Sign in to follow this  
steveupson

Pet theory hijack (from Fields and ether)

Recommended Posts

On 12/15/2018 at 1:03 PM, quiet said:

Why in a group of people interested in science prevails the spirit of dispute, instead of the spirit of understanding?

It gives the feeling, in many cases, of people who read the notes of others only to trace reprehensible phrases. In many cases, they cut sentences without having read or understood the context, to write a sour repudiation, very far from lucid discernment.

So we hope to advance every little bit more in the understanding of the topics that we like the most?

Let's take an example in my case, so as not to involve someone who does not want to be involved. Did someone take the task to read my first post carefully, understand the content cleanly, then go to the second post, do the same and, thus, get to my last post, to have a conceptual and contextual panorama representative of what I am exposing? If someone had done this work, no one would appear saying that my intention is to affirm the existence of the ether, nor would people appear writing pieces of history to, supposedly, help me understand why the ether is unnecessary. No one has seen that I took the task of putting mathematically the reason why neither the ether nor anything of that kind is necessary.

This thread is only one of the threads spoiled by the vocation of dispute, which replaces the vocation of analysis and understanding. I trust that after reflecting every person within himself, this unfortunate problem will disappear.

I think that some people really resent the fact that they don't know certain stuff.  It's as though they try to cover their resentment with all sorts of recriminations, some of which are extremely dishonest.

Take for example a member who asks, seemingly innocently, "are you talking about the luminiferous aether?" which when you think about it is the same as asking "are you a "flat-earther?"  The question seems innocent enough, but it isn't an honest question.  It isn't as if the questioner is unable to discern the answer.  This "behavior" is what should be looked at an rooted out by enforcing a common code of decency on fora like this.  No one deserves to be treated this way, with such arrogant disrespect.  And yet this is the type of behavior that is encouraged here.  I don't understand why people choose to act this way either, and I really don't understand why it's allowed.  And if anyone were to ever complain about such a thing, by golly they most likely will be permanently dismissed without any further retrospection.  Oh well, we'll see.

On 12/15/2018 at 1:34 PM, Strange said:

Not forbidden to anyone. Of course, if someone wanted to hihack it with their pet theory, that would be against the rules.

Mathematics is not some pet theory of mine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, steveupson said:

I think that some people really resent the fact that they don't know certain stuff.  It's as though they try to cover their resentment with all sorts of recriminations, some of which are extremely dishonest.

Take for example a member who asks, seemingly innocently, "are you talking about the luminiferous aether?" which when you think about it is the same as asking "are you a "flat-earther?" 

 

No, it’s not. There are multiple things that have been deemed the aether. Asking the question is seeking clarification of what is being discussed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 1:19 PM, iNow said:

Rubbish. Members are not forbidden. Unfounded baseless nonsense is. What’s a shame is that some members seem incapable of posting anything other than unfounded baseless nonsense.  

Do you mean this?

image.png.f543b7e532d1b0ec46c6688f60f6356c.png

It's trigonometry.    You know, geometry?   What's unfounded baseless nonsense about mathematics?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, it’s not. There are multiple things that have been deemed the aether. Asking the question is seeking clarification of what is being discussed.

 

Then I apologize for the accusation, if that wasn't your intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I did not say trig, geometry, or math in general are nonsense. I said your conclusions are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, steveupson said:

Take for example a member who asks, seemingly innocently, "are you talking about the luminiferous aether?" which when you think about it is the same as asking "are you a "flat-earther?"  The question seems innocent enough, but it isn't an honest question.  It isn't as if the questioner is unable to discern the answer.  This "behavior" is what should be looked at an rooted out by enforcing a common code of decency on fora like this.  No one deserves to be treated this way, with such arrogant disrespect.  And yet this is the type of behavior that is encouraged here.  I don't understand why people choose to act this way either, and I really don't understand why it's allowed.  And if anyone were to ever complain about such a thing, by golly they most likely will be permanently dismissed without any further retrospection. 

As the word "aether" has been applied to several different concepts (as the later discussion showed) it seems entirely reasonable to clarify exactly which concept is being referred to. Although the OP refused to explicitly answer that question, he made it pretty clear that he was talking about the luminiferous aether.

Wanting to talk about the luminiferous aether does not make one a flat-farther. In fact, wanting to talk about flat-earth theories does not make one a flat earther. So I'm not sure what you are getting so indignant about.

41 minutes ago, steveupson said:

Mathematics is not some pet theory of mine.  

