A little diversion, a little ad hominem, a lot of denial, and a complete absence of anything meaningful.
An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter
- Thread starter Gerry Nightingale
- Start date
In reply to AlexG, re: ?
Just like ALL of your 3,751 "posts" of "complete absence of anything meaningful".
Just like ALL of your 3,751 "posts" of "complete absence of anything meaningful".
Gerry Nightingale, as far as I know, probably the most simplified explanation of General Relativity is that mass distorts space-time and that distortion is what we experience as gravity.
You have stated that you do not believe that mass distorts space-time, so what is your interpretation of General Relativity?
You have stated that you do not believe that mass distorts space-time, so what is your interpretation of General Relativity?
In reply to origin, re: your #163 post.
No, origin...you are not going to get "honest answers" to "honest questions" from me. After all, I'm the "delusional asshole" here.
Unless or until you retract your "interpretational model" of my status as a "delusional asshole", IN A POST SO OTHERS CAN READ IT...you cannot expect any form of rational
discourse from ME!
(did you really expect me to answer any other way? Go and "troll" the "fan gwai lo", he has a formulae for all things also...none of which explain "causation")
(Thanks for reading!)
No, origin...you are not going to get "honest answers" to "honest questions" from me. After all, I'm the "delusional asshole" here.
Unless or until you retract your "interpretational model" of my status as a "delusional asshole", IN A POST SO OTHERS CAN READ IT...you cannot expect any form of rational
discourse from ME!
(did you really expect me to answer any other way? Go and "troll" the "fan gwai lo", he has a formulae for all things also...none of which explain "causation")
(Thanks for reading!)
OK. I retract my interpretational model of your status as a "delusional asshole".
So, to the queston:
Gerry Nightingale, as far as I know, probably the most simplified explanation of General Relativity is that mass distorts space-time and that distortion is what we experience as gravity.
You have stated that you do not believe that mass distorts space-time, so what is your interpretation of General Relativity?
What does fan gwai lo mean. I looked it up and gwai lo is a derogatory term in china for white people. I am not sure of your context here.
In reply to origin, re: your #165 post.
"Mass distorts spacetime". I'm assuming you want my views, and not a "textbook" answer.
I agree that matter/mass serves as mandate to "actualize" gravity as a definable force...only in my model, the "potential" of gravity is a pre-existent factor, i.e., "matter does
not "create" gravity...matter "actualizes" a potential, a potential that is always "in-place".
......
As for the "time" component of "spacetime", I would state that "time" has no real existence as a "thing of self". In my view, time is a useful "measuring stick" and nothing more.
All of matter is in a "constant state of transition" (< my own postulate) and therefore there exists no meaningful "fixed" point-of-reference with regard to matter.
......
As for the term "fan gwai lo" and what it means? It does not translate well into English...it basically means "foreign big-nosed devil" or "demon". In China, anyone with white skin
could easily be judged as a "ghost"...a dead person. A "big nose" is not a common genetic trait among the Chinese or "Han" and indicates "poor breeding" to them.
......
"Who" does it refer to? "Who" likes to add "ideographs" to their posts?
(Thanks for reading!)
"Mass distorts spacetime". I'm assuming you want my views, and not a "textbook" answer.
I agree that matter/mass serves as mandate to "actualize" gravity as a definable force...only in my model, the "potential" of gravity is a pre-existent factor, i.e., "matter does
not "create" gravity...matter "actualizes" a potential, a potential that is always "in-place".
......
As for the "time" component of "spacetime", I would state that "time" has no real existence as a "thing of self". In my view, time is a useful "measuring stick" and nothing more.
All of matter is in a "constant state of transition" (< my own postulate) and therefore there exists no meaningful "fixed" point-of-reference with regard to matter.
......
As for the term "fan gwai lo" and what it means? It does not translate well into English...it basically means "foreign big-nosed devil" or "demon". In China, anyone with white skin
could easily be judged as a "ghost"...a dead person. A "big nose" is not a common genetic trait among the Chinese or "Han" and indicates "poor breeding" to them.
......
"Who" does it refer to? "Who" likes to add "ideographs" to their posts?
(Thanks for reading!)
You said show you a single photon. You are presented with devices which both generate and detect single photons, and you deny they exist, and state that you refuse to believe. You then divert and ignore. Typical crackpot behavior.
In reply to "thread trolls" re: myself and what I write.
No "device" has been ever been demonstrated to "capture" a single photon...this means a "photon which has not expressed its' energy value" (no loss of energy)
The devices that DO exist must, by their inherent nature of design, be able to "register" energy input. If the device measures any energy input, it follows some definable "amount"
of energy has been "gained" in order to be "detected".
It means "something caused an input to be detected" and the "something" that contributed to the energy "gain" IS NO LONGER "THERE".
.......
Want to try some more "examples" of "what I am denying?" Do you even understand anything at a FUNDAMENTAL level?
