Entertaining Crackpottery

[ChildInAZoo]

No, not at all. We can see very distant stars, and we can detect planets. See http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti ... 10523.html.

All we detect are "anomalies". Why can we be sure that these are planets?

because the gravitational "wobbles" of orbiting planetary bodies is the simplest explanation that best fits the animalous data, not to mention the star or two for which the assumed planets have been observed causing eclipses of the star as seen from here, on optical telescopes.

Shit, I know. But these are exactly the same kind of pieces of evidence that we have for dark matter and Farsight is on some kind of weird tear against that. Well, it's not all that weird, he just decides what results he likes and what he doesn't and talks accordingly.

[Farsight]

I don't know him at all. I'd also like to find out why he calls me that.

I saw some forum where a poster called lpetrich said that was his forename. Sorry for the usage, particularly if I got it wrong. It just rolls off the tongue easier, and off the keyboard.

Unfortunately, Farsight, mathematics is part of that understanding. As Galileo noted nearly 400 years ago, the great book of nature is written in the language of mathematics.

Sure thing, but watch my lips: it's no substitute for scientific evidence.

Just because you find the idea absurd?

No, because there's no evidence for many-worlds. Just as there's no evidence for fairies and the hollow earth.
.

String theory? There's no supporting evidence. People have tired of entertaining it.

Says who?

Says the evidence. Have a look at Woit's blog at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ re papers and jobs and physicists voting with their feet and getting out of string theory and into something else.

Farsight, your quote-mining and your Hoerbigerian attitude towards mathematics will get you nowhere. It's possible to estimate the gravitational self-energy of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and that self-energy mass is tiny compared to the masses of their constituents. About (v/c)2, which is about 10-6 for these systems. So "dark matter" cannot be gravitational self-energy.

Your dishonest accusations won't get you anywhere either. I've already told you it isn't, but that it 's a reminder of inhomogeneous space.

Evidence is often mathematical, despite what you seem to think.

No it never is. You're confusing hypothesis with evidence. Which is rather entertaining, since that's what crackpots do.

(the Einstein-de-Haas effect...)Farsight, so you're now quote-mining Wikipedia.

And you're ducking the evidence of Einstein-de Haas effect. Here's that quote again:

"the Einstein–de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

In the classical limit, there will be a smear of possible deflections, which we don't see.

Not with a double rotation there won't. You're clutching at straws lpetrich.

But you certainly act as if it irrelevant -- or an outright distraction.

No I don't. You use it as a smokescreen to ignore scientific evidence. That's all you ever do, because "you prefer the mathematics". You have no regard for the scientific method. Thus you're not really a physicist. You perhaps consider yourself to be a theoretical physicists, but in truth you're a mathematician pretending to be a physicist. If you were a genuine physicist, you'd be interested in discussing the Einstein de-Haas effect instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet. And the rest.

[ChildInAZoo]

Your dishonest accusations won't get you anywhere either. I've already told you it isn't, but that it 's a reminder of inhomogeneous space.

Let's talk about dishonest here: you were clearly referring to gravitational self-energy in your posts (one can even find you trying to learn about this on another forum if one does a cursory google search). You used the science incorrectly (because you do not understand it). There is no doubt about what you meant by "inhomogeneous space" for at least a brief moment until you got smacked down. Now you are retreating to a more vague claim about "inhomogeneous space". While mathematics may not be a substitution for "evidence", whatever you mean by that, your "inhomogeneous space" is as woo as any homeopath's claims about water memory. You have no demonstated mechanism, you have no predictions, you have only one out-of-context phrase used once by Einstein and nowhere else.

[lpetrich]

I don't know him at all. I'd also like to find out why he calls me that.

I saw some forum where a poster called lpetrich said that was his forename.

I will concede that it is indeed my first name.

Unfortunately, Farsight, mathematics is part of that understanding. As Galileo noted nearly 400 years ago, the great book of nature is written in the language of mathematics.

Sure thing, but watch my lips: it's no substitute for scientific evidence.

Farsight, you must have a VERY strange idea of what constitutes "scientific evidence". Please tell us what you mean by that. And please explain why quantitative evidence is not "scientific evidence", since you think that mathematics can never qualify.

Just because you find the idea absurd?

No, because there's no evidence for many-worlds. Just as there's no evidence for fairies and the hollow earth.

What would you consider acceptable evidence for that? Or for that matter, string theory.

