| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Richard" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2003 06:01:45 PM |
| Object: |
Space inflation |
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
.
|
|
| User: "Paul R. Mays" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 07:22:21 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message
news:bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de...
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
Yes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 08:04:09 PM |
|
|
"Paul R. Mays" <simatar1@hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:cNWdnXsuV95dyvuiRVn-jw@giganews.com...
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message
news:bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de...
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in
progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of
me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
Yes
One millionth of a percent per century. So, in 100 years one side of my
card increases in size by 100 millionth. One would think the big bang
would have been an unspectaular affair. But that thought must stand on
faulty reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul R. Mays" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 08:58:36 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message
news:bk5nfo$oruvo$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Paul R. Mays" <simatar1@hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:cNWdnXsuV95dyvuiRVn-jw@giganews.com...
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message
news:bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de...
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in
progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of
me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
Yes
One millionth of a percent per century. So, in 100 years one side of my
card increases in size by 100 millionth. One would think the big bang
would have been an unspectaular affair. But that thought must stand on
faulty reasoning.
Not at all... what was is not what is, so to speak... We are down
the road a bit so that the expansion rate is based on the total distribution
of matter on a universal scale... we just fly specks... So what you
perceive as a very slow variance ( lets say that 1/1,000,000,000 cm per
2 billion years) is a very quick two step on a cosmic scale... Only mans
arrogance considers man as scale or reference to anything in this universe.
But the point is that iF (big F little I) c,CC,or the UGC vary at all , on
any
scale it alters the existing expressions of that variance... And due to
scale it
cannot be assumed that a variance that is caused by a Universally based
mechanism would be observable as anything other than a constant on
human scale as the variance would be below error limits for longer than
our solar system will exist... So always experimentally verifiable,
repeatable over long time frames in human scale may appear a constant.
But does not rule out variability...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 10:29:18 PM |
|
|
Mass dont expand idiot. And the universe dont loose energy pressure
wile it expands.
The universe dont expand its self ,,its pushed out by expanding energy.
Idiot again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
16 Sep 2003 09:25:00 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message
news:bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de...
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
Fess up, you've never even owned a book on science,
let alone opened one, have you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ghytrfvbnmju7654" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 11:01:21 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message news:<bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de>...
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
16 Sep 2003 03:31:04 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <useless@dot.com> wrote in message news:<bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de>...
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
Yes, timespace is expanding, that is, relative to the strengths of the
fundamental forces which act on them. This means that we can't detect
any change of the laws of physics through this expansion, but we can
detect galaxies far away receeding from us. Assuming the laws of
physics don't change over time, this expansion has physical
significance.
It's also been said that the universal expansion is accelerating.
Whether this means that the acceleration over time is increasing,
staying the same, or decreasing, however, has not yet been determined.
In fact, it could easily be that back in the time we could see there
was a universal expansion acceleration but there is none now. We
cannot be certain at this point. All we have are hypothesis. Not even
enough to count as a theory. We have no idea what dark matter or dark
energy are, or how they play into the game. All we know is that there
are gaps in our knowledge of what the universe is made up of, and we
can see these gaps and be able to determine to a fairly decent
approximation what it is these gaps represent, IE, what is missing.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
16 Sep 2003 04:38:39 PM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
Yes, timespace is expanding, that is, relative to the strengths of the
fundamental forces which act on them. This means that we can't detect
any change of the laws of physics through this expansion, but we can
detect galaxies far away receeding from us. Assuming the laws of
physics don't change over time, this expansion has physical
significance.
What physical significance is that Starblade?
It's also been said that the universal expansion is accelerating.
Whether this means that the acceleration over time is increasing,
staying the same, or decreasing, however, has not yet been determined.
In fact, it could easily be that back in the time we could see there
was a universal expansion acceleration but there is none now. We
cannot be certain at this point. All we have are hypothesis. Not even
enough to count as a theory. We have no idea what dark matter or dark
energy are, or how they play into the game. All we know is that there
are gaps in our knowledge of what the universe is made up of, and we
can see these gaps and be able to determine to a fairly decent
approximation what it is these gaps represent, IE, what is missing.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: I'm not a crank. |
16 Sep 2003 11:41:26 PM |
|
|
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 04:05:04 PM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote
Here is another example of a crank - a behaviour that you do not show.
