|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The electrons are not doing anything of the kind that you claim here, is reads like an interesting SF story. Now, interestingly, you can do the same story with the rock just hanging on the rope in a gravitational field. I guess that the electrons then, instead of becoming "centripitals", they become "stretchels" because the force pulling down the rock (gravity) is streching the rope and the molecular bonding holds it together. You still have no grasp of regular basic physics, so why would we believe that what you write in your books makes any sense? Quote:
Quote:
As far as I have seen, there is nothing specific of the FET, you stated the math is simple, but you have not presented anything. Your explanation of basic physics, like above with the centifugal/centripital force, shows such a lack of general physics education, that I don't think it is very worthwhile spending my limited time on it.
__________________
************************************************** ************************* Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol) A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27) ************************************************** ************************* Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV ) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
************************************************** ************************* Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol) A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27) ************************************************** ************************* Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV ) |
|
|||
|
Jim Mash's grandiose claims have certainly suffered the death of thousand cuts in this thread!
Now that he has run off to lick his wounds, it seems appropriate to ponder some general lessons while we mop up the bloody mess. Mash is only one of (literally) thousands who claim, at various websites, in various languages, that they have invented some grand new "theory" or "philosophy" which turns modern physics/cosmology on its head. More specifically, he is only one of dozens who write in what I call the genre of "simple physics". My intent in helping to expose his megalomanic claims as empty boasts was to employ him as an exemplar, to demolish the whole school by proxy, as it were. There are perhaps half of dozen math/physics knowledgeable debunkers active at BAUT, but there are thousands of amateur anti-science dissidents out there; clearly we cannot spend the time to correct each misstatement or to debunk each misleading or incorrect claim made by each and every self-deluded individual wandering around the Internet. Efficiency demands that we focus attention on those who, like Mash, are clearly representative of a type. Let's take a moment to make some general observations concerning individuals who make counterfactual claims concerning subjects they nothing about (without any implication that I neccessarily think any of following might apply to any particular individual):
I decided to help make an example of Mash because he has offered biographical details which imply that he is not a troubled teenager; indeed, he has gone out of his way, both here at BAUT and at his website, to claim long experience working in some "government laboratory". Assuming that Daffyduck was not a sockpuppet for Mash, he has at least one supporter to help him recover from the mauling he received here. And he is not one of those who, from oddities of written style, I secretly suspect may literally suffer from a neurological problem. Thus, it seemed to me that, to the extent that anyone suffering from a certain lack of contact with reality can be said to be fair game, Mash was a good candidate for a more detailed debunking than most of his ilk are likely to receive, even in this subforum. So, addressing in particular those among the younger generation who dream of becoming "the next Einstein", here is my advice on how to achieve scientific success, rather than becoming known as a crackpot:
__________________
Chris Hillman Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice! Last edited by Chris Hillman; 12-June-2008 at 06:47 PM. |
|
|||
|
Chris, Get off your high horse. Nothing is set in stone, and if you stick around long enough you will see most of the presently "known" science change with time. Should I list some examples of things that were "known" at the time by scientists, but have since been reversed and the real truth revealed?
|
|
|||
|
Thanks! High praise, indeed!
Perhaps the entire thread (less Motor Daddy's two hijacking attempts) can be locked and sticked forthwith, since it can and should serve as warning to those who would play the fool.
__________________
Chris Hillman Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice! |
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is the only board I know of that has a 30 day time limit on a thread, and then the thread is locked. Why is the 30 day limit only for the ATM section? Are we trying to get rid of all new ideas as fast as possible to preserve the current theory? (rolls eyes) |
|
||||
|
If you go to the About BAUT forum there are several threads that discuss the 30 day limit and why it was imposed.
If you can't make your case in 30 days then you haven't prepared is the nub of it.
__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept' |
|
|||
|
Chris,
I think Motor Daddy is right, You should get off your high horse. You seem to think that you know everyhting, yet, as we all know there is so much undiscovered and yet to be changed. I do not believe in the BB as it is seriously flawed, there will be an alternative that will change the way we look at things. You think that we are in the era of knowing everything, I'm sure all the past discoveries were made with their creators thinking the same. If you were born a few hundred years ago you would be fighting the corner saying the world is flat !!! With regards to Maths, You can prove/disprove most things by 'clever' use of maths. One true, TOE will be simple and will be useable in all situations without 'tweaking' to make fit. With a closed immagination you will never discover your true abilities, just go along with the sheep. I'm certainly nowhere nearly educated as most people on this forum but at least I am willing to open my mind to new concepts. I'm glad I started this thread as it has shown the true pig headedness of some posters. I thank Jim Mash for contributing, as I posted on here without his knowledge. I eagerly await his next publication and paper. DD Chris : Feal free to pick little bits of this post, chew them up and spit them out to your own interpritation. It will make you feal better about yourself and one step closer to your ultimate goal : GOD complex !!! |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
papageno "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes) "It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh) "I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
As for the rest it's the usual 'We don't know everything so I can propose anything' ATM argument.
__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept' |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just because you don't understand his theory you dish it. Jim Mash has asked for help on this site but none of those who have posted have given any, just critisism. Its sad that everyone can't work together. You are all too happy just to sit in the mainstream but if/when new breakthroughs are made you will be the first to try and jump on the bandwagon. With regards to the 'We can propose anything' comment. This is how research and development advances, by expanding the mind beyond what is already known. Without people willing to look 'outside the box' no real developments would have ever been made. From your writings it sounds to me that you may be more fearful of change and the knowledge that you have spent the best part of your careers studying the wrong subject. |
|
||||
|
Just for clarity, that seems to be rule #1 for people who start out trying to argue an ATM theory.
It is definitely not a rule for this ATM forum and shouldn't be for people trying to argue their case here.
__________________
"God bless thee, my son; I will give thee the greatest jewel I have ... "The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible." Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
And how can we understand his theory, when asked a question you get some story about a car accelerating and the road moving upward and downward? Quote:
Quote:
But maybe you Daffyduck can show us the way? Maybe you can explain Jim's theory better than he can himself? Maybe you can show the math that goes with it? But hurry coz wabbitseason is almost over.
__________________
************************************************** ************************* Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol) A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27) ************************************************** ************************* Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV ) |