Delusions of Grandeur and Conspiracy theorists: Connection?

Great Paddoboy !! You continue to amuse me.

Why am I getting a feeling that you flicked it from somewhere......standard copy paste stuff with some words here and there......never ever I have seen you writing so much on your own, all copy pastes, hence the feeling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really...At least I didn't fudge figures denoted to Neutron stars and claim them as my own. In this thread, as in all threads you have started, you have proven yourself a dishonest fraud.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy, the Neutron Star Packing radius is a simple calculation based on spherical packing, not at all fudged......and such wonderful results (like 2.65 Solar Mass, 3.24 Solar Mass and non obeservation of Quark Star) have encouraged me further......the roar has just started, baby !!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course its fudged Donald. It's common knowledge..you fooled no one.
Keep wimpering!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you look at Baltimore, a new conspiracy theory has been created, by the liberal democrats, about the police. The data that is not presented is, 95% of the murders of blacks, is based on black on black crime. The liberals use this conspiracy tactic all the time, because their base is feminized. Women like men to lie to them, to make them feel good. They don't want to hear they look fat in that dress; blacks are their own worse enemies. They want to hear, you look fine, don't change anything. The world is the problem, not you.

Grandeur, in this case, is about collective sex appeal, using makeup to hide blemishes. The republicans are not sure how to tell the truth and not hurt feelings by appearing to smear the make-up, even if the truth is how you solve problems. The democrats have a much lower moral standard, and will lie, since this is what their feeling base, wants to hear.

The liberal NY sports media is driving a deflate-gate scandal with Tom Brady and the Patriots. This minor form cheating, compared to steroids, is being held up as worse than what Hilary Clinton or the head of the IRS did with the e-mails. It has the flavor of a conspiracy theory, since there is no universal standard of cheating.

Even President Obama deflated the Obamacare game ball, when it said you can keep your doctor. This softened the game ball, so he could pitch it better. This is not a scandal because it was truth. Leaders are held to a lower standard than athletes, which is not a good thing. Real conspiracy is ignored by introducing fake conspiracy. The real conspiracy in Baltimore is connected to paid demonstrators, from the democratic coffers, responsible for triggering the destruction. This is substituted for a fake, police are the cause of this, because feminists prefer lies that make them feel good, without effort.

 

Wasn't Galileo once considered a conspiracy theorist? Or at least, the Pope thought so. Which one had delusions of grandeur? Which one was right? It could be argued either way. Would it have made any difference if they had not locked horns? Probably not. Galileo's life may have been better, but no one would remember who he was. It would have made little difference to a Pope so ignorant.

We are all as ignorant as shit, yours truly included. Does this really qualify as a delusion of grandeur, or is it something else? Grandeur is overrated.

Science has no Pope, paddoboy. We're sorry if that annoys you, but you have my vote if you wish to be the first.

 

Not me sonny...as I have stated many times, I'm only an ameteur.
Galileo by the way was conducting science before science was really recognised as such, due to the total authority of the church.
Galileo was bound to have survived, or at least his works, because it was true science.
My argument stands that those few [that obviously science forums attract, simply because they have nowhere else to preach their nonsense] that claim to have TOES [four on this forum] and those that claim to have invalidated GR, [ with fabricated unreal scenarios, against the laws of physics and GR] and those others that still cling to the superiority and omnipotence of some deity all are basically conspirators with inflated egos.
Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants like Galileo, they prefer to follow there own inflated ego and delusions and create fairy tales.
Again, mainstream accepted science, is mainstream accepted science, because it is according to the vast majority of scientists, the most reasonable and likely outcome.
If that annoys you, then tough titty.

 

Yes, the TOEs both here and on other forums that allow lay ideas about TOEs do get a little tiresome. But people keep trying because it's what they do. It's very difficult in the 21st century to keep up with the latest observations and information necessary to put one that works together, and unfortunately most who propose TOEs don't even try to make it fit into established science knowledge, nor do they seem to care.

Here's a better idea, paddoboy. How about a basic science knowledge exam as a prerequisite to posting? It would work something like this:

1. They post their TOE
2. The final edit is removed from view pending the examination
3. The exam is sent via e-mail, and submitted answers returned with an agreed upon time limit. The questions would include the most basic tested results of relativity, which is the gold standard even of 21st century science, but also some basic quantum physics concepts. I cannot imagine that a working TOE would not include a knowledge of this, but if desired, a hierarchy of TOEs from "this looks interesting" to "pseudoscience" could be established as special areas for TOE postings.
4. If the exam receives a failing grade, the TOE post remains hidden and archived

I would volunteer to try this, if I had a TOE. I don't, but since no one else does either, this doesn't bother me.

