3 ms·

> I can find no evidence or even remote hints of his connection to anything you have listed It took a while, but I think I found the PDF of the book I was talk

> I can find no evidence or even remote hints of his connection to anything you have listed It took a while, but I think I found the PDF of the book I was talking about [0]. > fundamentally you are making an ad hominem argument, effectively saying, "this guy is a crackpot, why should we listen to him?" Kinda, not really. I'm saying that if my recollection is correct this guy has expressed wild ideas before that were also ignored by the physics community and therefore it is worth viewing his works with suspicion because we are not qualified to evaluate it, but people who are have apparently decided it wasn't worth much. > It doesn't matter who he is. One must examine the assertions and findings detailed in his lecture, and only if flaws can be found there can his tidal theory explaining galaxy rotation curves be defeated. Sure, admittedly. So, why aren't any physicists giving this idea the time of day? As I was pretty clear about in my post, I do not consider myself (nor you) qualified to assess his work in anything more than an armchair manner. The fact that his ideas don't seem to be something other physicists take seriously is something of an indicator that maybe I shouldn't either. > Mayer's explanation for galaxy rotation curves is simple, elegant, and compelling, and it is interesting that no one at HN wants to take it head on Because we are not physicists, as I assume you aren't either. Go to a forum full of physicists if you want a real assessment of its worth. We, being not physicists ourselves, can only judge its merit by proxy and intuition. The latter of those is especially dubious and especially prone to liking simple, elegant, compelling, and utterly wrong ideas. > but instead will employ the all too common hand wave and other fallacious arguments. Look at it. Figure out why it is wrong or don't. Strong words for someone who's response to all of this is "watch the video and you'll understand". Hand wave indeed. [0] entitled The Many Directions of Time: http://www.5ision.org/GTR/amayer_the-many-directions-of-time_523.pdf http://www.5ision.org/GTR/amayer_the-many-directions-of-time...

Maursault 3y ago
> I think I found the PDF of the book I was talking about Thank you for taking the time. My search fu is admittedly weak. That you've consumed this is also impressive. > So, why aren't any physicists giving this idea the time of day? Bandwagon. > As I was pretty clear about in my post, I do not consider myself (nor you) qualified to assess his work in anything more than an armchair manner. Ad hominem. > Strong words for someone who's response to all of this is "watch the video and you'll understand". Hand wave indeed. First, recognize the fallacies you're employing. The video lecture and slides use high school level Newtonian physics to explain galaxy rotation clusters. If you understood the physics in his book, the physics in the video should be child's play. It is not remotely difficult to understand. And it is possible for a layman to evaluate it for rigor without referring to the theorist or other physicists.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
  > Thank you for taking the time. My search fu is admittedly weak. That you've consumed this is also impressive. It was years ago, and I only gleaned the high concept really, but it has been around for nearly two decades now (though mysteriously not mentioned at all by Mayer's site) and, you will note, makes some pretty big claims about the fundamental nature of the cosmos including the ones I mentioned. > Bandwagon. Hand waving. You say that others are not doing the work by looking at the video you posted yet insist on this dismissive justification for ignoring that the qualified professional physicists of the world don't seem to think Mayer has accomplished what he claims. > Ad hominem. Hand waving, and wrong. I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the facts: we are not qualified to give an informed appraisal of this material. Drawing conclusions about its validity because it makes sense to us is pretty much exactly the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look at what you're saying: somehow this guy has explained galactic rotation curves with high school level physics while practically all other physicists over the last nearly a century clung to some obviously wrong idea instead? And your explanation for this is that they're all in a bandwagon? This is the same community that said high-temperature superconductors couldn't exist, and then someone proved them wrong and won the fastest nobel prize in history. Please explain how that is even remotely a rational conclusion, because it sounds like the same level of discourse one gets from flat earth conspiracy theorists. Frankly, the idea that you are arguing in good faith is becoming harder to believe.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    > You say that others are not doing the work by looking at the video you posted yet insist on this dismissive justification for ignoring that the qualified professional physicists of the world don't seem to think Mayer has accomplished what he claims. No, I was identifying your argument, made again after I already identified it, as a bandwagon fallacy. > Hand waving, and wrong. I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the facts I did not suggest there was insult, only that you were employing the ad hominem fallacy by ignoring the material and focusing on me and you. Any argument focusing on anyone's expertise, in this case mine and yours, is entirely irrelevant and fundamentally an ad hominem argument, which is necessarily fallacious. > And your explanation for this is that they're all in a bandwagon? No. Your's and pfdietz's argument, paraphrasing, "if it's correct or worth our time, why hasn't the physics community acknowledged it?" or whatever, is fundamentally a bandwagon argument, which is fallacious.

Maursault 3y ago

> I think I found the PDF of the book I was talking about Thank you for taking the time. My search fu is admittedly weak. That you've consumed this is also impressive. > So, why aren't any physicists giving this idea the time of day? Bandwagon. > As I was pretty clear about in my post, I do not consider myself (nor you) qualified to assess his work in anything more than an armchair manner. Ad hominem. > Strong words for someone who's response to all of this is "watch the video and you'll understand". Hand wave indeed. First, recognize the fallacies you're employing. The video lecture and slides use high school level Newtonian physics to explain galaxy rotation clusters. If you understood the physics in his book, the physics in the video should be child's play. It is not remotely difficult to understand. And it is possible for a layman to evaluate it for rigor without referring to the theorist or other physicists.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 3y ago
> Thank you for taking the time. My search fu is admittedly weak. That you've consumed this is also impressive. It was years ago, and I only gleaned the high concept really, but it has been around for nearly two decades now (though mysteriously not mentioned at all by Mayer's site) and, you will note, makes some pretty big claims about the fundamental nature of the cosmos including the ones I mentioned. > Bandwagon. Hand waving. You say that others are not doing the work by looking at the video you posted yet insist on this dismissive justification for ignoring that the qualified professional physicists of the world don't seem to think Mayer has accomplished what he claims. > Ad hominem. Hand waving, and wrong. I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the facts: we are not qualified to give an informed appraisal of this material. Drawing conclusions about its validity because it makes sense to us is pretty much exactly the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look at what you're saying: somehow this guy has explained galactic rotation curves with high school level physics while practically all other physicists over the last nearly a century clung to some obviously wrong idea instead? And your explanation for this is that they're all in a bandwagon? This is the same community that said high-temperature superconductors couldn't exist, and then someone proved them wrong and won the fastest nobel prize in history. Please explain how that is even remotely a rational conclusion, because it sounds like the same level of discourse one gets from flat earth conspiracy theorists. Frankly, the idea that you are arguing in good faith is becoming harder to believe.
- Maursault 3y ago
  > You say that others are not doing the work by looking at the video you posted yet insist on this dismissive justification for ignoring that the qualified professional physicists of the world don't seem to think Mayer has accomplished what he claims. No, I was identifying your argument, made again after I already identified it, as a bandwagon fallacy. > Hand waving, and wrong. I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out the facts I did not suggest there was insult, only that you were employing the ad hominem fallacy by ignoring the material and focusing on me and you. Any argument focusing on anyone's expertise, in this case mine and yours, is entirely irrelevant and fundamentally an ad hominem argument, which is necessarily fallacious. > And your explanation for this is that they're all in a bandwagon? No. Your's and pfdietz's argument, paraphrasing, "if it's correct or worth our time, why hasn't the physics community acknowledged it?" or whatever, is fundamentally a bandwagon argument, which is fallacious.