What Big Bang?

In the list presented at the beginning of the link at this thread's beginning, there is a section entitled 'Neutrinos to the rescue!'. Frankly, I perused only briefly, mainly because a 'here & gone' entity that exists in an alternating state of here and gone is not something I comprehensively accomodate.

Stating the obvious, I don't agree with the Big Bang theory and posted a link which generally presents arguments against it. A better way to approach sharing this disagreement is to simply google:
'Arguments against the Big Bang Theory'.
-----------------------------------------------

AlphaNumeric has taken this opportunity to allude to an argument we are in that is underway on a different thread (Total Field Theory w'out mathematics).

Perhaps present company will respond to my unanswered question of AlphaNumeric; that question regards the so called 'hyper cube' or 'super cube', and it's right angle projection from it's three recognized dimensions...

The question I've asked AlphaNumeric on this issue, is whether the right angle projection (of the hyper/super cube) represents a spatial line, or a time line. I have specific reasons for asking this question and will be grateful to whoever may take interest enough in it to respond...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, there is absolutely no argument of "Is the big bang theory a creationist initiative" in the academic community. You are wrong.

The BBT tsays the universe was once very small and very hot. It doesn't say anything about the initial t=0. You fail to grasp what the theory is at all. It's like saying "Evolution doesn't explain how life got started".

What? Neutrinos move quickly but they don't decay. It's like saying "I don't comprehensively accomadate" bullets because they move really quickly. You fire a gun and they are gone! A neutron decays, producing a neutrino and they are gone!

The particle is fast, that doesn't mean there's something different about it.

So rather than learn a tiny bit about it so you could even understand what it is about you just decide you don't like it, googled for someone else's words and linked to that. Exactly as you did with string theory. You don't know anything about it, you know you don't like it so you google for someone else's comments on it and link to that. Well done, you show you are intellectually lazy. It is one of the few things I despise in people. If you're stupid but you try I have all the time in the world for you. If you're ignorant because you can't be bothered to reduce your ignorance you have my contempt.

Yeah, its my fault you never learnt basic coordinate geometry, the kind taught in high school. It's my fault you can't provide any working model for any phenomenon. It's my fault you make claims you can't back up.

Depends entirely on your metric. If a cube has extension in the x, y and z direction then in Minkowski space-time the only vector which is orthogonal to all sides of the cube will be proportional to \(\partial_{t}\). This is so simple I teach it to 1st years. In 40 years you have learnt nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
We are agreed to disagree, spidergoat - whether or not the Big Bang is a creationist initiative is an ongoing argument among formally recognized academic elements and has been disputed for a long time. ”


AN:
No, there is absolutely no argument of "Is the big bang theory a creationist initiative" in the academic community. You are wrong.

Kai:
Guess 'creationist initiative' didn't meet with your approval on how it can be said that there's a lot of pro & con about Big Bang. That's right.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
My disagreement (with the BBT) is based on the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy; for reasons, I anticipate no need (in this company), to explain.. ”

AN:
The BBT tsays the universe was once very small and very hot. It doesn't say anything about the initial t=0. You fail to grasp what the theory is at all. It's like saying "Evolution doesn't explain how life got started".

Kai:
The BBT has 'adjusted' to incoming data many times since it superimposed Steady State. Your 'metaphor' is inapplicable.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Frankly, I perused only briefly, mainly because a 'here & gone' entity that exists in an alternating state of here and gone is not something I comprehensively accomodate. ”

AN:
What? Neutrinos move quickly but they don't decay. It's like saying "I don't comprehensively accomadate" bullets because they move really quickly. You fire a gun and they are gone! A neutron decays, producing a neutrino and they are gone!

The particle is fast, that doesn't mean there's something different about it.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Stating the obvious, I don't agree with the Big Bang theory and posted a link which generally presents arguments against it. A better way to approach sharing this disagreement is to simply google:
'Arguments against the Big Bang Theory'. ”
This is one of the ways I learn.

AN
So rather than learn a tiny bit about it so you could even understand what it is about you just decide you don't like it, googled for someone else's words and linked to that. Exactly as you did with string theory. You don't know anything about it, you know you don't like it so you google for someone else's comments on it and link to that. Well done, you show you are intellectually lazy. It is one of the few things I despise in people. If you're stupid but you try I have all the time in the world for you. If you're ignorant because you can't be bothered to reduce your ignorance you have my contempt.

Kai:
At its outset, the Bang theory featured a single location from which it 'began'.
It has since then been 'reparated' many times, for reasons of adjusting to the more that is learned about conditions and dynamics of and within deep space.
It abandoned any need for a common center and adopted the observed expanding universe as 'further proof' of itself. I don't agree with that reasoning, though I don't do math...

The mathematics, as I have told you on two other occasions, early in our communication: I am unable to do, because I have a block imposed by post traumatic stress disorder. If it's mathematical (beyond arithmetic), I am unable to do it. I learn by listening to what others say; reading papers, books and posts, where I can absorb as much non mathematical information as may be made available between the mathematical episodes, many of which are very extensive.

Yes. I do indeed 'google' for someone else's comments on a lot of subjects (for the past 7 years, since I started accessing the net). Pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is a central theme in my life - to describe me as 'intellectually lazy' is motivated the same way that your practice of the words 'despise', and (lately) 'contempt'. I am not qualified to diagnose you for that, and, you are less qualified to pass deliterious judgement against me, personally. I have two *plateaus of diagnosed (*childhood & military acquired) 'severe, chronic and guarded PTSD', I would give my left hand to be able to do mathematics, but, I am unable and I must live with that handicap. I have consequently developed a modified learning method I petition no sympathy and quickly and politely rebut it, if and when it's offered. But, I'm sure as heck not going to apologize to you for it. Incidentally, I also do in fact learn from you, also, however inadvertently.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Perhaps present company will respond to my unanswered question of AlphaNumeric; that question regards the so called 'hyper cube' or 'super cube', and it's right angle projection from it's three recognized dimensions... ”

AN:
Yeah, its my fault you never learnt basic coordinate geometry, the kind taught in high school. It's my fault you can't provide any working model for any phenomenon. It's my fault you make claims you can't back up.

Kai:
Don't at all recall ever saying or implying that any of that was or is 'your fault'. You are far too quick to take - and project - offense.

How would you know what is or not, in a book you refuse to read?

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The question I've asked AlphaNumeric on this issue, is whether the right angle projection (of the hyper/super cube) represents a spatial line, or a time line. I have specific reasons for asking this question and will be grateful to whoever may take interest enough in it to respond... ”

AN:
Depends entirely on your metric. If a cube has extension in the x, y and z direction then in Minkowski space-time the only vector which is orthogonal to all sides of the cube will be proportional to .

Kai:
The math that you used in the above statement didn't come through on this copy. I do not understand the math, anyway. My question alludes to the very well known 'hyper cube'/'super cube' diagram / icon of Einstein's 4th dimension of time. Is the perpendicular projection intended to be a space line, or a time line?

AN:
This is so simple I teach it to 1st years. In 40 years you have learnt nothing.

