Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, new study suggests

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Musika, Apr 20, 2018.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I think you are confusing my post with Q-reeus': I made no reference to such a thing, I don't think there is one, and I'm certainly not part of one.

    Also, you seems to have mistakenly looked up the wrong word.

    Small correction: your semantics.

    Reputable according to whom?

    Except when you state things in direct contradiction with mainstream science as truth.

    Then please stop making those claims, even implicitly.

    You're welcome!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, Q-reeus has been of great help, by actually responding to my posts, along with useful links. He "teaches", you don't.
    Look at their Titles. Unless you are going to discredit the ability of science based organizations to recognize contributions made in the field of their particular discipline, these people are qualified to explore and propose alternative perspectives of "current mainstream science".

    It's happened before......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I just explained these are not my claims, but IMO are worthy of further investigation.
    Unfortunately, you contribute very little except instant dismissal and questioning my motives and ability to think......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Frankly, I am beginning to doubt your qualifications to judge anyone especially on this topic, which has once again turned into a name calling exercise. You just want seek personal recognition. Very Trumpian.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    He does, however, appreciate the importance of ascribing a consistent meaning to words, which you do not.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Because you're locked in a box and unwilling to even look at my links (which do use the proper scientific language), before insisting that Tegmark's real name is Shapiro, a Jew. Implicating........what?
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, I used the word "scything" after consideration of it's implication.
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I see you've already forgotten about the many dozen attempts I made.

    So, an argument from authority then? OK.

    You are presenting them here as if they are truth; they are thus your claims.

    It's an evidence-based conclusion I unfortunately had to reach, after you failed to learn many basic things about science, even after many dozen attempts.

    When did I ever claim to have such qualifications? Source please.

    Please point out where I have called you names.

    False; I want to protect unwary readers from your flawed understanding.

    You're going to have to explain that one to me?

    So it's irrelevant to the discussion? OK.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Cite one.
    And qualified as such.
    No, I don't, I already explained that misconception on your part.
    Other "learned minds" seem to get the gist of my posts. Unfortunately you don't seem willing to even make an effort to investigate my reported new hypotheses by cutting edge research, which does not even conflict with "mainstream science"
    Do you have any? I merely expressed doubts, which you took as a statement of fact. Shall I take that as a "No"?
    If you do not, from what authority do you speak?
    A prejudicial warning to others to not believe a thing I say , because I have an inability (in your mind) to use a few correct terms, without offering a "correction in terms"
    On what authority?
    Naaah, I'll let you figure that out all by yourself.
    No, it is very much relevant to the "discussion". You are trying to "censor" my posts and I don't see "staff member" under your name!
    Else it just becomes ad hominem, remember, "personal attacks or denegration" based on semantics.
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Nice try there, with the antisemite card, but no luck, I'm afraid.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As I have said before, Shapiros are two a penny on the E Coast of the US and Teggers thought he would acquire more celebrity if he changed his name to that of his mother, which is more distinctive. I even gave a reference for that, from a review of Tegmark/Shapiro's book by Peter Woit, a theoretical physicist who has his number. Here is the relevant extract:

    " One answer to the question is Tegmark’s talent as an impresario of physics and devotion to making a splash. Before publishing his first paper, he changed his name from Shapiro to Tegmark (his mother’s name), figuring that there were too many Shapiros in physics for him to get attention with that name, whereas “Tegmark” was much more unusual. In his book he describes his method for posting preprints on the arXiv, before he has finished writing them, with the timing set to get pole position on the day’s listing."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    And you've just proven my point for me.

    Doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy though.

    If it's a misconception on my part, then why do more people appear to have exactly the same misconception? May I suggest that perhaps you are not doing as good a job explaining yourself as you think?

    I ge the gist too, but the gist is often simply wrong or incoherent. Also, there are also other "learned minds" that seem to agree with me. So...?

    Well, you have proven unwilling or unable to make an effort understanding science. So why do you demand I put in any effort, when you clearly can't be bothered to do the same?

    Take it however you want; it'll just be an assumption without evidence on your part.

    What is it with you and argument from authority?

    False. I'm just making clear you don't understand what you are talking about. Those are two very different things.

    In my mind, and the mind of the dictionary, the mind of other "learned minds" on this forum, and many scientists.

    Again with the authority.

    Done: You are not making any sense though.

    I know you put it in quotes, but really, look up the meaning of the word "censor".

    Neither do I, but I didn't realize warning other posters about bad ideas required a "staff member" badge on this forum?