Farsight, your quote-mining and your Hoerbigerian attitude towards mathematics will get you nowhere. It's possible to estimate the gravitational self-energy of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and that self-energy mass is tiny compared to the masses of their constituents. About (v/c)2, which is about 10-6 for these systems. So "dark matter" cannot be gravitational self-energy.

Your dishonest accusations won't get you anywhere either. I've already told you it isn't, but that it 's a reminder of inhomogeneous space.

All you are doing is taking a purely qualitative approach, complete with plenty of quote mining.

Evidence is often mathematical, despite what you seem to think.

No it never is. You're confusing hypothesis with evidence. Which is rather entertaining, since that's what crackpots do.

Evidence is never mathematical???

(the Einstein-de-Haas effect...)Farsight, so you're now quote-mining Wikipedia.

And you're ducking the evidence of Einstein-de Haas effect. Here's that quote again:

"the Einstein–de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

Pure quote-mining. I think that that article's author misunderstood the effect a bit -- it's 100% consistent with intrinsic spin being quantum-mechanical, since spin and orbit angular momentum are interchangeable.

In the classical limit, there will be a smear of possible deflections, which we don't see.

Not with a double rotation there won't. You're clutching at straws lpetrich.

Work it out mathematically.

[colubridae]

Farsight why do you keep call ipetrich 'loren'.. He says he doesn't know why.?

just interested.

[lpetrich]

Farsight why do you keep call ipetrich 'loren'.. He says he doesn't know why.?

That's my first name / forename, but I don't know why he calls me that instead of "lpetrich" or "lp".

[Farsight]

Let's talk about dishonest here: you were clearly referring to gravitational self-energy in your posts (one can even find you trying to learn about this on another forum if one does a cursory google search). You used the science incorrectly (because you do not understand it). There is no doubt about what you meant by "inhomogeneous space" for at least a brief moment until you got smacked down. Now you are retreating to a more vague claim about "inhomogeneous space". While mathematics may not be a substitution for "evidence", whatever you mean by that, your "inhomogeneous space" is as woo as any homeopath's claims about water memory. You have no demonstated mechanism, you have no predictions, you have only one out-of-context phrase used once by Einstein and nowhere else.

Pathetic. I'm talking about a gravitational field described by Einstein as inhomogeneous space, I gave the mechanism and a lot more Einstein quotes in How gravity woks, and you couldn't touch it. The other forum was me asking whether gravitational self-energy is included in the Einstein Field Equations. Because if that isn't, the inhomogeneous space associated by the raisins-in-the-cake non-uniform expansion of the universe is going to kill your precious WIMPs stone dead. So spare me the smacked down and the water memory and the "woo" and the corny-old "out-of-context", because here's the Einstein quote:

"This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν),"

And here's the context: Leyden Address. So that's you being dishonest, not me. I rest my case.

What would you consider acceptable evidence for that? Or for that matter, string theory.

Any evidence, lpetrich. How long has it been? How many decades? And what evidence do we have? None.

All you are doing is taking a purely qualitative approach, complete with plenty of quote mining.

And scientific evidence, and robust references, and logic that you can't counter. And it's qualitative because it's an analysis of mathematical terms. How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in? You can't use mathematics to understand terms like t and m and c and C, because it doesn't yield the reality that underlies them.

Evidence is never mathematical???

What's funny is that you dismiss scientific evidence and yet you think mathematics is a part of the evidence. It isn't. Mathematics allows you to make predictions which the evidence verifies or not. Do you understand this yet?

Pure quote-mining. I think that that article's author misunderstood the effect a bit -- it's 100% consistent with intrinsic spin being quantum-mechanical, since spin and orbit angular momentum are interchangeable.

Oh here we go. I provide scientific evidence like the Einstein-de Haas effect, you try evasion, then when I pin you down you dismiss it as pure quote mining. Groan. You think mathematics is evidence and scientific evidence isn't. That would be entertaining if it wasn't so tragic. And here you are, not talking about science, but talking instead about pseudoscience trash. Who gives a flying f*ck about garbage like Koreshan Universology? You'd rather talk about that than physics. Strewth.

[Robert_S]

I like my crackpottery condensed and parodied in the form of the Church of the Subgenius.

[ChildInAZoo]

<A bunch of references to his own work and a single quote a reference to but without a discussion of the context; no specific predictions.>

I rest my case.

Exactly. That's why you're woo. Now move along and let us discuss other woo here.

[Twiglet]

Mathematics is a part of the evidence. Farsight, your approach to physics is even worse than some throwback to Aristotelianism. It's like you agree with Hanns Hoerbiger that calculation can only lead you astray. At least Aristotle didn't dismiss mathematics as irrelevant.