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/
This person will spam the forum to death. he's done this for years and
everyone gives into him by finally ignoring him - but he spams the crap out
of the place - Today he's intent on banning people from posting there
because he doesn't like what they say. I don't let people like that get away
with it so I gave him a good workout today - never make life easy for a
crank or they might ruin the internet like this guy.
Long story short - you're not a crank and you're far from being a poster who
is not wanted here.
Pmb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 08:51:46 AM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Although you certainly don't deserve the "label of a crank",
what you did, was present yourself as a target to a small
group of sci.physics regulars who have serious inferiority complexes,
and try to stroke their egos by demeaning others.
If you don't want people with inferiority complexes
to target you, don't succeed, don't think, keep quiet,
when forced to communicate, double talk, and equivocate,
and most of all, kiss up to the people with the inferiority complexes,
as they are the ones who try to demean folks.
In other words, sit down, shut up,
and keep your mouth shut,
and don't accomplish anything,
and don't think,
if you are concerned about fools attacking you.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 06:33:26 AM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Here is a crank test question:
Do you believe that clocks have ability to register when
and why their own periodic rate changes?
If you answer *yes* than you are a clock worshiper.
If you answer *no* you are a crank.
Which one you would rather be?
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 07:38:48 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote
If you answer *yes* than you are a clock worshiper.
If you answer *no* you are a crank.
Which one you would rather be?
That is not a universally accepter criteria for either.
Pmb
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 05:12:12 AM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
Sorry to see that SD. From our conversations "crank" never came to mind as
applied to you.
I do note some characteristics that I never see in people I know to be
cranks (e.g. waite, spaceman etc). One characteristic is that you ask
questions and another is you refrain from putdowns of people who disagree
with you. I've seen you adhere to contemporarty physics for the most part.
So maye they call you a crank because you think differently. I don't know
and if so I don't approve. What I do know is that some people simply have an
internal need to be contrary. Please don't let it bother you too much. I
know that can be difficult with some people here.
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
Nothing! :-)
I have my philosphy text from the course "Philosophy of Science" that I took
as an undergrad. It details what a crank is. I should post their opinions
since it was a text in a philosophy of science course and this is a
philosophical topic - i.e. "What is a crank?"
Pmb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 09:11:41 AM |
|
|
"Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<0sW9b.1591$U6.87@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
Sorry to see that SD. From our conversations "crank" never came to mind as
applied to you.
I do note some characteristics that I never see in people I know to be
cranks (e.g. waite, spaceman etc). One characteristic is that you ask
questions and another is you refrain from putdowns of people who disagree
with you. I've seen you adhere to contemporarty physics for the most part.
So maye they call you a crank because you think differently. I don't know
and if so I don't approve. What I do know is that some people simply have an
internal need to be contrary. Please don't let it bother you too much. I
know that can be difficult with some people here.
I understand. To be honest I have gotten arrogant at times, but I am
definately learning. Asking questions is important, because I don't
know the answers, but it can also raise questions if the answers have
serious significance. Like people who pose paradoxxes.
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
Nothing! :-)
I have my philosphy text from the course "Philosophy of Science" that I took
as an undergrad. It details what a crank is. I should post their opinions
since it was a text in a philosophy of science course and this is a
philosophical topic - i.e. "What is a crank?"
Pmb
People seem to mistake anybody who has 'crazy ideas' as a crank. Yes,
I did post stupid stuff about trying to define a new number that would
be the ultimate big number of infinity that was bigger than itself,
etc but it's pretty hard to define a number that's bigger than
itself... this was back in my discussions about Cantor.
Also I seem to be very speculative in my posts. Do you think that's
another reason why I'm labeled as a crank?
In all honesty I'm just new to this stuff and have lots of silly
ideas, cuz I'm very imaginative. ^^
I could probably write Sci-Fi... hm... Science Fiction / Fantasty
would definately be something I'd be interested in writing.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 01:09:20 PM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309170611.1044acbb@posting.google.com...
"Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:<0sW9b.1591$U6.87@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
Sorry to see that SD. From our conversations "crank" never came to mind
as
applied to you.
I do note some characteristics that I never see in people I know to be
cranks (e.g. waite, spaceman etc). One characteristic is that you ask
questions and another is you refrain from putdowns of people who
disagree
with you. I've seen you adhere to contemporarty physics for the most
part.
So maye they call you a crank because you think differently. I don't
know
and if so I don't approve. What I do know is that some people simply
have an
internal need to be contrary. Please don't let it bother you too much. I
know that can be difficult with some people here.
I understand. To be honest I have gotten arrogant at times, ..
Why do you say that? If you're refering to holding fast to your beliefs then
having confinence in what you hold to be true is not arrogance. Arrogance is
something different. Do you have a feeling or an impression of superiority
manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims? If not then you
shouldn't think of yourself as arrogant. For example: Do you think Kip
Thorne is ignorant? How about Wolfgang Rindler? Do you think he doesn't know
what he's talking about? How about Hans C. Ohanian. Do you think you have a
better grasp of relativity than all of these people and that if they don't
agree with you then they don't know what they're talking about? If not then
I don't see why you say you're arrogant.
..but I am
definately learning. Asking questions is important, because I don't
know the answers,
Nobody knows everything right?
People seem to mistake anybody who has 'crazy ideas' as a crank. Yes,
I did post stupid stuff about trying to define a new number that would
be the ultimate big number of infinity that was bigger than itself,
etc but it's pretty hard to define a number that's bigger than
itself... this was back in my discussions about Cantor.
Also I seem to be very speculative in my posts. Do you think that's
another reason why I'm labeled as a crank?
That might be the person's motivation. But take the source into account. If
the source seems to slam everyone and their brother then disregard the
source as being biased./;
In all honesty I'm just new to this stuff and have lots of silly
ideas, cuz I'm very imaginative. ^^
Cool.
I could probably write Sci-Fi... hm... Science Fiction / Fantasty
would definately be something I'd be interested in writing.
Nothing wrong with that. I think most of us were motivated to study science
from science fiction. I know that the movie 2001 influenced me as did real
life stuff like the moon launches.
Pmb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 03:20:11 PM |
|
|
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309170611.1044acbb@posting.google.com...
"Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:<0sW9b.1591$U6.87@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
"Starblade Darksquall" <Starblade13@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
Sorry to see that SD. From our conversations "crank" never came to mind
as
applied to you.
I do note some characteristics that I never see in people I know to be
cranks (e.g. waite, spaceman etc). One characteristic is that you ask
questions and another is you refrain from putdowns of people who
disagree
with you. I've seen you adhere to contemporarty physics for the most
part.
So maye they call you a crank because you think differently. I don't
know
and if so I don't approve. What I do know is that some people simply
have an
internal need to be contrary. Please don't let it bother you too much. I
know that can be difficult with some people here.
I understand. To be honest I have gotten arrogant at times, but I am
definately learning. Asking questions is important, because I don't
know the answers, but it can also raise questions if the answers have
serious significance. Like people who pose paradoxxes.
Let me give you an example of what a true honest to goodness crank is.
You're familiar with this 'david waite' person I assume. I've been reading
Kip Thorne's and Roger Blanford's new text. In it Thorne and Blanchard gives
an interesting comment on the electric and magnetic fields and how they can
be thought of in some circumstances as 4-vectors.
From Thorne and Blacnchard's new text - Chapter 1: Physics in Flat
Spacetime: Geometric Viewpoint - page 38-39
(http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap01/0201.2.pdf)
------------------------------------------
Evidently E is the electric field and B the magnetic field as measured in
our chosen Lorentz
frame.
This may be familiar from standard electrodynamics textbooks, e.g. Jackson
(1999).
Not so familiar, but quite important, is the following geometric
interpretation of the electric and magnetic fields: E and B are spatial
vectors as measured in the chosen inertial frame. We can also regard these
quantities as 4-vectors that lie in the 3-surface of simultaneity t = const.
of the chosen frame, i.e. that are orthogonal to the 4-velocity (denote it
~w) of the frame's observers (cf. Fig. 1.10).
------------------------------------------
Now I've given waite the exact referance, the exact quote and the link to it
so we all know that he has access to it. And then he posts what can be
considered to be the model for a crank response
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?period=current&msg=61026
------------------------------------------
No they can not. This is why you are wrong.
------------------------------------------
Do you see the difference between what you write and what this crank writes?
A crank will argue like a child and ignore all logic and reason simply rever
to parrot-like responses where the crank will simply repeat his claim over
and over and over again. Note that in this particular cranks's response he
offers to reason on a point-by-point basis of why Thorne is worng and how he
made the error. The crank will obviously not dare to e-mail Thorne and
Blanchard with his so-called "corrections".
Get my drift? You simply do not post like this. Sure - you make claims like
they're facts - big deal. I assume you do that because you believe them to
be facts. When asked to back your claim up I recall that you've been
reasonable - though I may have disagreed with you.
Distinguish "crank" behavior from simply being wrong. Big differance.
Pete
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Vajk" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 10:10:33 AM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
Also I seem to be very speculative in my posts. Do you think that's
another reason why I'm labeled as a crank?
This newsgroup wants to believe it represents mainstream physics
and to some limited extent that's a success. Generally speaking
that results in the bottom boundary it wishes to establish but
as an unanticipated feature it also creates a glass ceiling
which, as a consequence, restricts probing. That makes this
ng not a very good place to expand beyond the present day
limitations of mainstream (let me restrict that further as I
did earlier by defining it as -- engineering caliber) physics.
Coupled with a few inflated egos (and I don't consider Sam
among those, he has steadfastly been one of the finest
participants here, one others should view as an admirable
model) and you have what others, and I, have labeled a
cesspit.
I stay for the little bits of gold that pop up here and there,
and actually they turn up in the darndest places.
BTW, SD, Sam has apologized publicly, an event that's all
to rare in these parts, so I perceive you've had your run
with this thread. Please don't belabor it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
18 Sep 2003 01:02:30 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com>...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
I certainly don't think anyone should be calling you a crank. I think
all existing ideas need to be questioned and tested and either proved
or rejected in that way. A crank is one who promotes theories, long
disproved and discredited, with no new facts to back up his
assertions, and usually with the prospect of personal financial gain
in mind. Certainly the term shouldn't apply to someone engaged in
honest scientific enquiry.
I would certainly take the words of the established scientist, Steve
Carlip, "I don't think you're a crank." as a ringing endorsement, even
while mindful of his reservations and qualifications.
As you are an established contributor to sci.physics.research, you
certainly have passed their "crank filters". I think you just argued
with and pissed a few influential people off here on sci.physics
(Uncle Al}. You may have vented your spleen a little in these lower
prestige NG's, but if you compare his posts in sci.physics.research to
here, you will see the same pattern.
I think Same Wormley is really a good guy, but he gets a little
carried away with from time to time with his crusade against cranks.
It's just part of his philosophy that he's doing a good thing. I hope
he reconsiders and stops applying that name to you.
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
18 Sep 2003 04:33:02 AM |
|
|
(Double-A) wrote in message news:<79094630.0309172202.332f88d3@posting.google.com>...
Starblade13@Yahoo.com (Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com>...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
I certainly don't think anyone should be calling you a crank. I think
all existing ideas need to be questioned and tested and either proved
or rejected in that way. A crank is one who promotes theories, long
disproved and discredited, with no new facts to back up his
assertions, and usually with the prospect of personal financial gain
in mind. Certainly the term shouldn't apply to someone engaged in
honest scientific enquiry.
Like that guy who did the whole research on reverse speech?
http://www.reversespeech.com/
He's selling stuff that will hypothetically detect reverse speech.
I would certainly take the words of the established scientist, Steve
Carlip, "I don't think you're a crank." as a ringing endorsement, even
while mindful of his reservations and qualifications.