Kai:
Tens of thousands of readers have learned that I know nothing, from having read my book? On the contrary. It proves a lot of information that's been out there all along, and, hasn't been completely followed through on or recognized. That, many of the sought-after answers are being rejected, even when they (the solutions to otherwise dissolute problems) are encountered.
The next edition of my (small press) book will be the eleventh, and the title is being revised to: 'Total Field Theory for Talented Truck Drivers: Everyday, Garden Variety Unified Field'.

There are actually some advantages to not doing (much) math. It introduces folks to a lot of things they hadn't previously understood. Neither do I deny that no small number of mathematicians have helped me, though their ability to do so is handicapped by my mathematical limitations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look Ted Grant was a reasonable Marxist but he really knew nothing about science apart from the fact that it's theories had to be compatible with dialectical materialism.

 

Note the title of the thread. I'm pretty sure Kai doesn't subscribe to the event.

 

Post # 19 by Dyw - excerpt:

"And bearing in mind that physics itself states that the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang what makes you think that mass-energy conservation should hold at that point?"

Although the Total Field Theory w'out mathematics thread was not and is not intended to be a discussion on string theory, it certainly has a lot of that subject in it, due to AlphaNumeric's contributions...

That having been established, the allegation that there was a big bang, followed up with the allegation that the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang is reminiscent of string theory's proclivity for placement of a lot of string theory's elements to be short of Planck length, where there can be no measurement.

Jiffyfix in both cases: anything can - or can't - happen...

 

Thread moved to pseudoscience.

 

Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with the BBT. You said there's argument in the mainstream community to that effect. There isn't. That has nothing to do with the pros and cons of the theory.

So you view the fact science is self correcting and admits mistakes as a negative thing? Religion says "This is the answer and always will be". Science says "We think this is the best answer we currently have but are open to corrections". The fact the theory has been modified many times is a plus since it means it matches more and more experimental data.

The big bang happened everywhere. It's just that everywhere was once all at the same place.

So why do you think you have some amazing grasp of the issues when you don't understand the language of the theory?

Given what I've read of your posts you have learnt very little. You know less about the big bang and the various cosmological or particle physics ideas relating to it now, after 40 years of 'doing' physics, than I did as a 16 year old. I read pop science books and didn't know any mathematics beyond high school but even I knew more about it than you do. Your level of knowledge is below that of someone who reads pop science books with an open mind.

You have less knowledge than I'd expect of an interested high school student. The fact you've been whining about physics for decades shows that the effort and/or learning you've done in that time has produced very very little results.

No, you whine about how I didn't answer your question when its a question which is so simple any half competant mathematics or physics or engineering student can answer it. You tried to have a go at me for not answering your question when its your fault you haven't been able to answer it yourself.

So your book does contain basic coordinate geometry? I thought you couldn't do it?

So it won't be in your book.

So people who know less than you read your book and thus that means you aren't ignorant of physics? You admit you can't do the simplest mathematics yet you claim you 'translate' the quantitative physics into qualitative physics. How can you do that if you can't understand the details of the quantitative physics?

Have fun burning your money.

I can explain plenty of things withotu mathematics. But the fact those results were derived using mathematics is essential. You aren't somehow in a better position for not doing any mathematics. A mathematical physicist can do both the mathematics and then explain the results. You can't do the mathematics, can't come up with quantitative results and then you claim your wordy explanations are worth listening to.

 

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Guess 'creationist initiative' didn't meet with your approval on how it can be said that there's a lot of pro & con about Big Bang. That's right. ”

AN:
Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with the BBT. You said there's argument in the mainstream community to that effect. There isn't. That has nothing to do with the pros and cons of the theory.

Kai:
"Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with the BBT." - AlphaNumeric

"Our sun at the center of our solar system is just one star among billions in the Milky Way galaxy. Around us are billions and billions of other galaxies. Where could this entire universe come from? Was it always this way or did the universe have a beginning? The church has always believed that the universe came from a moment of creation - a time when the universe began. Meanwhile, scientists developed two theories: the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. In this century, science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seeems that the church's ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning." - Stephen Hawking's Universe, Volume I, The Big Bang. (Italics added)

Please note the revealing usages - and contextual applications - of the word 'creation' in the above quote.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The BBT has 'adjusted' to incoming data many times since it superimposed Steady State. Your 'metaphor' is inapplicable. ”

AN:
So you view the fact science is self correcting and admits mistakes as a negative thing? Religion says "This is the answer and always will be". Science says "We think this is the best answer we currently have but are open to corrections". The fact the theory has been modified many times is a plus since it means it matches more and more experimental data.

Kai:
Presently, one of the more recent modifications include LCDM - the reinstatement of Einstein's formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ - which strongly supports a steady state condition. The subtitle of the latest two editions of my book is: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant and Steady State theories.

This includes the 'transition' of past perspectives shifting from a common, axial source of expansion, to the present perspective that 'the center is everywhere' - which is characteristic of a repelling force acting out of all gravitational matter, except, in the opposite direction of gravity. Which fulfills Friedmann's observation (and that of others) that Einstein's CC 'might expand or contract at ths slightest provocation'.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
At its outset, the Bang theory featured a single location from which it 'began'.
It has since then been 'reparated' many times, for reasons of adjusting to the more that is learned about conditions and dynamics of and within deep space.
It abandoned any need for a common center and adopted the observed expanding universe as 'further proof' of itself. I don't agree with that reasoning, though I don't do math... ”

AN:
The big bang happened everywhere. It's just that everywhere was once all at the same place.

Kai:
'... everywhere was once all at the same place'.

Allowing that the Big Bang had a beginning (in the words of Stephen Hawking), from a tiny point - everywhere is no longer 'all at the same place.' That there are arguments (regarding a 'beginning') against a surrounding space, bereft of any contents or qualities whatsover, I am aware. The omission of any defined volumetric consideration in order to preserve the concept that everything - including 'empty' space itself - commenced from a singular point is IMHO, categorically untenable. Volumetric space inevitably extends indefinitely, with or without contents.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The mathematics, as I have told you on two other occasions, early in our communication: I am unable to do ”

AN:
So why do you think you have some amazing grasp of the issues when you don't understand the language of the theory?

Kai:
I have listed the non-mathematical achievements within my book, twice, within this thread. You ignored them then, as you ignore them now.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
If it's mathematical (beyond arithmetic), I am unable to do it. I learn by listening to what others say; reading papers, books and posts, where I can absorb as much non mathematical information as may be made available between the mathematical episodes, many of which are very extensive. ”

AN:
Given what I've read of your posts you have learnt very little.

Kai:
The operative words here are, 'Given what I've read or your posts you have learnt very little.'

Whereas, you have repeatedly admitted routinely skipping and otherwise 'scrolling past' my posts. Consequently - especially including your not having read my book - 'you have learned very little'...

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is a central theme in my life - to describe me as 'intellectually lazy' is motivated the same way that your practice of the words 'despise', and (lately) 'contempt' ”

AN:
You have less knowledge than I'd expect of an interested high school student. The fact you've been whining about physics for decades shows that the effort and/or learning you've done in that time has produced very very little results.