If a photon "surrendered" it's energy...it no longer EXISTS! Just "how" do you capture something that no longer EXISTS? Or "prove" it had a "real" existence as a "single photon?"
True enough, "energy was detected". (I never stated or implied there is no "energy")
......
Just "how" do the collective of "you" think ANY device could EVER MEASURE A "PSUEDO-PARTICLE" THAT IS SMALLER THAN AN ATOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
A "device" can and does "detect" energy....NOT A PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION!!!! A PHOTON HAS "NO MASS" TO MEASURE!!!!!
......
Before assign "crackpot" values to me....go back and read some more. A LOT more, preferably from Einstein's original papers.
A.E. NEVER stated "photons are a "sort" of particle state...he DID state "IF it can be ASSUMED that photons are "discrete packets of ENERGY..."
Both of you are assigning "intents" to A.E.'s "meanings" with regard to photons.
What did "Albert" say? In regard to photons as a "sort of particle?" as proposed by many physicists?
I KNOW what he said.
........
"SCOUNDRELS...WHO "THINK" THEY KNOW!"<(quote)
(Thanks for reading!)
No "device" has been ever been demonstrated to "capture" a single photon...this means a "photon which has not expressed its' energy value" (no loss of energy)
The devices that DO exist must, by their inherent nature of design, be able to "register" energy input. If the device measures any energy input, it follows some definable "amount"
of energy has been "gained" in order to be "detected".
It means "something caused an input to be detected" and the "something" that contributed to the energy "gain" IS NO LONGER "THERE".
.......
Want to try some more "examples" of "what I am denying?" Do you even understand anything at a FUNDAMENTAL level?
If a photon "surrendered" it's energy...it no longer EXISTS! Just "how" do you capture something that no longer EXISTS? Or "prove" it had a "real" existence as a "single photon?"
True enough, "energy was detected". (I never stated or implied there is no "energy")
......
Just "how" do the collective of "you" think ANY device could EVER MEASURE A "PSUEDO-PARTICLE" THAT IS SMALLER THAN AN ATOM!!!!!!!!!!!!
A "device" can and does "detect" energy....NOT A PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION!!!! A PHOTON HAS "NO MASS" TO MEASURE!!!!!
......
Before assign "crackpot" values to me....go back and read some more. A LOT more, preferably from Einstein's original papers.
A.E. NEVER stated "photons are a "sort" of particle state...he DID state "IF it can be ASSUMED that photons are "discrete packets of ENERGY..."
Both of you are assigning "intents" to A.E.'s "meanings" with regard to photons.
What did "Albert" say? In regard to photons as a "sort of particle?" as proposed by many physicists?
I KNOW what he said.
........
"SCOUNDRELS...WHO "THINK" THEY KNOW!"<(quote)
(Thanks for reading!)
gerry,
it's amusing how you claim NOT TO BE an einstein denier,
but yet in the following lines,
it's all einstein denying, over and over
also,
it's massively important for you to take your meds.
that is all.
I see you take after your "avatar" seriously...does everyone in your family suffer from congenital Hydrocephalus?
You are completely pathetic as a "Troll"...because you forgot to mention your TWO DOCTORATES IN PHYSICS and of course the TOP SECRET WORK? you perform for the CIA!
(It's okay, krash...it's not your fault you have 47 chromosomes!)
(Thanks for reading!)
You are completely pathetic as a "Troll"...because you forgot to mention your TWO DOCTORATES IN PHYSICS and of course the TOP SECRET WORK? you perform for the CIA!
(It's okay, krash...it's not your fault you have 47 chromosomes!)
(Thanks for reading!)
hm, yzarc..
what i actually said was,
i'm a government scientist(tier one)(theoretical physicist) with two PhD's, which is not uncommon.
(physics and pure mathematics.)
so obviously there's some of your added flawed interpretations of my words there.
also, i notice you skipped my bachelor of science question,
" funny, a " bachelor of science " can mean anything,
were you studying to be a farmer ?(bachelor of science in agriculture) "
You did not answer the question I asked. I asked what is your interpretations of General Relativity. You have said people misinterpret General Relativity so I wanted to know what your interpretation of Einsteins theory was, not your own ideas.
You do not have a model you have a conjecture. In science a model has a specific meaning and your descriptions fall way short of being a model
I find it ironic that you complain about name calling and you seem to be one of the worst offenders in your threads. Sorry but you are too oblique for me to figure out who you are talking about.
In reply to "trolls ", re: questions.
OH....KRASHY MADE A BOO-BOO!
There exists NO "tier levels" in theoretical physics...which means you are too busy fantasizing to keep-up with your LIES!
There is NO "Doctorate" for "pure mathematics" either...which makes whatever you are a LIAR twice over!!!
My educational "bona fides" are none of your business! Period.
......
"Run tell dat!" to your puppet-master over at phys. (like I don't know WHO "pulls your strings" there...he allows you to throw s**t around there, because it amuses him to
use a "proxy puppet" that he can plausibly deny)
OH....KRASHY MADE A BOO-BOO!