    You really need to look up the meaning of that, because you're missing a key component of it. It's only an ad hom if it's used to dismiss another people arguments. Personal attacks or denigrations are also known as insults, and they are different.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And that is a disqualification of his credentials?
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Actually you have just proven my point.
    Well, that still remains to be seen, no?
    I am well aware of my limitations in "formal" scientific language, but as I stated before, there seem to be several knowledgeable people who do get the thrust of my posits and have done me the courtesy of answering my questions clearly and concisely.
    First, if the gist is incoherent to you, then obviously you are not getting it.
    Second, that may be true, but all I need is one kind soul to bother responding with suggestions of where to look and what to look for.
    There is that little matter that English is my second lanuage and while I have a generally good understanding of the English language, the language of physics is also often expressed with "mundane"metaphors, as illustrative of the question under consideration.
    A link to a formal paper or scientific review is not evidence of the concept or hypothesis?
    What is it with you, to dismiss out-of-hand what I say?
    That does not follow at all.
    In your mind perhaps. I do usually consult the dictionary when I am unsure of a term and want to understand the underlying meaning in the various definitions.
    Well Trump seems to have a penchant to demean good people, because they don't automatically pledge their unwavering loyalty to his worldview.
    I know you don't have the power to censor me, i.e remove the "offending'' term.
    But instead of correcting me (on a word or term), you just dismiss the entire post as unworthy of reading it at all, but seem to take plenty time to "warn" others about me as well.
    If it is done without proof to the contrary, it is still just your unproven opinion and therefore hypocricital and just plain prejudicial.
  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Remember that one time I had to point out to you that a sphere is not a fractal? That you don't understand my corrections doesn't mean I'm not trying to "teach" you.

    No, an argument from authority is always a logical fallacy, by definition.

    Oh, I get the thrust of your posits; I'm just not okay with all the nonsense that comes with it.

    The if-part isn't true.

    That would be me.

    Same here. But that's no excuse for ignoring corrections when they are offered to you.

    That's popular science you're describing. That's a terrible way to learn about the details of scientific models and theories. Also, are you saying there are no science-book translated to whatever is your native language? I find that hard to believe.

    You want a link to a formal paper or scientific review in which it is proven that I have qualifications? What?

    If you provide no evidence (or only bad evidence), then what is preventing me from dismissing out-of-hand what you say?

    Warning other people out bad ideas is not the same as insulting the person with the bad ideas.

    Perhaps you should consult that dictionary more often, for the words "potential", "function", "value", "color", etc.

    See, this is why I asked you what you meant. You are using the term with your own definition.

    Which I have done dozens and dozens of times (and other people have done so as well), but you just ignore it.

    Yep. If you can't learn, that's your problem, but I can at least try to prevent others from learning things wrong from you.

    And here too, the if-part is wrong.

    From :
    It's an argument/argumentative strategy. It's literally in the (non-shortened) term. This is also stated in the Merriam-Webster's definition, although not that clearly. And this is yet another example of me trying to teach you something. Let's see if you learn...
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    • Please do not refer to other members using offensive language.
    It means I am not an antisemite, you cunt.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You brought it up a long time ago and have repeated it several times, which I thought was gratuitous and irrelevant to the subjects under discussion.
    I always wondered why you felt compelled to interject that at all.

    Moreover, I never said that you are an antisemite, but now I know for sure you are a rude person.

    I merely asked if changing one's name disqualifies one's credentials?
    You seem intent on taking my posts the wrong way. I wonder why?

    p.s. Interesting that you should use that term, since I am male. Obviously biology is not one of your strong points...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2018
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Are spheres self similar?
    Then citing "mainstream science" is also an argument from authority, no?
    Then address the salient part.
    Then address the salient parts
    Quoting your own posts does nothing to further the conversation.
    I believe I have made several corrections based on advise from others.
    Of course there are, and I began reading my father's books on science at a very early age. The problem is in the translation into English and if I wrote Dutch, you wouldn't understand a single word at all.
    So I do the best I can with English dictionaries......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not necessary, I can read and get the "gist" of your knowledge.
    But I do, with copious links.
    Oh, I think if you actually looked up all the various definitions of those terms and I have a pretty good grasp of the underlying premises.

    You are right, it is a strategy. Unfortunately it is not a valid strategy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You know perfectly well that is exactly what you were insinuating. You were explicitly suggesting my remarks were something to do with Shapiro being a Jewish name. That is a totally [deleted] thing to do.

    As for"always wondering" why I mention Tegmark's name change, I have linked to that article by Peter Woit on several previous occasions when you have been blithering on about Teggers/Shapiro. So there is no excuse for you not to know why I think it is relevant, viz. because someone who changes his name to make it more distinctive to the public is acting like a showman, not a scientist.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2018
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Is that a valid phrase in the dictionary or in science for that matter?
    But of course the standard of civility has drastically deteriorated since the Trump phenomenon.
    Yes, you used the double name first about a year ago and repeated it several times thereafter, with obvious derision. But I accept your explanation, though I am not sure about its relevance.
    Again, does it affect his credentials?[/quote]

    p.s. this is the Philosophical sub-forum which allows for logical propositons about the universe and "how it works", rather than specific scientific details.
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Can you "zoom in" to a sphere to find more spheres?

    Only if it comes with the claim that it is true, just because scientists say so.

    What gives you the right to demand that of me?

    What gives you the right to demand that of me?

    Not only that, but you yourself often ignore the salient parts of my posts.

    I wasn't quoting my own post?

    And I've not claimed otherwise.

    Actually, I'm Dutch, so I would understand perfectly.

    So you claim.

    Alright, where are the copious links that spheres are fractals then?

    Except when we did that, it was demonstrated that you don't.

    You've missed my point while agreeing with it.
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Wow. Just wow. You (falsely) fling an accusation of anti-Semitism against someone, and then you complain about the decline in the standard of civility.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    No this is thePhysics and Maths section, i.e. the hardest of the Hard Science sections. No requirement to tolerate woo, religion or bullshit here.

Share This Page