 

They have a scheme over at cosmoquest.....
[1] Someone or other proposes an alternative model of some aspect of physics:
[2] They propose there idea and must answer all questions put to them satisfactorally
[3]They have a month to counter all objections, questions, and the validity or otherwise of their ideas.
[4] After one month, if not successful and convincing, there thread is closed.

But let's be fair dinkum. As I have stated many many times.....
Do you really believe anyone would just pop into a science forum, with an idea of great substance, that invalidated GR or was a legitimate TOE?
They wouldn't! They would be pounding at the doors of academia for all their worth, with their paper in hand.
Do you really believe any non scientist, without access to the many Earth based 'scopes and accelerators etc, and without access to the huge amount of variable probes we have out there, would be able to come up with a TOE...or invalidate GR...or in the case of the latest "giant", invalidate BHs and GR to boot?
Do you really believe that will happen?
Sure, they have as much right to put their stuff as I do, but at least in the right forum. Not being sneaky, underhanded and in the closet so to speak, posting in the science threads, rather than the "less respectable" alternative sections.
That further lessens their case and enhances my claims that they are no more then conspirators with Inflated egos suffering from delusions of grandeur.

 

I would agree that in the current state of physics, the probability of someone outside of academia and accelerator land coming up with a reasonable TOE is about the same as a 15th century alchemist coming up with the periodic table in its final form. And yet there was Mendeleev, and there was also Isaac Newton, who, despite the support of a church based academia, and a brilliant intellect (not unlike your own) turned out to be a total chemistry dud.

In both cases, neither would have been helped by association with other alchemists or by established or entrenched academia. Remember that the function of educators is not always to seek nor to teach truth. The most valuable thing they can teach young minds is how to find it.

 

In both cases both were scientists.
In near all cases of alternative hypothesis pushers we have had on this forum, none were scientists, none had any evidence supporting their stuff or any successful prediction over and above the incumbent model.

Can you see a difference?

 

Sometimes, and in those instances it is obvious.

But I almost missed conversing with an 'emergent space' person whose basic ideas turned out to be more mainstream than some of my own and close to those of noted physicist Eric Verlinde, simply because I didn't understand.

I used to worship the ground one of my advanced dynamics physics profs walked on. Later (much later) I found out that his good grasp of physics did not extend as far as his politics or judge of character, which was frankly appalling.

It takes all kinds. This is the reason, grandeur is something I would know exactly nothing about, nor would I ever wish to.

I like your ideas about peer review, but I've seen some really bad examples of that elsewhere. Which is why I suggested a more standardized assessment of basic science knowledge.

 

Sadly, nothing is perfect. But it is the best we have got.

 

Just imagine what might have happened if Minkowsky had been made responsible for peer reviewing Einstein's Special Relativity before it got released. Einstein received only an average grade from Minkowsky, you may remember. No one would ever have seen e=mc^2. The atom bomb, nuclear reactors or the LHC would never have been possible, or would have yielded too many incomprehensible results. GPS would have failed totally because of intractable clock synchronization issues because GRT was never worked out.

Or imagine if Robert Hooke peer reviewed Isaac Newton. That would have been a total disaster. We actually needed both of them. Newton never did springs, for whatever reason. Hooke insisted (to Newton) that a spring-like direct proportion force was responsible for celestial mechanics. This one is the classic case of a theoretician being too heavily invested in a particular technique which might or might not apply to another problem.

Like grading papers of college students, peer review in physics is a lot of hard work. It would need to be compensated, and for the most part, would not provide much in the way of return on investment. If the salary was low, I'd rather grade papers than do peer review of serious theoretical science.

 

Except Einstein had mathematics to back up his claims.

 

Yes, but Minkowsky didn't have a knowledge of PHYSICS to back up his math, other than Newton's calculus, which would have been less than useless for parsing Einstein's claims about SRT.

