to leap in and start throwing one's weight about.

I have no desire to drag this thread further off-topic, so unless you respond to this with comments which I think need addressing, that is the end of my participation here.
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49260
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#50  Postby newolder » Mar 06, 2017 4:19 pm

… and there’s me thinking ’Tone policing’ was a new boy-band. :doh:

Anyhoo, back in dimension 5…

The Randall & Sundrum paper, after publication in Phys. Rev. Lett., volume 83, has since received more than 9500 citations (I’ve just checked). It’s a fine piece of work by fine physicists. Anyhoo, Prof. Randall gave 3 lectures associated with the work (available via youtube), here is the first (noisy at the start but ok thereafter…):
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6477
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#51  Postby crank » Mar 06, 2017 4:25 pm

LjSpike wrote:
....
(Side note: I apologise for mentioning cranks name above, I was quickly going through the posts to get the names of involved individuals, crank didn't attempt to provoke anyone here).

Damnation, I must be slipping. I did mean to provoke, but only provoke thought, I hoped my sometimes harsh criticisms would goad him into at least reconsidering his ideas. No such luck, his reply was just insult and more incoherent crap, didn't really respond to any issues I raised. I haven't seen the threads fallible mentions, if I had, I'd have probably been more derisive and skirted the FUA quite closely. The FUA looks better in skirts anyways.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 4
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#52  Postby LjSpike » Mar 08, 2017 4:56 pm

newolder wrote:
LjSpike wrote:Newolder, perhaps if you wish to provide a scholarly article of which I can access without having to subscribe, or potentially to even properly explain how such an article disproves the theory, rather than provide a link which does not provide access to any more but the abstract, then I could perhaps be disproved quickly here. Additionally, to hunt out quotes and collect them up from three pages is an unnecessary waste of time, when I can simply point out the involved parties. The use of "etc." was to include anyone I could have potentially overlooked.

The paper is accessible through the PDF link near the top right of the link I posted. Here it is in full:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9905221.pdf


An interesting post. I cannot pretend to completely understand it, but interesting nonetheless. I do thank you for supplying the pdf. I may look further into some areas mentioned in the paper too.
LjSpike
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 89
Age: 19
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest