3 ms·

I don't mean to be rude (so please don't be offended if my tone sounds overly negative online), but are you aware that your theories are incredibly crackpot in

by vecter 10y ago

I don't mean to be rude (so please don't be offended if my tone sounds overly negative online), but are you aware that your theories are incredibly crackpot in nature? I'm asking a sincere question, not trying to insult you. It's clear you have very little understanding of physics. That's totally fine and cool. The vast majority of people don't know anything meaningful about physics. You just make very bold claims that go against standard theoretical and experimental knowledge in the field. If I knew very little knowledge about a topic, be it physics or cooking or dog breeding, I would at least be very aware of that fact and probably not make claims on topics I'm uneducated about. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to understand how you feel comfortable making these bold claims when I believe you're aware that you know almost nothing about the topic.

ars 10y ago
> but are you aware that your theories are incredibly crackpot in nature? Yup. The difference is I'm looking for info, not assuming I'm right. > It's clear you have very little understanding of physics. Now, that, is an insult considering how long I studied it. I wish I did more, but my math wasn't good enough - to my constant sorrow. > make claims .. bold claims No claims! It's bad you read it that way. Rather unorthodox ideas, and looking for confirmations or refutations based on explanation, not appeal to authority. For example: How much energy does the gravitational potential energy of all the stars in a galaxy embody? A calculation of that would confirm of deny me easily. But I don't know how to do it. I was hoping to get a reply from someone who did.
- vecter 10y ago
  > Yup. The difference is I'm looking for info, not assuming I'm right. I can respect that.
vixen99 10y ago
But certainly belittling. Why not just respond to the points made? Doubtless readers can draw their own conclusions as to the possible crackpot coefficient on a scale of 0 to 10.

by vecter 10y ago

ars 10y ago

> but are you aware that your theories are incredibly crackpot in nature? Yup. The difference is I'm looking for info, not assuming I'm right. > It's clear you have very little understanding of physics. Now, that, is an insult considering how long I studied it. I wish I did more, but my math wasn't good enough - to my constant sorrow. > make claims .. bold claims No claims! It's bad you read it that way. Rather unorthodox ideas, and looking for confirmations or refutations based on explanation, not appeal to authority. For example: How much energy does the gravitational potential energy of all the stars in a galaxy embody? A calculation of that would confirm of deny me easily. But I don't know how to do it. I was hoping to get a reply from someone who did.

vecter 10y ago
> Yup. The difference is I'm looking for info, not assuming I'm right. I can respect that.

vixen99 10y ago

But certainly belittling. Why not just respond to the points made? Doubtless readers can draw their own conclusions as to the possible crackpot coefficient on a scale of 0 to 10.