There exists NO "tier levels" in theoretical physics...which means you are too busy fantasizing to keep-up with your LIES!
There is NO "Doctorate" for "pure mathematics" either...which makes whatever you are a LIAR twice over!!!
My educational "bona fides" are none of your business! Period.
......
"Run tell dat!" to your puppet-master over at phys. (like I don't know WHO "pulls your strings" there...he allows you to throw s**t around there, because it amuses him to
use a "proxy puppet" that he can plausibly deny)
In reply to origin, re: your #164 post.
Just what did you expect me to write? Which of A.E.'s theories did you want me to "interpret?" I don't write verbatim of A.E. when you ask "what is MY interpretation?"
I WROTE MY ANSWER! And now you still don't "agree" that my answers are my answers!
If you want models/diagrams/flow charts/explanations of everything that has ever or will ever occur...you are out of luck with respect to asking me!
If you want parse everything I write AS SCIENCE...you should look elsewhere, as I have no ability as a "scientist", and as for my terms, they "mean what they mean".
Who are YOU to criticize my meanings and intents? Are you the "final arbiter" of "all things pertaining to science?"
I write in "plain English" and if this does not suit you...STOP READING IT!
......
"Name calling?" It is on record with the MOD that you referred to me as an ASSHOLE!!!
I never wrote ANYTHING to ANYONE calling them an ASSHOLE.''
YOU DID.
You cannot decipher "who I am talking about?" What of it?
(I WRITE THEORIES...NOT TEXTBOOKS.)
.....
"Those who can, do...those who cannot, teach".
Leave theory to me, and you carry on "looking things up". You are NOT in my league.
(Thanks for reading!)
Just what did you expect me to write? Which of A.E.'s theories did you want me to "interpret?" I don't write verbatim of A.E. when you ask "what is MY interpretation?"
I WROTE MY ANSWER! And now you still don't "agree" that my answers are my answers!
If you want models/diagrams/flow charts/explanations of everything that has ever or will ever occur...you are out of luck with respect to asking me!
If you want parse everything I write AS SCIENCE...you should look elsewhere, as I have no ability as a "scientist", and as for my terms, they "mean what they mean".
Who are YOU to criticize my meanings and intents? Are you the "final arbiter" of "all things pertaining to science?"
I write in "plain English" and if this does not suit you...STOP READING IT!
......
"Name calling?" It is on record with the MOD that you referred to me as an ASSHOLE!!!
I never wrote ANYTHING to ANYONE calling them an ASSHOLE.''
YOU DID.
You cannot decipher "who I am talking about?" What of it?
(I WRITE THEORIES...NOT TEXTBOOKS.)
.....
"Those who can, do...those who cannot, teach".
Leave theory to me, and you carry on "looking things up". You are NOT in my league.
(Thanks for reading!)
We probably have half a dozen on this forum claiming similar grandeur, and three claiming ToE's, each believing there own to be right, and all without exception, decrying and deriding the scientific method and peer review.
I asked you what your interpretation of Theory of General Relativity is and your reply is "which theory" am I asking about? Really? Is there something wrong with you? I mean seriously it is like you have dementia, I hope that is not the case.
Then you go on to say:
So apparently your interpretation of General Relativity is this:
Which is quite literally one of the dumbest things I have seen written on this forum. Every phyiscs student knows at least the big picture of GR which is that mass distorts space-time. What you have written has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with GR.
Besides the point that your idea on it's face is completely worthless anyway. How can you test your idea to see if it is true. There is no test. Mass actualizes a potential already there? Useless semantics. So if I say mass distorts space you would say the potential to distort space was there you just needed mass. Big deal, even if true it adds nothing. So if we completely ignore you idea of potential, both Newtonian physics and GR are not changed or affected. Now lets assume your idea of potential is completely correct, neither Newtonian physics and GR are changed or affected? So your ideas are more philosophy than physics and adds nothing, true or not. Using your concept can we calculate the speed of an object after falling 20 ft on earth - oh that's right your conjecture tells us nothing about that it is completely useless!
True. You know nothing about physics or science. You cannot calculate anything about physics. You have proven that you do not understand even the most basic aspects of physics.
This is more evidence of a serious inability to think rationally:
You write.
Then you write.
That is just freaking crazy - really, just crazy! It really is sad how completely clueless you are, but in light of your misplaced arrogance it is hard not to slap you down. Of course your delusions of grandeur prevent you from seeing how much of a laughing stock you are.
I am sure everyone who is reading your stuff is shaking their heads.
actually this is something you, obviously are clueless on,
tier one is government sciences.
tier two is mainstream.
what a massive joke you are.
umm,
it's very important for you to take your meds.
another diverting attempt to cover your obvious fictitious-ness.
again,
it's massively important for you to take your meds.
Last edited: