6 ms·

You're not really proving or disproving anything. You're just complaining he's using another mathematical model. So what? The worst part is you have no basis f

by cm127 10y ago

You're not really proving or disproving anything. You're just complaining he's using another mathematical model. So what? The worst part is you have no basis for any of your arguments, yet somehow you feel authorized to completely dismiss the theory altogether because it somehow offends your perspective of the world. Either post real scientific data / material, or look up cognitive dissonance.

danbruc 10y ago
I am not going to go through all the nonsense that this guy has made up over years or decades, that is not worth the time. But if you can point to one specific idea, prediction, refutal of mainstream physics or whatever you like within his work, written in a way that can be understood by an interested layman, not longer than say 25 pages or so, then I will try to explain you why he is wrong in that instance.
- cm127 10y ago
  Think of it this way: the Universe is continuously expanding, -- so in a way, it's like we're still experiencing the Big Bang. So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether. Completely agree that it does sound crazy, but I think it makes more sense than our current way of modeling the Universe. The interesting part is that it invites the possibility of spiritual connections which feels amazing to finally scientifically acknowledge. I could be wrong, but I invite you to consider the possibility that there is more to life than we realize. I sincerely wish you the best either decision you make.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether. Where do you take this from? To the best of our knowledge the universe does not produce new matter. Space expands but that is new empty space, not space filled with some kind of matter.
    - cm127 10y ago
      It's from the Model G theory in Subquantum Kinetics, -- and it seems more believable than a finite amount of matter being made from a single blast of energy billions of years ago.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        But physics is not about believing, it's about describing reality. And when we look at our universe, we are not seeing new matter being created. If the theory actually says that new matter is created while the the universe expands and the amount is not so small that it may have escaped detection, then the theory is wrong. And not because somebody believes or says something but because the theory does not match reality.
        cm127 10y ago
        It theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.
        danbruc 10y ago
        The universe is old, at least according to mainstream physics, even small changes would accumulate over billions of years and cubic lightyears. And we are good at measuring things, we famously measured the g-factor to a part in a trillion, detecting gravitational waves required detecting length changes on the order 1/1000th the diameter of a proton, 0.000000000000000001 meters. A quick search reveals that we know the energy density of the universe to better than half a percent. So what are the numbers? How much new matter is generated per unit time and volume according to the theory?
        cm127 10y ago
        I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?
ajkjk 10y ago
The theory is not being dismissed because it is offensive; it's being dismissed because it has all the signs of a crackpot theory and none of the signs of a legitimate one. It is trivial to tear it apart. But if someone tore it apart, using the trivial arguments, you would not believe them - you would say "oh, you're just rejecting him like everyone else", "you're part of the brainwashed mainstream". There are thousands of arguments like this online. People who somehow got to PhDs from weird unheard of schools, went off the deep end, and publish their 'theories', which aren't developed enough to even argue against, but are written in half-intelligible, imprecise language, claim to be "ignored by the establishment", claim to solve this-and-that problem with a method that the establishment wrote off prematurely, etc, whatever. They're all the same. This particular 'theory' (though that's not a fair word for it) scores easily over 100 on this list: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html, and so isn't even worth a person's time to look at. A simple line of reasoning to support this: If it was a legitimate theory, it would start with concrete statements about how it proposes the world works. Not vague, hand-waving stuff. It would start with math - lots of it. It would start with a precise explanation of how the experiments that prove an ether to be impossible missed the truth for 100 years. It would discuss examples where mainstream physics fails to predict the right result of experiment, and then show, with calculations an informed reader could follow, how it makes better ones. The guy is telling you he's right, and you're believing him, or at least taking him seriously -- like a sucker. He's telling you "no one else is believing me, but it's because I'm being ignored unjustly", but you've skipped the more likely explanation: "no one else is believing me because what I'm saying makes no sense". But I, who knows enough physics to parse this stuff am waiting for him to show me he's right, and he's not doing that at all. Nor is he showing anyone else, which is why he's being ignored. It's not all your fault, though. It's way easier to spot these crackpot theories when you've a) studied legitimate ones and b) seen so many other crackpot theories that say all the same stuff.
- cm127 10y ago
  You can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory. Your entire comment is completely baseless: "These people don't follow my school of thought, so they must be wrong!" No offense, but using your ego to make an argument is pathetic. I'm aware the theory sounds crazy; I'm not an idiot. But I'm also not going to let my hubris dictate what I can or can't research. That's just stupid.

by cm127 10y ago

danbruc 10y ago

I am not going to go through all the nonsense that this guy has made up over years or decades, that is not worth the time. But if you can point to one specific idea, prediction, refutal of mainstream physics or whatever you like within his work, written in a way that can be understood by an interested layman, not longer than say 25 pages or so, then I will try to explain you why he is wrong in that instance.

cm127 10y ago
Think of it this way: the Universe is continuously expanding, -- so in a way, it's like we're still experiencing the Big Bang. So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether. Completely agree that it does sound crazy, but I think it makes more sense than our current way of modeling the Universe. The interesting part is that it invites the possibility of spiritual connections which feels amazing to finally scientifically acknowledge. I could be wrong, but I invite you to consider the possibility that there is more to life than we realize. I sincerely wish you the best either decision you make.
- danbruc 10y ago
  So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether. Where do you take this from? To the best of our knowledge the universe does not produce new matter. Space expands but that is new empty space, not space filled with some kind of matter.
  - cm127 10y ago
    It's from the Model G theory in Subquantum Kinetics, -- and it seems more believable than a finite amount of matter being made from a single blast of energy billions of years ago.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      But physics is not about believing, it's about describing reality. And when we look at our universe, we are not seeing new matter being created. If the theory actually says that new matter is created while the the universe expands and the amount is not so small that it may have escaped detection, then the theory is wrong. And not because somebody believes or says something but because the theory does not match reality.
      - cm127 10y ago
        It theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.
        danbruc 10y ago
        The universe is old, at least according to mainstream physics, even small changes would accumulate over billions of years and cubic lightyears. And we are good at measuring things, we famously measured the g-factor to a part in a trillion, detecting gravitational waves required detecting length changes on the order 1/1000th the diameter of a proton, 0.000000000000000001 meters. A quick search reveals that we know the energy density of the universe to better than half a percent. So what are the numbers? How much new matter is generated per unit time and volume according to the theory?
        cm127 10y ago
        I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?

ajkjk 10y ago

The theory is not being dismissed because it is offensive; it's being dismissed because it has all the signs of a crackpot theory and none of the signs of a legitimate one. It is trivial to tear it apart. But if someone tore it apart, using the trivial arguments, you would not believe them - you would say "oh, you're just rejecting him like everyone else", "you're part of the brainwashed mainstream". There are thousands of arguments like this online. People who somehow got to PhDs from weird unheard of schools, went off the deep end, and publish their 'theories', which aren't developed enough to even argue against, but are written in half-intelligible, imprecise language, claim to be "ignored by the establishment", claim to solve this-and-that problem with a method that the establishment wrote off prematurely, etc, whatever. They're all the same. This particular 'theory' (though that's not a fair word for it) scores easily over 100 on this list: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html, and so isn't even worth a person's time to look at. A simple line of reasoning to support this: If it was a legitimate theory, it would start with concrete statements about how it proposes the world works. Not vague, hand-waving stuff. It would start with math - lots of it. It would start with a precise explanation of how the experiments that prove an ether to be impossible missed the truth for 100 years. It would discuss examples where mainstream physics fails to predict the right result of experiment, and then show, with calculations an informed reader could follow, how it makes better ones. The guy is telling you he's right, and you're believing him, or at least taking him seriously -- like a sucker. He's telling you "no one else is believing me, but it's because I'm being ignored unjustly", but you've skipped the more likely explanation: "no one else is believing me because what I'm saying makes no sense". But I, who knows enough physics to parse this stuff am waiting for him to show me he's right, and he's not doing that at all. Nor is he showing anyone else, which is why he's being ignored. It's not all your fault, though. It's way easier to spot these crackpot theories when you've a) studied legitimate ones and b) seen so many other crackpot theories that say all the same stuff.

cm127 10y ago
You can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory. Your entire comment is completely baseless: "These people don't follow my school of thought, so they must be wrong!" No offense, but using your ego to make an argument is pathetic. I'm aware the theory sounds crazy; I'm not an idiot. But I'm also not going to let my hubris dictate what I can or can't research. That's just stupid.