Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 223 (702193)
07-02-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Theodoric
07-02-2013 9:21 AM


Oh yeah. If you are such a a genius why are you not in graduate school?
He's lazy. He is smart. He has good ideas. But he's lazy.
I can completely understand.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 9:21 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 12:04 PM Jon has replied
 Message 58 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:46 PM Jon has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 223 (702196)
07-02-2013 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jon
07-02-2013 11:57 AM


He's lazy. He is smart. He has good ideas. But he's lazy.
Oh you know him?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 11:57 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 12:41 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 223 (702199)
07-02-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Theodoric
07-02-2013 12:04 PM


Oh you know him?
He reminds me of myself.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 12:04 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 12:51 PM Jon has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 49 of 223 (702200)
07-02-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jon
07-02-2013 12:41 PM


So you have no idea if he is lazy or smart. You know nothing about him but decide to make grand assumptions and share them with everyone. Thanks for wasting pixels.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 12:41 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 1:09 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 50 of 223 (702201)
07-02-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by AZPaul3
07-02-2013 12:49 AM


Perhaps, but quacks and cranks are not defined by where they decide to share their research; they are instead characterized by their proposals and motives. Deceivers usually do not produce equations, predictions and direct proofs.
"Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference."
"A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2013 12:49 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2013 1:15 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 223 (702202)
07-02-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
07-02-2013 12:51 PM


We can only go on what he's told us and on how he's acted.
And so far he has told us he is smart and acted like he's lazy.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 12:51 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 52 of 223 (702203)
07-02-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
07-02-2013 7:12 AM


For arxiv you need to go through the normal submission process. After you select the category, it provides you with a link to get the endorsement code. Then you receive an email with the endorsement link, which you must then send to individuals with the ability to endorse others. They are only suppose to allow legit papers and can lose their ability if endorsing pseudoscience.
After someone clicks the link to endorse my paper through email, it allows me to upload the paper.
"Your article is scheduled to be announced at Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:00:00 GMT. The abstract will appear in the subsequent mailing as displayed below, except that the submission identifier will be replaced by the official arXiv identifier. Updates before Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:00:00 GMT will not delay announcement."
Well it never appeared and on the 14th I received this:
"Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Please send to a conventional journal instead for the requisite feedback."
After a bunch of emails with moderation, they refused to provide any specific reason for this additional requirement. I asked to have my request forwarded to the scientific advisory board (their oversight in these types of situations) and they refused several times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 07-02-2013 7:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 07-03-2013 7:07 AM Alphabob has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 223 (702204)
07-02-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 12:58 PM


Perhaps, but quacks and cranks are not defined by where they decide to share their research; they are instead characterized by their proposals and motives. Deceivers usually do not produce equations, predictions and direct proofs.
Perhaps you should get out more. The web is replete with the efforts of cranks who reject conventional physics and who produce equations, predictions, and alleged proofs. We've had at least one previous proponent of an alternate cosmology cite such work in this forum.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 12:58 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 54 of 223 (702206)
07-02-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
07-02-2013 10:33 AM


I used the Ned Wright's calculator with the most recent values to avoid any errors (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html).
 H = 70.4, Ωb = 0.0456, Ωc = 0.222 and Ωvac = 0.728 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4744v1.pdf)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by yenmor, posted 07-02-2013 1:35 PM Alphabob has replied
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-02-2013 2:36 PM Alphabob has replied

  
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3655 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


(4)
Message 55 of 223 (702208)
07-02-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 1:17 PM


Alphabob,
First of all, let me just put this out there. I'm an engineer and computer programmer. Probably the least person to qualify on critiquing your paper. I don't even know where to begin with the math.
From what I know, you are half right about the current state of the scientific community. You asserted that nowadays it is more political than acquisition of knowledge (I'm loosely paraphrasing). This is only half correct because science has always been political. There are very good reasons for this.
(1) Where do you think scientists get their fundings from for research?
(2) Most people in charge of the money aren't scientists. They're lawyers and accountants. Because they don't understand all the mechanics behind the science, they often time have to rely on credentials. Can you really blame them?
(3) A lot of what gets put out there also rely on who you know. This is true for everything, not just science.
Yes, it is possible to forward your theory and become widely accepted without credentials, but it is even harder than an uphill battle. I would argue it's more like a straight up mountain climbing thing. The people you've mentioned that never formally published but eventually got their idea across were very rare instances.
Back to your paper. Because of my background, I'm not even going to try critiquing your work. I know just enough to recognize that IFF you are a crank you are not a typical crank. Meaning you are knowledgeable enough about the math to do more than making unfounded assertions. That's a compliment, by the way.
Going back to credentials. When I first started working as an engineer, we were sent out to some towns to help with preparations for floodings. When we got there, the firefighters and cops had already put sandbags everywhere. The problem we instantly saw was that they decided to put 2 levels up regardless of where. Since that time, I've found that firefighters and cops have a lot of hard time understanding the concept of elevation. They put 2 levels up regardless of if it's on top of the hill or bottom of the hill.
I went to talk to the fire chief about it and he just dismissed me as if I was nobody. I tried talking to another person in charge and again to him I was nobody. I had to call my boss and asked him to talk to these guys over the phone. Just one word from my boss and the order was given to reposition the sandbags to based on elevations.
The point is in this world credential is everything. I'm willing to bet your ideas are falling on deaf ears because you lack credentials.
I strongly encourage you to go back to graduate school and work your way up the ladder.
I wish you the best of luck.
Edit.
Speaking of credentials, my money is on this post getting ignored by most people because of the lack of posts I have here.
Edited by yenmor, : No reason given.
Edited by yenmor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:17 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:00 PM yenmor has replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 56 of 223 (702209)
07-02-2013 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Theodoric
07-02-2013 9:21 AM


It was 3-4 years ago, but I was in electronics lab and he was the professor for it (Eugene Surdutovich). I was discussing how matter and fields arise from planck-scale fluctuations of space, resulting in an invariant scalar field and vector field. So it's analogous to a bunch of springs and masses vibrating at the smallest of levels. I discuss this in my paper, but the results are identical to classical theory in terms of 1/r gravitational potentials in the weak field limit.
He studies more in the area of nuclear/medical physics however. So I'm not sure what you would expect from contacting him.
I'm not in grad school because I began working on this as an undergrad and decided I could finish it faster independently. On the chance that it is correct, I would probably receive an honorary degree at some point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 9:21 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by yenmor, posted 07-02-2013 1:41 PM Alphabob has not replied
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2013 2:09 PM Alphabob has replied

  
yenmor
Member (Idle past 3655 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 07-01-2013


Message 57 of 223 (702211)
07-02-2013 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 1:38 PM


quote:
I'm not in grad school because I began working on this as an undergrad and decided I could finish it faster independently. On the chance that it is correct, I would probably receive an honorary degree at some point.
This is a long shot. And even if you end up having an honorary degree based on this, it would be years and years and years. Probably after you've died of old age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:38 PM Alphabob has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 58 of 223 (702212)
07-02-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jon
07-02-2013 11:57 AM


I'm only lazy a quarter of the time ha. I have actually developed tendinitis from working too much. Using mostly voice-to-text right now until it heals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jon, posted 07-02-2013 11:57 AM Jon has not replied

  
Alphabob
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 06-28-2013


Message 59 of 223 (702213)
07-02-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by yenmor
07-02-2013 1:35 PM


Well yea I agree that the support structure is political in terms of funding, but arxiv has a monopoly on preprints. If you don't meet their interest, they will censor regardless of the quality of research or proofs. Since most papers never get published, this heavily limits the available options. The only other preprint server is vixra (unless you count researchgate and other social platforms), which apparent makes some label it as junk. Being a recent graduate is even more difficult, because I did not plan financially for being censored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by yenmor, posted 07-02-2013 1:35 PM yenmor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by yenmor, posted 07-02-2013 2:10 PM Alphabob has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 60 of 223 (702215)
07-02-2013 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Alphabob
07-02-2013 1:38 PM


On the chance that it is correct, I would probably receive an honorary degree at some point.
WOW!!!
You do know that honorary degrees are just that, honorary degrees. They have no academic status whatsoever. If you want to be a Ph.D. you still have to do the work.
So you still cannot give us the name of one Physicist that supports the ideas you propose?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 1:38 PM Alphabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Alphabob, posted 07-02-2013 2:44 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024