Kai:
Counterpoints to your last statement have already been repeatedly proffered by Truly Yours. You also repeatedly assert that I say it's your fault that I haven't learned given facets of physics...


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Don't at all recall ever saying or implying that any of that was or is 'your fault'. You are far too quick to take - and project - offense. ”

AN:
No, you whine about how I didn't answer your question when its a question which is so simple any half competant mathematics or physics or engineering student can answer it. You tried to have a go at me for not answering your question when its your fault you haven't been able to answer it yourself.

Kai:
I requested your perspective of whether the hyper cube / super cube projection perpendicular to itself is a time line or a space line. Given the fact that it represents what Einstein meant by having discovered a previously unrecognized 4th dimension of time, inherent to the three recognized dimensions of space, it is my conclusion that said projection is a time line. If that is in fact the case, then it is proof that the entire physical universe, being at least 4 dimensional, is constantly moving at right angles to itself.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
How would you know what is or not, in a book you refuse to read? ”

AN:
So your book does contain basic coordinate geometry? I thought you couldn't do it?

Kai:
Some basic geometry, although in the category of mathematics, I am able to work with, to a limited degree.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I do not understand the math, anyway. ”

AN:
So it won't be in your book.

Kai:
The hyper cube/super cube, and the list of contributions that you have appaently ignored, is in my book.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Tens of thousands of readers have learned that I know nothing, from having read my book? ”

AN:
So people who know less than you read your book and thus that means you aren't ignorant of physics?

Kai:
People who know less - and more - than me read my book and learn from it, because it approaches and resolves dissolute problems in a different way, from an axiomatic premise - that being that the perpendicular projection of the hyper cube/super cube is a time line; that, therefore, the physical universe is 4-dimensionally expanding (accelerating, ever faster).


AN:
You admit you can't do the simplest mathematics yet you claim you 'translate' the quantitative physics into qualitative physics. How can you do that if you can't understand the details of the quantitative physics?

Kai:
Refer above.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The next edition of my (small press) book will be the eleventh, and the title is being revised to: 'Total Field Theory for Talented Truck Drivers: Everyday, Garden Variety Unified Field'. ”

AN:
Have fun burning your money.

Kai:
Ten editions of the small press book have been consistently sold out, on consignment, and paid for itself, not counting a modest but consistent profit.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
There are actually some advantages to not doing (much) math. It introduces folks to a lot of things they hadn't previously understood. ”

AN:
I can explain plenty of things withotu mathematics. But the fact those results were derived using mathematics is essential. You aren't somehow in a better position for not doing any mathematics. A mathematical physicist can do both the mathematics and then explain the results. You can't do the mathematics, can't come up with quantitative results and then you claim your wordy explanations are worth listening to.

Kai:
'... and then you claim your wordy explanations are worth listening to.'

Yes. I know that to be true from my correspondence - and personal rapport - with a small percentage of my readership (from whom I often thankfully learn more, while being complimented for what they have learned)
.

 

Unfortunately, if physics was the reason, God wasn't.

 

Nothing in creationism motivated the big bang theory. The claims of the Bible are inconsistent with experiments and observations. The only similarities is the notion of a finite age to the universe. You are taking that one thing and claiming there's some kind of connection between the two. You claim there's a 'creationist initiative', which implies some kind of motivation on religious grounds. You are wrong. You claimed there's a lot of argument in the physics community. You are wrong. Once again you quote someone on a topic you don't understand and fail to grasp what they say.

Don't you think it would be better if you actually learnt something?

No, the inclusion of a cosmological constant does not support the steady state condition. The universe has increasing expansion, observations show that. The requirement of a steady state, where the universe is at a constant size, is a very very particular result and one which is not compatible with observations.

I am absolutely certain you don't know any general relativity, specifically the application of the FRW metric to cosmology, given you admit you don't know any mathematics so your claims are based on nothing but you desire for your claims to be right. You aren't doing any analysis of the observational data or any model construction. You just make baseless claims.

So?

'The centre is everywhere' is simply a result of isotropy and homogeneity. The issue of expansion or collapse is a different thing.

No, running the clock back results in the universe becoming a point. If you knew how to do any analysis of the FRW metrics you'd know how to compute the equation of motion for the scale factor a(t).

Ah, so because you have absolutely no experience with geometry, calculus, cosmology, general relativity and any of their applications to physical models then because you find something 'categorically untenable' then everyone else must, irrespective of how much more experience and knowledge they have in relevant topics than you?

I missed that. Which post are you referring to? I have not seen you mention anything which could be regarded as relevant 'achievements'. You still haven't explained why you think you have some amazing grasp of a topic which is written in a language (ie mathematics) which you admit you have no understanding of.

I have replied to posts of yours where you illustrate you know no particle physics or relativity. You admit you don't know any mathematics. You quote people who agree with your preconceived notions, irrespective of whether you understand what they say or whether they understand the topic of which they speak.

You not knowing any mathematics means you couldn't even get onto a university physics course. So that means you have at best a pop science understanding of physics and at worst a layperson's understanding. Given you claim you are translating advanced physics into something more understandable to a layperson but you are incapable of understanding the advanced physics I find your claims laughable and your knowledge extremely lacking.

I've previously explained to you that a mathematical result doesn't prove anything about physics. And now you claim some geometry result about cubes proves your claims about dimensions. You mention Einstein's work but you haven't ever studied in, other than pop science books.

The fact spacial directions are orthogonal to temporal ones in Minkowski or Euclidean space-time isn't some amazing result. Orthogonal coordinates is something students learn in their 1st year when doing basic geometry. You haven't come up with some amazing result, you've realised people pick directions which are at right angles to one another, ie Cartesian coordinates. Well done on grasping high school geometry.

And by the way, only in simple systems are time and space directions orthogonal. Such things as a Kerr black hole violate that. Anything with an off diagonal metric.

But not even to the level of Cartesian coordaintes, obviously.

So you manage to state a result 17 year olds know. Good for you.

You explain to them things you don't understand but think you do. They don't know about those things either so they don't realise you're wrong and thus you don't think you're wrong wehen no one complains. Then you take it to someone who does, they tell you you're wrong and you don't like it. Hence why after 40 years you're still on forums trying tyo push your work.

So people more ignorant than you don't notice you're ignorant and you see this as evidence you're not ignorant? The fact they don't know doesn't mean you do.

 

This dissertation is not posted here with any intention to sell books.
Since 1959, the work has been small press printed, internationally distributed (in three languages) and sold out of print in ten hard copy editions of essays and books. It has yet to be disqualified. This is a publicly accessible condensation of the 627 page 6th edition of 1979, posted for the sole purpose of public enjoyment and education, with an invitation to whomever may care to correct, corroborate or otherwise comment upon.



