intellectual fads

[thursday]

Okay, bad phrasing on my part

I don't know if you have much experience with the various different scenes, but I've found that the people who always dress in the right way are often the people who are in it for the image. The most 'emo' people I know, ie. the people who are in serious bands and want to go on to tour and make it a big part of their lives, don't bother trying to look emo. Their actions speak louder than the way they dress ever could. What do you think?

I have a lecture now, but I'll address the later part of your post in a while!

i've never really hung out with that many people who were into emo but i know a lot of people who are into indie bands, most of them just dress whatever, so i couldn't really tell you. i think it just depends on the area you grew up in who you've surrounded yourself with growing up. fashion is still just fashion imho.

 

[Euler]

I had offered such previously, the lack of reply from you kind of made the point moot.

Right then, well:

I publicly ask if you could submit a few brief comments on your theory.

I need a good laugh.

 

[monkeyjunky]

i hate feminist critisicm that sees everything as a penis. Or as a penis ejaculating.
Seriously, you old bat, the horse jumping over the gate in Macbeth is NOT a symbol of breaking the hymen.
I think they want it real bad.

edit - i realise this has nothing to do with the thread anymore, but i had to say it.

 

[protovack]

1.) I fail to see how emo-kids are an "intellectual fad."

2.) What is up with this David vs Alphanumeric thing....kinda freakin' me out.

3.) Intellectual niches are common. Just think of philosophies like objectivism, or deconstructivism. Conspiracy theories are like intellectual fads in a way too.

4.) I've got an example of a scientist who revolutionized his field: Charles Darwin. That's a little bit different than quantum physics though

 

[PGTips]

2.) What is up with this David vs Alphanumeric thing....kinda freakin' me out.

For those like Protovack who are wondering, David has in the past voiced his feelings that Relativity (and perhaps Quantum Mechanics) are incorrect. This is of course true to a point, however, David feels the inaccuracies are quite a bit larger than currently felt in the scientific world, and he has stated he has a theory/collection of theories which superseed Relativity which he has developed himself. A few people such as myself, Compact, Zorn (I think) and now Euler and Cex have asked for details (initially months and months ago) but nothing yet.

I (and others) are somewhat skeptical that someone who has an incomplete physics degree (never mind Masters or PhD) and a rather uncertain grasp of mathematics has managed to develop a theory, in his spare time, which has illuded tens of thousands of full time physicist/mathematicians for decades, all of whom have PhDs and quite a few Nobel Prizes and some of which are staggeringly intelligent.

His comment "Maths is easy, its all shapes" also erked me, given I'm a maths student and I'm sure anyone else would find it insulting to have someone just palm off their entire degree choice as "Easy", especially something like mathematics and especially given Davids comments in previous threads which shows his grasp of ideas in mathematics are not what he might think it is.

If David can back up his claim then that would go some way to a few of us getting off his back. His comment about "maths being easy" I'm pretty sure other mathematicians would find insulting (Compact hasn't stumbled across this thread I think, but I imagine he'd agree with me), and pretty foolhardy on David's part.

If I come across as a jerk, so be it. I simply have pride in my subject of choice and others that do it. If David's really got a theory, good for him. Its just I've spoken to plenty of people who think they've come up with the "Theory of Everything" or proved stuff like "Fermats Last Theorem" only to be so far off its scary. David might not be that bad, but I'm a touch tired of "Its all wrong, I'm right" with nothing to back him up. If he's right, post his idea/theory and prove me and others wrong. If noone here can understand it (if I can't I imagine Zorn or Compact will, but if not...) I'm sure I can find someone in college who will....

 

[ebola?]

>>His comment "Maths is easy, its all shapes" also erked me, given I'm a maths student and I'm sure anyone else would find it insulting to have someone just palm off their entire degree choice as "Easy", >>

OT:
that being said, my choice of material for a bachelors was, indeed, easy. Perhaps that indicates that I'm not digging deep enough.

ebola

 

[Euler]

Imperfection of Pi :
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142404
f(x) is chaos notation :
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1950757#post1950757
Non-linear not used in science enough :
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=171635
General relativity describes a static universe :
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1857627#post1857627
Explain E = mc^2 :
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140821&r=16
E = md^2 :
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148265&r=21

Oh Jesus! I've just made the mistake of searching through the forums to see some of your other posts. If the above are an example of your knowledge/ability in these areas, then I think a couple of A-Level in Maths and Physics are what you need before you create a new theory of gravity! In case you don't know, A-Levels are taught to 16yr olds.

