Gravity, Magnetism and the Bending of Space-time

You gotta introduce the facts at some point! People need to know when they are making things up! Haha

 

Yes, but in the face of facts and verifiable mathematical proofs, the whole universe just might come crashing down around their ears.

 

Etkearne


1.. Gravitons for example.. Were once given credence.. Now.?
Science is fickle..It is less about process than 'who says it'
No . i said a singularity was a product of gravitic collapse.. a black hole.

ERGO Kline bottles encompass 3d space?. How to have a universe with laws X seperated from other such entities.. Or are you saying. this universe is the only one in reality..HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
My Speculation resolves all the creationist issues. The bang is a small part of a larger reality. that has no beginning or end.

No.. you said it.. matter is compressed.. what makes matter,,energy, is not so .

Time is a product of mass/energy and space..it is a processs. not a thing in itself.
Ah
The rules just appeared.. like from a protean sea of algea a man swam ashore . A massively complex system.. Thats what your saying.. that the rules just came to be. so refined they allow anti-entropic systems. and not just homogenous clouds of hydrogen?

Thanks for feedback.Who made the rules.. ? Steve Buscemi

 

Thats why i replied.. Your 'facts' are from textbooks.
Most concerning the 'edge of understanding'.. go in the bin after a while.

Think for yourself.. not others thinking

 

The pressure to publish; huh! Two facts can be qualitative and also be further related, and that in turn may be strictly at quality. An example of such a Relation: driving aggressively cracked the crank shaft (boring...). Not always, eh? Well, now that cars are produced so demandingly for certain warranty and wealth in feelings of security: we believe that that would be absolutely.

Yeah, sure.:2thumbsup:

 

This is ridiculous. Joachim, you didn't even read my response if you are still saying this nonsense. I didn't get any of that from old dusty textbooks. It is cutting edge scientific research from articles that I have privilidge to access due to being a researcher! I think this is a good time to end this conversation that will inevitably go nowhere.

 

Ok-for us thickies out here I have to ask:

Is it not true that light passing through a prism -or even water-is slowed?

I ask because THIS is what I was taught at school-that light passing through a transparent medium is slowed down and scattered.
I admit,I was taught that in the 60s.
Has science since proved otherwise?

[I ask in good faith, because I'm a trucker,not a genius and I really would like to know]

 

cool

 

You are correct; light travels slower when passing through a transparent medium. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

 

Ah. Thanks for that,MP...so,[no 10 in the 'light and mediums' table] it says light travels at differing speeds in different mediums.
So-once a light ray has exited the transparent medium,will it regain it's initial inertia,or remain at the reduced speed?
[taking it as a given the medium the light passed through was in a vacuum]

 

Light travels slower.

Etkearne
My speculations are based on fact.
You are poo pooing me and around you on same forum people are saying the Speed of light can drop below 299792545 m/s .You presented your position based in FACT..
do so.

Stop telling me you are superior and start teaching.

And no i never said anything you put forward was nonsence. just tat a lot of what is believed as 'true' is not fact .. look what Einstein did.. he turned everything on
its head using IMAGINATION.
Science the method is is not science the establishment.
The first accepts no subjective input.. the second is mostly that.

 

I've been a curious on-looker in this thread, but tell me JoachimBaoz, what is your background and credentials as relating to the topic at hand that I should consider what you are saying as more viable than what EtKearne is putting forth. From numerous other threads as well as this one Et has time and again demonstrated that he IS rather well educated and does have the credentials he claims.

So what are your credentials that would make your input of more value beyond just SPECULATION.

Et at the very least can provide the mathematical proofs to support his input, are you able to do the same?

You can imagine and speculate all day long, but it doesn't make your interpretation "correct" or valid science in the least. At some point your speculations and imaginations do have to "fit" with what is already known as fact. You say Einstein's theories were all based on imagination, true, but he also supported his "imaginings" with the mathematical proofs, otherwise he would also just be another guy with imaginings and speculations.