That's good. I honestly do want to be involved in what might very well
be the unification of loop quantum gravity, string/M theory, and most
likely black hole thermodynamics. Someday, at least. I read Lee
Smolin's book "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" and I'm hoping that I
could at least contribute a few ideas of my own.
As you are an established contributor to sci.physics.research, you
certainly have passed their "crank filters". I think you just argued
with and pissed a few influential people off here on sci.physics
(Uncle Al}. You may have vented your spleen a little in these lower
prestige NG's, but if you compare his posts in sci.physics.research to
here, you will see the same pattern.
I see. And I am sorry if I do post things that are a bit crazy
sometimes. I'm just... well, you know, I like to think of all the
possibilities of things.
I think Same Wormley is really a good guy, but he gets a little
carried away with from time to time with his crusade against cranks.
It's just part of his philosophy that he's doing a good thing. I hope
he reconsiders and stops applying that name to you.
He already did, and apologized, and I forgave him. ^^
Double-A
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 08:58:09 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0309162041.3ea62462@posting.google.com>...
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
....
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
Some people are a little too quick with those sorts of accusations.
Don't let it bother you too much. Some wacky things do come out of
your keyboard, there's no doubt about that. But disagreeing with
extant theory doesn't make you a crank, having a theory of your own
doesn't make you a crank. It's what you do with it, your response to
criticism, willingness to learn.
I see you as eager but sometimes naive and uninformed, but working on
it. Not a crank.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Carlip" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 01:26:34 PM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall <Starblade13@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I don't think you're a crank. But there are a couple of features of
some of your posts that are at least irritating, and maybe a little
``crankish'':
First, you sometimes make vague claims, without any context,
about what physics or some physicist says (often starting with
``I've heard''), and then complain about them. Two recent
examples:
I've also heard that ghosts eat the Higgs Boson and become
massive. This doesn't make any sense.
I once heard somewhere that at high enough energy scales,
gravity gets weaker. This seems somewhat strange to me.
How do you expect people to respond to something like this,
with no hint of the details or the context of what you ``heard''?
These remarks are like an Rorschach inkblot test; you shouldn't
be so surprised if someone looks at them and sees ``crank.''
Second, you sometimes make statements of ``fact'' that are
simply wrong. Two examples:
Galaxies are distributed in a kind of fractal pattern
which gets less dense as you move more outward, and
more dense as you move more inward.
Since massless things going at light speed essentially have
no gravity fields of their own, do they emit gravitons?
Now, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. But the
ability to assert a wrong ``fact'' with complete confidence
is one of the hallmarks of crankhood. Perhaps if you were
a little more modest...
I don't want to discourage you. You often ask interesting
questions, and seem eager to learn. Just be a little more
careful to distinguish what you know, what you think, and
what you just don't understand.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 10:32:13 PM |
|
|
Steve Carlip <carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:<bka90q$46b$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
First, you sometimes make vague claims.
Second, you sometimes make statements of ``fact'' that are
simply wrong.
Now, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. But the
ability to assert a wrong ``fact'' with complete confidence
is one of the hallmarks of crankhood.
Steve Carlip
Steve,
I accept your characterization of crankhood. I just wonder if you ever
1) assert wrong facts with complete confidence or 2) pretend that you
comprehend a thesis when you don't and then make misstatements about
it, or 3) withhold assent to true yet unconventional statements
because you want to appear orthodox?
For example, I once inquired about the expert opinion on VSL
relativity, looking for transformation equations expressing how
space-time events transform between different "inertial" frames of
reference.
You responded thusly:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=c45b45b3.0308082024.e6c7053%40posting.google.com
Are you completely confident that you answered my question correctly?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 07:22:54 PM |
|
|
Steve Carlip wrote:
Now, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. But the
ability to assert a wrong ``fact'' with complete confidence
is one of the hallmarks of crankhood. Perhaps if you were
a little more modest...
I don't want to discourage you. You often ask interesting
questions, and seem eager to learn. Just be a little more
careful to distinguish what you know, what you think, and
what you just don't understand.