1. Discovering that Newton's gravity is Einstein's 4th dimension.

2. Reinstating Einstein's formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant
(Lambda /\).

3. Reinstating the formerly abandoned Steady State Theory.

3. Identifying electricity as the 5th dimension.

4. Identifying magnetism as the 6th dimension.

5. Predicting that 'Hubble's expanding universe' is accelerating.

6. Demystifying and conceptually explaining 'time dilation'.

7. Non mathematically explaining the unification of space and time to 'space-time'.

8. Non mathematically explaining the 'curvature of space-time'.

9. Presenting & translating Einstein's Special and General Relativity comprehensible, w'out mathematics.

10. Conceptually explaining the causal identity of black holes.

11. Conceptually explaining the Lorentz contraction of physical matter.

12. Presenting the sound and sight of 4-dimensional gravity.

13. Making Einstein's Unified Field comprehensible to Martin Gardner's Millions.

14. Presenting and popularising the 20th Century counterpart for the revolutionary Copernican Heliocentric Theory.

15. Explaining that the velocity of light - C - is covariant with the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated.

16. Explaining that 'nuclear resinal forces' (the very dense microcosms) are earlier moments in the 4-D space-time continuum.

17. Making the 4-D space-time continuum non mathematically comprehensible to the average high school student.

18. Introducing the potential sum of the interaction of matter with Dirac's anti-matter - the apparent cause of the accelerating expansion of matter.

19. Extracting a non mathematically geometric explanation for Planck's discontinuous constant, out of the *Golden Rectangle and the continuous logarithmic spiral within that rectangle.

-------

*The continuous Wave Structure of apparently Discontinuous Matter

This (partial) list of achievements is presented here in response to the incentive provided by AlphaNumeric's allegation(s) that the author of this thread's topic is 'evasive', when, it seems, the opposite - as shown in this thread (Total Field Theory w'out mathematics) - proves to be the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides a little bit of - acknowledged - redundancy, any comment(s) on this, Ed? I mean, would you care to expand on any of this, sir. Lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Please refer also to p. 25, post 245 of Total Field Theory w'out mathematics.

Post Script: Most of what I understand about Einstein's work was derived from his book: Ideas & Opinions. And the work of Einstein and Infeld - The Evolution of Physics.

 

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Please note the revealing usages - and contextual applications - of the word 'creation' in the above quote (by Stephen Hawking - Page 3, post 29). ”


AN:
Nothing in creationism motivated the big bang theory. The claims of the Bible are inconsistent with experiments and observations. The only similarities is the notion of a finite age to the universe. You are taking that one thing and claiming there's some kind of connection between the two. You claim there's a 'creationist initiative', which implies some kind of motivation on religious grounds. You are wrong.

Kai:

The BBT parallels creationist principles - however inadvertently. It contributes to the 'creationist initiative'. Stephen Hawking himself makes a note of it - what does, we may agree, amount to a 'coincidence'. This is not a wrong proclamation, it's a rightly manifest fact; with Stephen Hawking's qualified agreement.

AN:
You claimed there's a lot of argument in the physics community. You are wrong. Once again you quote someone on a topic you don't understand and fail to grasp what they say.

Kai:
Have you polled the 'physics community', AlphaNumeric? I have not, yet I do witness right here on the net, a lot of disagreement within professional ranks.

AN:
Don't you think it would be better if you actually learnt something?

Kai:
Certainly you've deservedly accredited yourself with and proved to know, a lot of physics in general, and string 'theory' in particular.
On the other hand, what I do know about String 'theory' is that it alludes to and depends a great deal upon factors that are short of Planck length (ergo, the immeasurable), hence it's well known further dependence on specialized mathematics, that, often, even accomplished mathematicians either don't understand, and/or don't agree with.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Presently, one of the more recent modifications include LCDM - the reinstatement of Einstein's formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ - which strongly supports a steady state condition. ”

AN:
No, the inclusion of a cosmological constant does not support the steady state condition. The universe has increasing expansion, observations show that.

Kai:
You would know that doesn't disqualify the Steady State theory, if you recognized the 4-D accelerating expansion of the physical universe itself.

AN:
The requirement of a steady state, where the universe is at a constant size, is a very very particular result and one which is not compatible with observations.

Kai:
Refer above.


AN:
I am absolutely certain you don't know any general relativity, specifically the application of the FRW metric to cosmology, given you admit you don't know any mathematics so your claims are based on nothing but you desire for your claims to be right. You aren't doing any analysis of the observational data or any model construction. You just make baseless claims.

Kai:
The GR is based on the equivalence principle; more specifically, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values; contingent to the so called 'universal rate of descent of test objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance'. Moreover, Einstein's 4th D is a product of GR. Both of these fundamental facts play a principle role in what you say I know nothing about.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The subtitle of the latest two editions of my book is: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant and Steady State theories. ”

AN:
So?


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
This includes the 'transition' of past perspectives shifting from a common, axial source of expansion, to the present perspective that 'the center is everywhere' - which is characteristic of a repelling force acting out of all gravitational matter, except, in the opposite direction of gravity. Which fulfills Friedmann's observation (and that of others) that Einstein's CC 'might expand or contract at the slightest provocation'. ”

AN:
'The centre is everywhere' is simply a result of isotropy and homogeneity. The issue of expansion or collapse is a different thing.

Kai: In your last sentence, above, are you alluding to 'inflation' and 'the big crunch'? If so, they are relatively recent terms/concepts, which by no means enjoy any kind of consensus among astrophysical authorities.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Allowing that the Big Bang had a beginning (in the words of Stephen Hawking), from a tiny point - everywhere is no longer 'all at the same place.' ”

AN:
No, running the clock back results in the universe becoming a point. If you knew how to do any analysis of the FRW metrics you'd know how to compute the equation of motion for the scale factor a(t).

Kai:
In a physically/materially expanding universe, 'running the clock back', does not result in the intersection of the two exemplary lines (in a diagramatically employed slice of pie plate chart) - < and the accompanying restriction on the continuance of universal existence.

No indeed. In a physically/materially expanding (4-D) universe, the apparent 'intersection' (of the expanding universe) where the running clock registers zero amounts of remaining space - the universe, at what you call 'the beginning': is approximately just as it is now, except that it is much smaller and more dense in the Past (A), than our existence in the Present (B) at the middle of the V shaped, pie slice diagram (consider the cross post in the capital letter A, as marking the Present Moment B - the 'eternal now'...). Just as the Future (C) of the V shape is larger and more tenuous when compared to itself at earlier Moments B and A. This is a Steady State model of the universe.

It is not wrong, it simply isn't being considered at all. The BBT is thought to be a concept without any alternative consideration. You - and all BBT advocates - are wrong about that.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The omission of any defined volumetric consideration in order to preserve the concept that everything - including 'empty' space itself - commenced from a singular point is IMHO, categorically untenable. Volumetric space inevitably extends indefinitely, with or without contents. ”

AN:
Ah, so because you have absolutely no experience with geometry, calculus, cosmology, general relativity and any of their applications to physical models then because you find something 'categorically untenable' then everyone else must, irrespective of how much more experience and knowledge they have in relevant topics than you?