In actual fact, consulting Minkowsky did more to confuse the issues SRT addressed and irritated Einstein in the process. Einstein put forth the the ideas that simultaneity was not the same for all observers and that the speed of light was invariant. Minkowsky took these two ideas and came back with the idea of 4D 'interval' invariance. His interval is a concept that is basically NEVER used in practical physics, and its invariance derives of the speed of light appearing within his Pythagorean interval calculation also. Minkowsky just seemed to like the idea because it seemed to make the speed of light invariance into something less important than it actually was. It didn't. I don't believe they even teach this idea any more. But they did to me.

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6929.pdf

Max Born, Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski's Space-Time Formalism of Special Relativity:

Galina Weinstein:

This note is by no means a comprehensive study of Minkowski's space-time formalism of special relativity. The mathematician, Hermann Minkowski was Einstein's former mathematics professor at the Zürich Polytechnic. During his studies at the Polytechnic Einstein skipped Minkowski's classes. In 1904 Max Born arrived in the first time to Göttingen. Many years later Born wrote his recollections. In the summer of 1905, Minkowski and Hilbert led an advanced seminar on mathematical physics, on electrodynamical theory. Minkowski told Born later that it came to him as a great shock when Einstein published his paper in which the equivalence of the different local times of observers moving relative to each other was pronounced; for he had reached the same conclusions independently but did not publish them because he wished first to work out the mathematical structure in all its splendor. He never made a priority claim and always gave Einstein his full share in the great discovery. Indeed in his famous talk, "Space and Time" Minkowski wrote that the credit of first recognizing sharply that the time of the one electron is just as good as that of the other, i.e., that t and t' are to be treated the same, is of A. Einstein. The mathematician, Hermann Minkowski was Einstein's former mathematics professor at the Zürich Polytechnic, and since 1902 a professor at Göttingen. During his studies at the Polytechnic Einstein skipped Minkowski's classes. According to Einstein's biographer Carl Seelig, Minkowski's "lectures, at times badly prepared but full of creative power".1 Einstein attended the following lectures of Minkowski: Geometry of Numbers, Function Theory, Potential Theory, Elliptic Functions, Analytical Mechanics, Variational Calculus, Algebra, Partial differential Equations, and Applications of Analytical Mechanics.2 Einstein could have gotten good mathematical training from his teachers at the Zürich Polytechnic. "At that time", says Anton Reiser, Einstein was less interested in mathematical speculation than in the visible process of physics".3 Einstein felt that "the most fascinating subject at the time that I was a student was Maxwell's theory".4 He found it difficult to accept for a long time the importance of abstract mathematics,

more at......
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6929.pdf

 

http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/endeavour.pdf
The Influence of David Hilbert and Hermann Minkowski on Einstein’s Views over the Interrelation between Physics and Mathematics:

Leo Corry - Tel Aviv University
Abstract:
In the early years of his scientific career, Albert Einstein considered mathematics to be a mere tool in the service of physical intuition. In later years, he came to consider mathematics as the very source of scientific creativity. A main source behind this change was the influence of two prominent German mathematicians: David Hilbert and Hermann Minkowski.

more at....
http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/endeavour.pdf

 

Einstein's genius was putting together many facts and scenarios from many other great physicists at that time, and the nouse to disregard that which didn't help at all.
Not subtracting from the great man, but he more or less, emphasised that great quote of Newton, about seeing as far as he did, by standing on the shoulders of giants.
A pity that some who are posting nonsense on this forum in many threads, cannot see that fact.

 

So he "never worked it out in all of its mathematical glory" eh? Typical. NOT physical glory. Mathematical glory. Like Euclid or Pythagoras or even Archimedes could have done it.

The old saw about "standing on the shoulders of giants" was getting tired even then. That's why Murray Gell-Mann once quipped "If I have seen further than others, it was because I was surrounded by dwarves."

I never skipped classes, but if Minkowsky was my professor, I might have. This is not Euclidean space we live in. But because Euclid's geometry was all he or Hilbert knew anything about, Minkowsky forced the issue. If three dimensions did not include time, then by golly, time would be the fourth dimension and he'd make the rest of it appear Euclidean in his math as well, even if it wasn't.

Where was Minkowky's mathematical proof that this idea was justified, even in small part? There wasn't one. Self-evident, it is not. There is no such thing as absolute space in this universe. It was the same deal as Hooke grafting his proportional force onto celestial mechanics and insisting that Newton was wrong.