Steve Carlip
That's good advice for all of us!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 07:44:39 AM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Perhaps you are not a crank, Starblade... and should that be the case
I will apologize publicly. I suspect you might even be brilliant and
I urge you to formally learn physics and earn a four year degree in
the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul R. Mays" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 12:07:13 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F685725.1512CB1E@mchsi.com...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Perhaps you are not a crank, Starblade... and should that be the case
I will apologize publicly. I suspect you might even be brilliant and
I urge you to formally learn physics and earn a four year degree in
the same.
Why?... from a intellectual aspect why does a good idea require
sheep skin or formality in order to be even considered. Now if
Starblade or anyone were attempting to gain job placement, fame,
or position they would be a handy piece of sheep skin to have. But
if the purpose it to learn, question existing dogma, have a bit of fun,
and post to a non formal medium just because a concept is considered
that to the poster seems reasonable while not fully conforming to the
existing dogma there is no need to become a card caring physicist...
While Star got it in a previous thread I guess many didn't...
Keep tilting at windmills and do as the best of minds do...
consider the yet considered and chase the nebulas for the
enjoyment of the quest if for no other reason....
Reality is that 20 years of study, triple PhD's and 1000 pages
of mathematical constructs does not make a incorrect position
correct.... While never finishing high school, not knowing
all the rules, having bad spelling skills does not make a
correct position incorrect....
Paul R. Mays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Some where within the Quantum State
Http://Paul.Mays.Com
http://paul.mays.com/resume.html
"Perhaps the only thing that saves science from
invalid conventional wisdom that becomes
effectively permanent is the presence of mavericks
in every generation - people who keep challenging
convention and thinking up new ideas for the
sheer hell of it or from an innate contrariness."
- Dr. D. M. Raup, Paleontologist, U. Chicago.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm not a crank. |
17 Sep 2003 11:06:52 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F685725.1512CB1E@mchsi.com>...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
Crank Information
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_starblade_/2003/09/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AStarblade
Why am I to be labeled a crank just because I like to discuss physics?
I can name a number of reasons why I'm not a crank.
1) I have never tried to disprove relativity or quantum physics. Only
an extremely few things I have ever tried to revise, and even then I
settle down after I realize I am wrong.
2) Anything that I post is either consistent with physics as we know
it or due to a misunderstanding thereof. I may give my own
interpretations of things, but I don't try to contradict physics.
3) I don't try to make models of the way the universe works and post
them on my webpage. If I ever do that, I won't try to make anything
up, I'll just be posting things that I learn.
4) I have never insisted that anybody believe what I say, simply that
people have an understanding of why I personally believe some things.
5) If I am given sufficient reason to realize I am incorrect, I
usually accept that and learn from it.
6) I rarely ever side with other people who are cranks, and I have a
sincere desire to actually get beyond my silly theories and work on
something significant in the future. I'll work amongst a community of
scientists and mathematicians and while I'll bring forth possibile
scenarios I'll never arrogantly assume that it must be how the world
works.
The only thing I have done wrong is brainstorm. I've come up with a
number of ideas that I feel are possibilities, but when they are wrong
and are disproven I accept that. I do this only because I want to
learn. This is a community for people who want to learn, and exchange
ideas, and I have done exactly that.
So, really, what have I done to deserve the label of a crank?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Perhaps you are not a crank, Starblade... and should that be the case
I will apologize publicly. I suspect you might even be brilliant and
I urge you to formally learn physics and earn a four year degree in
the same.
Thank you. Apology accepted. You are completely forgiven for mistaking
me for a crank.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
17 Sep 2003 08:52:11 AM |
|
|
In article <bk5ga1$ofu5n$1@ID-150848.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Richard <useless@dot.com> wrote:
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
Your paper card has internal forces sufficient to resist any Hubble-like
expansion of the universe.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 11:22:26 PM |
|
|
Richard wrote:
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
No--The cosmos is expanding, but not objects in it at the local level.
See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Space inflation |
15 Sep 2003 06:18:10 PM |
|
|
Richard wrote:
I think the BB adherants say that there's a space inflation in progress.
Are we saying then that this 5" x 3" paper card I have in front of me is
getting bigger?
If so, can it's increase in size be quantified?
1) http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
2) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
3) http://www.you-moron.com/
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