Kai:
'Everyone else' may calculate as they wish. It doesn't take a mahematician or phyicist to conclude that volumetric space, be it occupied or not, is endless, just as is the - whatever given quantity of - material of the universe. The presence of which is self evident, and when observed under the law of Conservation of MassEnergy, has always beeen here in one form or another. The burden of proof for the argument pro-nothingness, is upon the pro-nothingness advocates. Whether philosophically categorized or not, the premise that 'Nothing begets nothing' is much more tenable than that 'Nothing begets something'. Or, is 'common sense' uniformly disproven, also?


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I have listed the non-mathematical achievements within my book, twice, within this thread. You ignored them then, as you ignore them now. ”

I missed that. Which post are you referring to? I have not seen you mention anything which could be regarded as relevant 'achievements'. You still haven't explained why you think you have some amazing grasp of a topic which is written in a language (ie mathematics) which you admit you have no understanding of.

Kai:
Please refer to the projected time line in a diagrammed 'hypercube'/'super cube'. It represents the three recognized dimensions of space as moving at right angles from themselves, generating the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, and joining space 'and' time, into 'space-time', as per description of same by H. Minkowski.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Whereas, you have repeatedly admitted routinely skipping and otherwise 'scrolling past' my posts. Consequently - especially including your not having read my book - 'you have learned very little'... ”

AN:
I have replied to posts of yours where you illustrate you know no particle physics or relativity. You admit you don't know any mathematics. You quote people who agree with your preconceived notions, irrespective of whether you understand what they say or whether they understand the topic of which they speak.

Kai:
Understanding the meaning of the 4-D space-time continuum as no one ever understood it before, has gifted me with an insight I wouldn't have, without it. It likewise has empowered many others.

AN:
You not knowing any mathematics means you couldn't even get onto a university physics course. So that means you have at best a pop science understanding of physics and at worst a layperson's understanding. Given you claim you are translating advanced physics into something more understandable to a layperson but you are incapable of understanding the advanced physics I find your claims laughable and your knowledge extremely lacking.

Kai:
This means that you consider the perpendicular axis projected from the interior cube in a hypercube to be a space line, or, that you cannot understand (and reject) it as a time line, or both. I find much of your critique is handicapped by your ignorance of what the 4-D space-time continuum really is, and, consequently, particularly as a professional, your knowledge is (avoidably) lacking.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I requested your perspective of whether the hyper cube / super cube projection perpendicular to itself is a time line or a space line. Given the fact that it represents what Einstein meant by having discovered a previously unrecognized 4th dimension of time, inherent to the three recognized dimensions of space, it is my conclusion that said projection is a time line. If that is in fact the case, then it is proof that the entire physical universe, being at least 4 dimensional, is constantly moving at right angles to itself. ”

AN:
I've previously explained to you that a mathematical result doesn't prove anything about physics. And now you claim some geometry result about cubes proves your claims about dimensions. You mention Einstein's work but you haven't ever studied in, other than pop science books.

Kai: Ideas & Opinions - the second half of which is 'Contributions to Science', is not a pop physics book. I've worn out several copies of it in the process of referencing it as a matter of routine. It confirms my work, which was well underway before I was aware the book existed - a partial autobiographical adventure, which you may read about on page 25, post 245, in Total Field Theory w'out mathematics.

AN:
The fact spacial directions are orthogonal to temporal ones in Minkowski or Euclidean space-time isn't some amazing result. Orthogonal coordinates is something students learn in their 1st year when doing basic geometry. You haven't come up with some amazing result, you've realised people pick directions which are at right angles to one another, ie Cartesian coordinates. Well done on grasping high school geometry.

Kai:
It is that very high school geometry which has been rejected as being applicable to the real world, when it establishes that the 'hyper cube' depicts a projection of physical matter at right angles from itself. Since that 'obviously isn't happening' (do you see your keyboard expanding?) it has been denied and discarded as meaning what it means.

Better that I be 'embarassed', than that the entire 'physics community' be obliged to have collectively and individually overlooked something very fundamental, that they should have recognized much earlier

AN:
And by the way, only in simple systems are time and space directions orthogonal. Such things as a Kerr black hole violate that. Anything with an off diagonal metric.

Kai:
Btw, if black holes exist, my work explains what causes them.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Some basic geometry, although in the category of mathematics, I am able to work with, to a limited degree. ”

AN:
But not even to the level of Cartesian coordaintes, obviously.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The hyper cube/super cube, and the list of contributions that you have apparently ignored, is in my book. ”

AN:
So you manage to state a result 17 year olds know. Good for you.

Kai:
Well, AlphaNumeric, it has to do with everyone who 'knows' it, but can likewise see that 'obviously physical reality at large is not expanding'. Which has to do with subjectively over ruling a list of experimental proofs of physical expansion, including the the equivalence of gravitationa & inertial mass values, and, the bending of light when passing near a large gravitational system.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
People who know less - and more - than me read my book and learn from it, because it approaches and resolves dissolute problems in a different way, from an axiomatic premise - that being that the perpendicular projection of the hyper cube/super cube is a time line; that, therefore, the physical universe is 4-dimensionally expanding (accelerating, ever faster). ”

AN:
You explain to them things you don't understand but think you do. They don't know about those things either so they don't realise you're wrong and thus you don't think you're wrong wehen no one complains. Then you take it to someone who does, they tell you you're wrong and you don't like it.

Kai:
Had a lot of people, including physicists tell me I'm wrong about the proved fact that the entire physical-material universe (electrons, neutrons, protons, et al) is expanding at right angles from itself. They're all wrong about that, and, I've written a book that - until its central themes are disqualified - proves it; based on previous proofs which have not been previously recognized.

AN:
Hence why after 40 years you're still on forums trying tyo push your work.

Kai:
Do you know what 'amateur' means? As a professional, you would do well to be reminded that 'amateur' means, 'he or she who loves his or her work'.
I have written, published, distributed and sold out my books. The word has been out for 50 (not 40) years (in three languages; since 1959, originally, in very widely distributed essay form) and the import of the contents of that work is gaining on the entire 'physics community'. It is unpilferable, and, it is unpurchaseable. I may even live to see it recognized and acknowledged by the majority of the 'physics community'.

Have I 're-written' physics? Of course not. What I have done is re-read it. In so doing, recognized previously unrecognized facts - falsely perceived to be unrelated; consequently unconsidered, often encountered-and-denied, facts.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Yes. I know that to be true from my correspondence - and personal rapport - with a small percentage of my readership (from whom I often thankfully learn more, while being complimented for what they have learned) ”

AN:
So people more ignorant than you don't notice you're ignorant and you see this as evidence you're not ignorant? The fact they don't know doesn't mean you do.

Kai:
It's one thing to not know, AlphaNumeric, and, it's another to refuse to know.

If you - or anyone else - disqualifies the central themes of my work, I will accept that, with gratitude. Even if disqualified, my work is a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Evolution of Physics; the very process of conceptualization and mental excersizes. As I have said of it many times before, even if disqualified, my work is an outstanding expeditiion in alternative thinking, and, if disqualified, a solved - self redeeming riddle, well worth having engaged.

Ophiloite calls it 'a wasted life'. Heard that before. It's a nervous tick that sometimes results from unexpected encounters with something which, once recognized, one questions why they didn't see it themselves, much earlier.

In matters of discovery, for the most part, it is not a matter of placing or displacing anything anywhere, it is more a matter of finding everything right where and how it's been, all along. A matter of recognizing what was previously known, but not understood; a matter of denying and rejecting something, on the false premise that it is understood, when it isn't.

In the words of Robert Pirsig: "One must try to avoid thinking they understand something, that they don't actually understand."
It's about something not being corrected, because no problem is perceived.

If and when, under such circumstances, dawn ever breaks over Marblehead, it can be embarrassing. Refer, distress, hinder, impede, disconcert.

Truly Yours is well versed in the possibility of being wrong - it doesn't make my life a waste, it merely proves that a great adventure wasn't exactly what I thought it was. Whereas, should my work be recognized and generally acknowledged, well, that could 'disconcert' a lot of people whose business it is, to have found and recognized what was recognized and found by an amateur.

Post Script:
It is fairly well known that Einstein abandoned his CC, in 1927 or so. It is not so well known that he was returned to working on it, in Princeton, before he perished in '55.

 

So you reading the internet gives you a view of the professional community but me being in the professional community doesn't?

Are you that stupid?

Yet more evidence you don't know anything about this stuff. The Planck length isn't the shortest length possible, its the length where yuo MUST include quantum gravity in your analysis. So current models are not going to say anything about shorter distances and be accurate. Quantum gravity would.

I have yet to see a SST which can accurately model the CMB and the expansion effects.

Nothing you say gives me any reason to think you know any GR. Yes, its based on the equivalence principle. 20 seconds on Wikipedia tells anyone that. Have you done any analysis of the FRW metric's description of cosmology? Nope.

Ah the "I'm right, someone just needs to do the numbers for themselves" logic.

Seriously? Seriously? You, someone who can't do mathematics I did in high school, someone who can't even get onto geometry courses I teach, someone who can't pass any mathematics or physics course, someone who can't do any coordinate geometry or general relativity, are trying to tell me that I'm ignorant of 4d space-time and my knowledge is lacking? I have 2 papers (totally about 120 pages) on the geometry of 10 dimensional space-time, where 6 of the directions are compact into Calabi-Yau manifolds and I have a 3rd paper about the geometry of 10 dimensional space-time where a gauge theory is defined on the 4 dimensional boundary of a 5 dimensional subspace.

You know less than a 1st year student when it comes to anything, time and again you've illustrated you don't even understand basic concepts and have incorrect claims and you are claiming I'm ignorant?

You really are staggeringly deluded.

Your work which has no quantitative models, no detailed predictions, no logical derivations and nothing of any use in it. Yes, I'm sure you explain what causes them....

So have Christians and Muslims, doesn't mean their claims about deities are right. Your work has not passed peer review. In 40 years no physicist has considered your work worth developing or publishing or working on. Writing and selling books doesn't make them valid. Or is this logic lost on you?

How does it manage that when no physicist take any notice?

With cranks their 'recognition' is always just over the hill. Most give up after a while. The fact you've stuck with it for 4 decades is not a good reflection on you.

 

In this post you have called him stupid, claimed he knows nothing about things which he obviously knows about, called him a crank and generally insulted him. Instead of practicing the art of discussion, making valid points that recognize what is actually within and what is beyond the realm of science, and conducting a forum discussion without the unethical insults, you fail to support your positions (except to point out what you know, what you do, and why you consider yourself an authority). You ignore many of his points and when you do respond it is often meaningless. This is why I have been saying you are your own worst enemy. And guess what? You haven’t even taken the time to read his book.

 

I repeatedly asked him to back up his claims and he hasn't.

This thread started with a link to a page which made claims which are false. Kai should know the claims are false if he knew about cosmology. He didn't so it demonstrates he doesn't.

He's made claims about arguments in the physics community, despite not being in it. I tell him he's wrong and he says he knows because he reads the internet. Guess what, I read the internet too and I'm in the physics community.

He admits he can't do any mathematics which means he cannot do any mathematics or physics beyond high school level. He would fail any and all exams given at university on the subject.

He claims to have a model of Nature yet without mathematics he can give no working model of anything. A model which doesn't model anything is not a model.

I've wondered how he can 'translate' complicated physics into 'educationally valuable' stuff when he can't understand the language of the complicated physics. Neither you nor he have given a retort to that.

He lies about the mainstream community, he lies about his results and he makes illogical claims that his work is worthwhile because he's managed to sell books. And you can't complain I don't respond to posts, whenever I ask you direct questions you just quote my entire post and link to a different thread. You are a massive hypocrite.

No, I worked 10am to 10pm pretty much every day for the last week to finish my thesis. It's now handed in and my viva date set. In 3 years I've managed more than he has in 4 decades. And got more work published too.

Yeah, I'm my own worst enemy for asking him to stop lying about the mainstream community, to learn something and to point out he has no working models.

Sort of like what I say to you. I guess that's why you feel the need to defend him, you and he share a lot of faults.

 

I share his faults, I share your faults, I have my own faults, and so do you. What is your point in pointing out everyone's faults in the form of insults instead of artfully. And do you agree you have as many faults as any of the rest of us or are you better than us?

 

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Have you polled the 'physics community', AlphaNumeric? I have not, yet I do witness right here on the net, a lot of disagreement within professional ranks. ”

AN:
So you reading the internet gives you a view of the professional community but me being in the professional community doesn't?

Are you that stupid?

Kai:
I have posted this before, you apparently 'scrolled past it':

"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote. 'Science', writes Snow, 'had seemed to be without people or contradictions.'
"The knowledge that physics is not as unanimous or bloodless as it may appear from the outside came as a surprise to me also. I wanted to know more..."
- Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, Preface ”

Scaramouche replied: "I had one particularly good physics teacher who was always careful to present things as they are, as the currently accepted and functioning models, rather than as the concrete facts of the universe. It is a necessary distinction which I feel is overlooked by many."


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
On the other hand, what I do know about String 'theory' is that it alludes to and depends a great deal upon factors that are short of Planck length (ergo, the immeasurable), hence it's well known further dependence on specialized mathematics, that, often, even accomplished mathematicians either don't understand, and/or don't agree with. ”

AN:
Yet more evidence you don't know anything about this stuff. The Planck length isn't the shortest length possible, its the length where yuo MUST include quantum gravity in your analysis. So current models are not going to say anything about shorter distances and be accurate. Quantum gravity would.

Kai:
Enter 'Arguments against quantum gravity' in google.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You would know that doesn't disqualify the Steady State theory, if you recognized the 4-D accelerating expansion of the physical universe itself. ”

AN:
I have yet to see a SST which can accurately model the CMB and the expansion effects.