What are you on about? Evidence is evidence. Mathematics isn't. I've never suggested that calculation can only lead you astray or that mathematics is irrelevant. I've repeatedly said it's a vital tool for physics. It allows you to make a prediction, but it isn't part of the evidence. Experimental and observational results are.

I think this depends on what you are trying to do.

If you are creating a theory, practically, it needs to make predictions which can be tested experimentally, so in that sense, maths is not evidence - it's a way of laying out what you think will happen so it can be tested. However, when a theory is accepted, the calculations conducted to model how a system will behave certainly are evidence, as most of the time in science, we concern ourselves with how our existing theories model real behaviour. Not whether they are true.

The impertus to change or expand theories comes when reality doesn't match prediction.

So the question is whether you are using maths to explain how a system will behave, or whether you are trying to establish whether a theory describes reality.

[lpetrich]

(stuff on Farsight's quote mining of Einstein's writings...)

What would you consider acceptable evidence for that? Or for that matter, string theory.

Any evidence, lpetrich. How long has it been? How many decades? And what evidence do we have? None.

If WIMP's' nongravitational interactions are far too weak for them to be detected nongravitationally, then what's the big issue?

Fritz Zwicky first proposed dark matter in 1934, so it's been 76 years. It was about a century between John Dalton's first rigorous atomism in 1803 and becoming able to find atoms' masses in absolute units instead of relative to each other. It was over 2000 years if you count the ancient Greek atomists.

In fact, applying Farsight's "reasoning" about space and time to atoms would quickly yield the result that atoms do not exist. "I see continuity and I DON'T see atoms!!!"

And it's qualitative because it's an analysis of mathematical terms. How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in? You can't use mathematics to understand terms like t and m and c and C, because it doesn't yield the reality that underlies them.

Those baseless assertions are a bullshit excuse for rejecting mathematics.

Evidence is never mathematical???

What's funny is that you dismiss scientific evidence and yet you think mathematics is a part of the evidence.

Farsight, that is demonstrably false. I have NOT been ignoring the Einstein-de Haas effect or your other beloved effects. In fact, I've seen the EdH effect mentioned in the mainstream physics literature without any hint that it is counterevidence for intrinsic spin.

And here you are, not talking about science, but talking instead about pseudoscience trash. Who gives a flying f*ck about garbage like Koreshan Universology? You'd rather talk about that than physics. Strewth.

Because I find theories like Koreshan Universology entertaining. Such theories and their advocates' strategies also supply certain ... interesting ... parallels.

[Farsight]

You entertain crackpottery, lpetrich, but not scientific evidence. And talking of parallels, there's an awful lot of hits out there for lpetrich and multiverse. Ooh, what do we have here? http://rantsnraves.org/archive/index.php/t-4414.html. Known particles such as the graviton? Really? And there's the gravitino. And supersymmetry, and 26 dimensions. And LOL, "To me, this suggests that a multiverse theory might be a possibility, with each universe having a different space-time topology..." Yep, there's parallels all right. What more would I expect from a guy who thinks maths is evidence? LOL, you carry on talking about crackpottery. Leave the science to me.

[lpetrich]

You entertain crackpottery, lpetrich, but not scientific evidence. ...

Whatever you consider "scientific evidence", Farsight.
You ought to consider how one evaluates hypotheses -- it's not necessarily a straightforward matter of "evidence".

(me on multiverse cosmologies...)
Don't laugh too quickly, Farsight.

Imagine that you only had the observations and experimental results available in previous centuries. What would you have thought about atoms and why?

[JimC]

...Leave the science to me.

[Farsight]

It's true Jim. I give robust scientific evidence to support my case. See for example Why C is the limit. lpetrich dismisses that scientific evidence. He won't tackle it at all, but he works very hard to persuade you to ignore it. Meanwhile, pay careful attention to the way the forum is turning into a science-free zone.

me on multiverse cosmologies...) Don't laugh too quickly, Farsight.

Start a thread, present your argument, and I'll demolish it.

Imagine that you only had the observations and experimental results available in previous centuries. What would you have thought about atoms and why?

I'd have thought there's evidence for this hypothesis, what further experiments can we do to understand more? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism#Corpuscularianism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist, which dates from 1661. Do check your facts on this, note that your justification for WIMPs could be equally employed to justify fairies, and pay attention to How Gravity Works. You don't need WIMPs. Space is dark, it has its vacuum energy with a mass-equivalence, and it is not homogeneous.