You trying to poo-poo Et's education and credentials speaks volumes about your lack of the same.
Just sayin'

(ps. poor spelling doesn't help your position either)

 

^Herman. With some people, there is simply no hope in trying to convince them that (what they consider "lame-stream" academia) academia is "right." For them, it is always some sort of fucked up conspiracy shit and that us (the academics) are "holding back the 'truth.'' I have seen this crap from many people here. It is best you do what I did and leave the thread to 'self-destruct.'

 

Agreed :2thumbsup:

 

My only problem with you is that you don't fight your corner hard enough. I know some people have no hope of awakening from their fantasies but I love reading your posts when you debate, as I'm sure many others do. And Joachim doesn't have much further to run, keep chasing him! Next he will fight like a cornered rat but he fights with a teaspoon against your bazooka, kill his fantasy and open his mind. Then again, why would you waste your time and energy (THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME) on him?

Joachim: It is so much easier to expand on things and change them for the better if you bring yourself to understand them first. Einstein had to learn a great deal from the work of others before he could set his imagination and creativity to work in explaining the world around him. I don't want to discourage your willingness to present a new view, to do away with the old, obsolete ways of thinking but all of what is old is not useless and wrong. And all of what is wrong is not useless; how could we learn what is right without it? To prove what you believe and etkearne disputes, present a scientific explanation! Keep presenting viable answers until the questions run out, keep deposing those disputers until all have toppled and all that remains is your untouchable hypothesis. That is what scientists do and if they can't do that then they return to their drawing boards. Also, it is the job of scientists (and laymen) to dispute other scientists' hypotheses, to make sure they did the job properly!

 

Well, I hope THIS ends the debate. Here is a short academic journal article I am working on submitting. It should be up on the Cornell University arXiv pre-print database by next week, but I uploaded it to Google-Docs in the mean time.

A Metric Tensor Approach To The Big Bang

I hope Joachim thoroughly reads every word of this article.

 

Because photons have no mass, their inertia is zero. Upon exiting a slower medium back to a vacuum, the speed of light returns to c. No change of inertia is involved. It is still exactly zero.

 

No he didn't. He advanced science by backing up his imagination with rigorous mathematical calculations. Someone who merely speculates is a daydreamer, not a scientist.

 

I feel like I should comment but I haven't much to say. I don't know if there has been a debate going on here so much as a pissing contest.

Thanks etkearne for the interesting read. I don't feel like anything you've posted contradicted anything I've said on the first page. your POV is more mathematical, academic than I care to get into, I guess I'm more of a dreamer. Math is only going to model the universe to a certain degree. If we can't even solve Pi how are we going to solve the universe with our math?. The universe is not a mathematically perfect digital particle universe, it is a imperfect analogue wave universe. Shift-Displacement, Particle-Wave, Imagination-Calculation, Tomato-Tomahto... I don't know, I just prefer to simplify rather than complicate.

 

No . You ask question..
You seem to think 'credentials from 'the system' are of import.
What are your credential to ask?

Einstien was believed?
No he was thrown out..
He had to teach himself math to convince the anal puckered that his imagination was fact. THEY [you] didnt want to know it.
mathematical proofs to back up his imagination
Why do you downplay imagination..?
It is the heart of everything humanity is.

What dreams may come?

I am merely a small player in this great web of understanding.. a nobody.
Yet
Do your best.. I am your equal in every way..
If you suggest i am less 'educated than yourself.. so be it.. by 'paper' i probably am. But by logical arguement
No

You can imagine and speculate all day long, but it doesn't make your interpretation "correct"
It is how theory works. All 'facts' were once imaginative speculation

I suggest you dont imaginatively speculate im a dumbo. sniker.

PS i can spell just fine. But i type too fast for it to work

Joachim Boaz

Mustlive bought you in to be a heavy hitter?

LOL

As a Geopolitical/Stochastic annalist . I find it amusing that cloistered thinkers could understand reality.
Like shallow party people quoting Locke or Sophocles. Or giving descriptions of millitary movements in the Afghan or Pacific.
They see the machinery.. but have no idea what it is for