Kai:
As I've said (and you have 'scrolled past') before, there are as many estimates of what the CMB should be as there are cards in a poker game - it's a figure of speech, meaning there's no patent agreement on the mean value of CMB. As regards the expansion effects, you admit you haven't read my book so you aren't familiar with a lot of unprecedented alternatives.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The GR is based on the equivalence principle; more specifically, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values; contingent to the so called 'universal rate of descent of test objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance'. Moreover, Einstein's 4th D is a product of GR. Both of these fundamental facts play a principle role in what you say I know nothing about. ”

AN:
Nothing you say gives me any reason to think you know any GR. Yes, its based on the equivalence principle. 20 seconds on Wikipedia tells anyone that. Have you done any analysis of the FRW metric's description of cosmology? Nope.

Kai:
Your self-answering question of 'Nope', is preceded by a question of whether I've done FRW metrics, which you know I haven't done. It does not disqualify the points I made in the context they occur in.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Everyone else' may calculate as they wish. It doesn't take a mathematician or physicist to conclude that volumetric space, be it occupied or not, is endless, just as is the - whatever given quantity of - material of the universe. ”

AN:
Ah the "I'm right, someone just needs to do the numbers for themselves" logic.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I find much of your critique is handicapped by your ignorance of what the 4-D space-time continuum really is, and, consequently, particularly as a professional, your knowledge is (avoidably) lacking. ”


AN:
Seriously? Seriously? You, someone who can't do mathematics I did in high school, someone who can't even get onto geometry courses I teach, someone who can't pass any mathematics or physics course, someone who can't do any coordinate geometry or general relativity, are trying to tell me that I'm ignorant of 4d space-time and my knowledge is lacking? I have 2 papers (totally about 120 pages) on the geometry of 10 dimensional space-time, where 6 of the directions are compact into Calabi-Yau manifolds and I have a 3rd paper about the geometry of 10 dimensional space-time where a gauge theory is defined on the 4 dimensional boundary of a 5 dimensional subspace.

You know less than a 1st year student when it comes to anything, time and again you've illustrated you don't even understand basic concepts and have incorrect claims and you are claiming I'm ignorant?

You really are staggeringly deluded.

Kai:
Great brochure material, AlphaNumeric. Terrific flexing of muscles. Meanwhile, I'm having delusions that you haven't read the book that you're critiqueing.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Btw, if black holes exist, my work explains what causes them. ”

AN:
Your work which has no quantitative models, no detailed predictions, no logical derivations and nothing of any use in it. Yes, I'm sure you explain what causes them....

Kai:
Yes. A black hole singularity is a static, non-expanding 3-D entity in a 4-dimensionally expanding universe, where the former entity gets as small and dense as the expanding 4-D universe becomes large and tenuous around it; squared.

It is unlikely that you understand a word of that, because you've deprived yourself of the opportunity of knowing of it, whether it's to agree or disagree with it. You aren't qualified for either alternative.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I have written, published, distributed and sold out my books. ”

AN:
So have Christians and Muslims, doesn't mean their claims about deities are right. Your work has not passed peer review. In 40 years no physicist has considered your work worth developing or publishing or working on. Writing and selling books doesn't make them valid. Or is this logic lost on you?

Kai:
My last response about my books was taken out of context by you, where you had stated: "Have fun burning your money". My point was that the book doesn't lose money, it has consistently sold out, paid for itself and profited. Your above response is deliberately oblique and off topic. You do a lot of that kind of sniping throughout this discourse, when you respond at all...


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Even if disqualified, my work is a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Evolution of Physics ”

AN:
How does it manage that when no physicist take any notice?

Kai:. What they don't do is wager their careers on it.
A lot of physicists have taken notice.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Whereas, should my work be recognized and generally acknowledged, well, that could 'disconcert' a lot of people whose business it is, to have found and recognized what was recognized and found by an amateur. ”

AN:
With cranks their 'recognition' is always just over the hill. Most give up after a while. The fact you've stuck with it for 4 decades is not a good reflection on you.

Kai:
Whether I personally disengage from my work or not is irrelevant, it's out there, and what it establishes is being increasingly encountered. If it's not disqualified the parallel of incoming information with the prescience of the contents of my work will be unavoidable, unignorable and unconcealable.

-----------------------------------------------

quantum_wave
Temporary Avatar (2,050 posts)
Today, 10:23 AM #35

In this post you have called him stupid, claimed he knows nothing about things which he obviously knows about, called him a crank and generally insulted him. Instead of practicing the art of discussion, making valid points that recognize what is actually within and what is beyond the realm of science, and conducting a forum discussion without the unethical insults, you fail to support your positions (except to point out what you know, what you do, and why you consider yourself an authority). You ignore many of his points and when you do respond it is often meaningless. This is why I have been saying you are your own worst enemy. And guess what? You haven’t even taken the time to read his book.

-------------------------------------------------------

AlphaNumeric
PhD Thesis : 100% Complete (2,564 posts)
Today, 10:33 AM #36

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Instead of practicing the art of discussion, making valid points ”

AN:
I repeatedly asked him to back up his claims and he hasn't.

Kai:
I have repeatedly backed up many claims, you repeatedly 'scroll past', and/or deny them.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
claimed he knows nothing about things which he obviously knows about ”


AN:
This thread started with a link to a page which made claims which are false. Kai should know the claims are false if he knew about cosmology. He didn't so it demonstrates he doesn't.

Kai:
Since this thread started I have included 'Arguments against BBT' via Google.

AN:
He's made claims about arguments in the physics community, despite not being in it. I tell him he's wrong and he says he knows because he reads the internet. Guess what, I read the internet too and I'm in the physics community.

Kai:
Googling subjects, and arguments for and against them can go on for a heck of a long time. Draw your own conclusions. You have also apparently scrolled past, forgotten or forsaken Barbara Lovett Cline's quote about C. P. Snow's novel, 'The Search'.

AN:
He admits he can't do any mathematics which means he cannot do any mathematics or physics beyond high school level. He would fail any and all exams given at university on the subject.

Kai:
A consistently rejected, denied, ignored avenue which has not been previously pursued and followed through on is what enables me to achieve what is proved in the book.

AN:
He claims to have a model of Nature yet without mathematics he can give no working model of anything. A model which doesn't model anything is not a model.

Kai:
There is no precedent for the model presented in the issued work. You base your rejections on what you haven't given yourself the opportunity to qualify.

AN:
I've wondered how he can 'translate' complicated physics into 'educationally valuable' stuff when he can't understand the language of the complicated physics. Neither you nor he have given a retort to that.

Kai:
The Total Field Theory w'out mathematics thread responds consistently to your last allegation that your objections haven't been responded to.

It is you who is at deficit for lack of response and diversion.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
You ignore many of his points and when you do respond it is often meaningless. ”

AN:
He lies about the mainstream community, he lies about his results...'

Kai:
Heard these harsh allegations before, in Total Field Theory thread. The 'mainstream community' is constantly at odds with itself on many important issues, that's how knowledge evolves (Refer, Google: Arguments for and against FILL IN HERE) - your present accusations characteristically ignore my presentation of Stephen Hawking's allusion to the irony of 'creationism', for example.

AN:
and he makes illogical claims that his work is worthwhile because he's managed to sell books.

Kai:
What's illogical about that?