 

[Euler]

>>His comment "Maths is easy, its all shapes" also erked me, given I'm a maths student and I'm sure anyone else would find it insulting to have someone just palm off their entire degree choice as "Easy", >>

OT:
that being said, my choice of material for a bachelors was, indeed, easy. Perhaps that indicates that I'm not digging deep enough.

ebola

Then, I would put my life on it that you haven't dug deep enough. Could I ask what was your specific degree, and where you got it?

 

[zorn]

I wonder what David's score on the crackpot index is? Someone should run it through. It's certainly fairly astronomical....

 

[Cex]

David:
f(x) is the basic, symbolic, mathematical, representation of this [chaos].

f = Factor of multiple.
x = number of sclaes, or scope of view you use in the interpetation, or the scale of the perspective used to view the events. Say it's twenty events it would be f(20*d), where d is the number of dimensions viewed. Is it a 1 dimensional, or linear pathway under 1. Or, does it have 2 dimensions at 1.3, or 1.38. Anything above 2 is considered three dimensional.

Let me repeat part of that again:

Anything above 2 is considered three dimensional.

Hahahaha what?

I think a certain Herr Einstein would like a word with you. Unless of course your 'reworking' of GR does away with the concept of four dimensional spacetime altogether. That would certainly be something.

 

[PGTips]

I wonder what David's score on the crackpot index is? Someone should run it through. It's certainly fairly astronomical....

He certainly meets Point 35, the highest scoring point

After a quick run through of what I can rember David saying and only counting 1 occurance per thread, I think its somewhere in the region of 230. Is there a scale to compare against? I can't seem to find one.

that being said, my choice of material for a bachelors was, indeed, easy. Perhaps that indicates that I'm not digging deep enough.

Would you say that about mathematics? I think my point stands in general though, if I walked up to someone in my uni and said "Whats your degree?" and whatever the response said "Thats all easy, anyone can do it!" I imagine 98 times out of 100 I'd get abuse back for being so arrogant.

list of links

I remember some of them. All in one place like that certainly helps to highlight David's "ideas". How, after 4.5 years working on your theory, did you not notice E = md² was wrong? There are other flaws in your understanding, but I'm too apathetic to list them now.

You see why we're so sceptical?

/edit If the thread starter or others feel this thread has been trainwrecked sideways, I'm happy to split it off, though it cannot decay into a slagging match, just comments and questions about David's ideas, not personal insults.

/edit again On further investigation of some of David's posts, I think his "Crackpot rating" goes up to about 260 or 270. In April last year he offered to show people his work (only had to scan them in), but nothing came of it.

 

[ebola?]

>>Then, I would put my life on it that you haven't dug deep enough. Could I ask what was your specific degree, and where you got it?>>

Bachelor science in psychology, sociology, and philosophy at the University of Oregon. Okay...the philosophy was tough.

ebola

 

[Cex]

David:
G*mu*nu=8pi*T*mu*nu

Doesn't it strike you as odd, David, that the 'mu' and 'nu' in this equation haven't been cancelled, as both sides are multiplied by them.

The fact that you apparently haven't realised that the 'mu' and 'nu' in Einstein's field equations are suffices labelling co-ordinates, rather than variables, makes me doubt your apparently awesome knowledge of physics and mathematics.

 

[Euler]

The fact that you apparently haven't realised that the 'mu' and 'nu' in Einstein's field equations are suffices labelling co-ordinates, rather than variables, makes me doubt your apparently awesome knowledge of physics and mathematics.

Can't believe I didn't notice that! The fact that he doesn't even realise the Einstein Eqn is tensorial. How can you possible overthrow a theory you don't understand?

 

[johnmortons]

well?

 

[David]

Doesn't it strike you as odd, David, that the 'mu' and 'nu' in this equation haven't been cancelled, as both sides are multiplied by them.

The fact that you apparently haven't realised that the 'mu' and 'nu' in Einstein's field equations are suffices labelling co-ordinates, rather than variables, makes me doubt your apparently awesome knowledge of physics and mathematics.

Originally posted by Euler
Can't believe I didn't notice that! The fact that he doesn't even realise the Einstein Eqn is tensorial. How can you possible overthrow a theory you don't understand?

The entire equation is a representation of other values, mainly bodies of mass, and warping of EM fields within a coordinate system, please tell me something new. Like how many actual entries were made on the original....

ZORN That's great coming from you. I have yet to see you counter any arguments I have made in the past with any effort, or thought. If you say I'm a crackpot, then you are just another fool.

AN Number 35 eh?

but giving no concrete testable predictions.

That's funny. I don't have the resources, and most of the physics today, are not tested. Those seem to be the ones I'm aiming at.


Why the fuck would I post it here for you to see, and all to steal? I'm sorry I didn't trust my prof when I showed him the first paper, and he said it was trash. It may have been, but not even to give it the slightest bit of thought, because it countered everything he was teaching us. That is not science, that is bigotry, and outright elitism. This is exactly why I was never in a great hurry to post it here for any fucking idiot to see. I don't owe any of you anything, nor should I have to pray to you as you seem to think I do.

You are still as I thought of you five months ago, a fucking idiot. If I so chose to post it, or anything of relevance on the theory I have it'll be the page on which it is scanned from in a science journal, which means it requires refinement. I already had my adjusted relativity on my journal, and that's all you will get from me. If you can even begin to figure out what goes after it, well....

As far as Math here, the only dick-sizing I participate in is mental rationalism. Look it up sometime. Otherwise I have nothing to prove, I already know I'm right.

 

[thursday]

if you are already making, what you claim to be, valid revisions of einstein's relativity, then i assume you must have a PhD and are a leading researcher in physics. if so then you have probably written a thesis or two already and have published many less controversial papers in various journals. so why don't you just offer your critics one of your less controverted papers as proof of your authority on these subjects or just give us some background on the research you've been doing for the past 4-5 years?

if you don't have a graduate degree and haven't been published in any scientific journals then i think you're getting WAY ahead of yourself here.

 

[Cex]

You don't get it thursday - he's claiming that he's got a revolutionary theory of physics, purportedly a Theory of Everything, without having the prerequisite knowledge for a doctorate, or even a full degree.

And to be honest, there's very little we can do to prove him wrong - except of course pointing out where his physics or maths is incorrect.

David - try to see things from our point of view. You claim to have a new theory of the natural world, but give us NO evidence to back that up. You consistently make errors in both your physics and mathematics, and string together sciencey words in ways which make it seem as if you don't understand them. You say that your new theory doesn't give any new predictions which we could test. You don't want to even give us the slightest detail about it, in case we steal it (here's a hint - none of us are in any position to write a research-level physics paper, in fact most of us don't even have undergraduate degrees!).

You understand why we would be more than a little sceptical?

 

[Cex]

As far as Math here, the only dick-sizing I participate in is mental rationalism. Look it up sometime.

I just did. I can't find anything specific to 'mental rationalism' - as far as I can tell it doesn't exist.

I can only assume that you're referring to rationalism, ie the belief that you can understand the world using the processes of thought alone, independent of scientific observation. You may notice that this conflicts somewhat with the scientific method - the method by which we have made such great leaps in understanding in recent history.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'mental rationalism', and why it relates to dick-waving?

 

[dr seuss]

sorry, just found this thread again.

Please give me one example of someone in the last 60 years, from a non-academic background, who was ridiculed by the academic establishment but whose theories in the fields of physics or mathematicss turned out to have been right all along.

Also, note that even Einstein studied maths and physics very hard. Yes he was a genius, but he didn't just pull relativity out of his arse.

i'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist, so even if there were semi-prominent examples i would struggle to find them i cannot provide you with an example; i think my post was intended more as a foil to the 'your theory cannot possibly be right ever at all in any way' absolutism which has been the downfall of all sorts of great minds.

i'm sure that - once we remove the equipment requirement (ain't no-one got their own private particle accelerator, right?), it's still possible, if unlikely, for someone working outside the usual atmosphere to succeed. i'm not talking about some random factory worker happening upon a successor to string theory; obviously it would be someone who had formal training of some sort. but really - honestly - is it completely impossible for insight to be revealed (considering that 'mathematics' and 'physics' are very large fields) by someone who is essentially external?

einstein had some theories which even he discredited; and was joined by many physicists. he even called one of them - it escapes me now - the 'greatest failure' of his life; it turned out not to be a failure at all. if, during his lifetime, not only einstein but all those who echoed his doubts were so easily misled - then surely it's similarly possible for today's physicists and mathematicians to also make a collective misjudgement? unless of course we are somehow respectively more intelligent and capable than our forebears

now - i'm not for one second expressing support for david's mathematical position. principally because i cannot perform what my local education authority would consider 'basic' mathematical functions i was just bothered by some of the comments in this thread, which verged on the absolutism which some science-based people are prone to.