AN:
And you can't complain I don't respond to posts, whenever I ask you direct questions you just quote my entire post and link to a different thread. You are a massive hypocrite.

Kai:
Again you name call as being 'hypocrite', a person who has tried to steer you away from hi-jacking the Total Field Theory thread, by navigating your arguments with him to another location.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
And guess what? You haven’t even taken the time to read his book. ”

AN:
No, I worked 10am to 10pm pretty much every day for the last week to finish my thesis. It's now handed in and my viva date set. In 3 years I've managed more than he has in 4 decades. And got more work published too.

Kai:
You certainly do gamble a lot against a source of information you've not read.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
This is why I have been saying you are your own worst enemy. ”

AN:
Yeah, I'm my own worst enemy for asking him to stop lying about the mainstream community, to learn something and to point out he has no working models.

Kai:
That stack of foregone conclusions and mendacious statements has already been thrown in the ring - here, and in Total Field Theory. Giving you the last word - below - that relates to all the other vacant statements you're in the habit of industrializing.

AN:
Sort of like what I say to you. I guess that's why you feel the need to defend him, you and he share a lot of faults.

 

Wow, anacdotal evidence from a pop science book. That's obviously superior to reading papers, talking with physicists and attending conferences!

And? If I enter "Global Illuminati conspiracy" I get hits. If I enter 'Proof of God' I get hits. If I enter 'Disproof of God' I get hits. The fact someone has a website with those words in doesn't mean what they say is valid. All you learn from that is that someone else has said something on the matter, it tells you nothing about the validity of what they say. We're already been over the whole Mattis (or whatever his name was) being wrong on numerous things so the fact Google brings up his page is irrelevant.

You seem to have no understanding of how to actually provide support for your points of view. The fact someone else might agree with you doesn't make it right. Catholics agree with one another. Muslims agree with one another. They can't both be right.

And none of the alternatives provide as accurate a description of the CMB as the mainstream one does. As this diagram of prediction vs measurement illustrates.

You make claims about GR while admiting you don't know any GR.

You claimed I don't know about 4d space-time. That has nothig to do with reading your book, it's about my level of knowledge with regards to space-time. And by 'flexing my muscles' I demonstrate I have knowledge is said area. You admit you don't know any GR or even any geometry so you can hardly talk.

You try to disregard my knowledge because you know you can't make any claims of knowledge on any of these topics.

Arm waving. Nothing you just said can be tested or gives any quantitative predictions or is derived rigorously from basic postulates. You simply make up claims, like q_w. The Schwarzchild metric in GR is the metric which describes the space-time around the Earth. It's tested everyday through the use of GPS navigation. Experimental justification. Where's yours? You can't say the Kerr metric is just an assumption or unjustified and then pretend your unjustified assumptions are anything but.

Yet ore hypocrisy. You admit you can't do geometry and you don't know any mainstream stuff but you somehow think you're qualified to talk about it. I have published work in differential geometry applications to space-time, black hole physics and a degree and masters which involved courses like 'Black holes' (lectured by someone who had Hawking as his PhD supervisor and now works along side him) and somehow I'm 'unqualified'.

You cannot call me 'unqualified' or 'uneducated' or 'inexperienced' with regards to any of these things without also calling yourself the same, since I have more qualifications, more experience and more education in these things than you. If I'm wrong about this please outline your qualifications, education and experience. Reading pop science books and using Google is not included.

Its just they don't mention it, don't buy your books and do nothing based on your work. You are making a totally baseless claim.

And how are you measuring this 'increase'? No one cites your work, no one builds on your work, no one does anything on your work. An increase of zero from zero to zero is still zero.

Provide the page references in your book where you construct, from basic postulates in a rigorous manner, a model of a particular phenomenon, make predictions, compare them with experiment and find you have a working experimentally justified model of said phenomenon. Neither you nor q_w have anything like that yet you claim to have experimentally consistent or justifiable results.

Both of you whine about how string theory doesn't have any predictions (so you claim) but it describes a hell of a lot more than either of your two's work.

So you don't like the BBT so you Googled and just posted any link you could find. You didn't check the claims, you didn't evaluate it's author's knowledge, you just parroted it back to us. If you knew any of the mainstream cosmology you denounce so much you'd see that the claims of the link you originally provided are either lies or in error. I explicitly explained this for the neutrino mass section and you didn't retort what I said.

I don't deny that there are questions the BBT currently doesn't answer but that doesn't mean any and all made up complaints about it are true.

Take your own advice! I read papers and then think "Do I agree with this? Does the author support his case?". You have made up your mind and then just parrot other people's views because you haven't bothered to actually look at the evidence or the theory yourself.

You claim to mathematically disprove the notion of point particles. You admit you can't do mathematics. See any problem with those two claims? I didn't even have to read your book!

So the fact you've lied or misrepresented things before means I shouldn't mention it again?

You claim to mathematically disprove the notion of point particles. You admit you can't do mathematics. See any problem with those two claims?

I haven't read 99.99999% of material written in books, so? It would appear you haven't read ANY research paper, journal, textbook or lecture notes from any area of physics pertaining to your claims. Those talk about models which have experimental justification, which provide experimental data to be explained, which provide methods, approaches and ideas you have never considered. So once again you're being a hypocrite if you claim I'm 'gambling' because I haven't read your work. I have read your posts and I find them fill of mistakes, lies, contradictions and nonsense. I have no reason to think your book will be any different. I ask you a direct question like "Provide a single phenomenon you can accurately model" and you can't answer. Why should I trawl through your book to find something you can't point me to? I don't believe the answer is in your book so I am not going to waste my time. Don't get me wrong, I read textbooks for fun, often material outside of my area of research, so its not like I'm not interested in expanding my horizons. It's just that nothing you've said gives me any reason to think my time would be spent well reading your book, just like I don't read 'Christian Science' books on intelligent design.

If your purpose on this forum is to get people to read your book then your posts work against you because they make it clear that you are very ignorant of science, you make claims you can't back up and you have the tendency to just parrot people who you agree with without checking the accuracy of their comments. Two idiots agreeing doesn't make them right.

Is there an artful way to point out to someone that they have repeatedly lied and misrepresented things? For instance, when you accused me of wishing you did, how would you 'artfully' point out such an accusation is a complete and utter lie? Is saying "You are a liar" not artful enough, even though its factually accurate. Or do you prefer "You play it fast and loose with the truth" or "What you have said is not entirely in line with factual reality"?

Where did I say anything about me being faultless or better than anyone else overall? Nice strawman. I'm pointing out flaws in his claims and his arguments and the way he goes about making those arguments. If I were making claims about my work then people are welcome to comment on the methods by which I make and justify any particular claims. I admit I have plenty of faults and I don't think I'm 'better' than other people. I'm better than most people when it comes to mathematics and physics, that's a demonstrable fact. That doesn't make me a better person though and I've never claimed it does.

 

There is an artful way to do it. Drop the accusations that people are lying for one. And do not say things like we discussed here.

I made a New Years resolution to stop returning your flames and I am sticking to it.