No one said it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. I did not say trig, geometry, or math in general are nonsense. I said your conclusions are. 

Which conclusions do you mean?

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

As the word "aether" has been applied to several different concepts (as the later discussion showed) it seems entirely reasonable to clarify exactly which concept is being referred to. Although the OP refused to explicitly answer that question, he made it pretty clear that he was talking about the luminiferous aether.

Wanting to talk about the luminiferous aether does not make one a flat-farther. In fact, wanting to talk about flat-earth theories does not make one a flat earther. So I'm not sure what you are getting so indignant about.

No one said it was.

I think that you're being genuine, but I could (and have) made the same argument about direction.   The terminology is applied to many different concepts.  There's the way that we represent direction mathematically in physics, and then there's the actual stuff that exists out there in nature.  Space is the same thing.  There's the actual stuff that exists in nature, and then there is our mathematical description of that stuff.  I'm not sure why this is disputed or considered to be some kind of "pet theory."   The lack of specificity is a real problem, and can lead to semantic disagreements that don't really speak to the underlying scientific facts.

I prefer to couch these discussions in the math.  If you are unwilling or unable to do the math then it becomes very difficult to explain the mathematical conclusions.  Without doing the math it is easy, way too easy, to just shrug things off as unfounded baseless nonsense.  The mathematical relationships are not nonsense, they're math.  They are either correct or they are incorrect.  It has nothing at all to do with anyone's background or training or perceived abilities.   You've followed this project for years.  You've seen with your own eyes how this function (that isn't a function) was derived.  It's one thing to be constantly proven wrong, and it's a completely different thing to be constantly proven right.  If I'm wrong, prove it.  Iv'e provided what should be adequate proof that I'm right about most of this. 

At the very least the topic of the mathematics, and how they relate to physics, should be allowed to be open for discussion here.  That's all that I've ever asked.

 

Edited by steveupson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, steveupson said:

Which conclusions do you mean?

The ones that would be off-topic for this thread.

18 minutes ago, steveupson said:

I prefer to couch these discussions in the math.  If you are unwilling or unable to do the math then it becomes very difficult to explain the mathematical conclusions. 

Hilarious.

19 minutes ago, steveupson said:

  You've seen with your own eyes how this function (that isn't a function) was derived.  It's one thing to be constantly proven wrong, and it's a completely different thing to be constantly proven right.  If I'm wrong, prove it.  Iv'e provided what should be adequate proof that I'm right about most of this. 

Reported for hijacking. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strange said:

The ones that would be off-topic for this thread.

So, conclusions about ether would be off-topic in this thread.  

I don't think that you're joking, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steveupson said:

So, conclusions about ether would be off-topic in this thread. 

That is not what I mean, obviously. I meant the subject that you went ahead and brought up anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

That is not what I mean, obviously. I meant the subject that you went ahead and brought up anyway.

It's the same subject.  I can, and have, shown this mathematically.  If we're defining the "thing" as what Mach and Dirac and Grassmann and Einstein were referring to, then we are talking about the same exact thing.  Do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, steveupson said:

That's all that I've ever asked.

 

1 hour ago, steveupson said:

Take for example a member who asks, seemingly innocently, "are you talking about the luminiferous aether?" which when you think about it is the same as asking "are you a "flat-earther?"  The question seems innocent enough, but it isn't an honest question.  It isn't as if the questioner is unable to discern the answer.  This "behavior" is what should be looked at an rooted out by enforcing a common code of decency on fora like this.  No one deserves to be treated this way, with such arrogant disrespect.  And yet this is the type of behavior that is encouraged here.  I don't understand why people choose to act this way either, and I really don't understand why it's allowed.  And if anyone were to ever complain about such a thing, by golly they most likely will be permanently dismissed without any further retrospection.  Oh well, we'll see.

 

 

Whilst I have a certain sympathy with the comparison (underlined),  I have no sympathy whatsoever with the whinge about direspect (also underlined).

I seem to remember putting in a great deal of effort to produce a whole series of drawings about the properties of direction, for your express benefit.
I also seem to remember that you couldn't be bothered to read them.
Yet now you talk of arrogant direspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, steveupson said:

It's the same subject.  I can, and have, shown this mathematically.  If we're defining the "thing" as what Mach and Dirac and Grassmann and Einstein were referring to, then we are talking about the same exact thing.  Do the math.

You have mathematically demonstrated the existence of the lumiferous aether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, steveupson said:

It's the same subject.  I can, and have, shown this mathematically.  If we're defining the "thing" as what Mach and Dirac and Grassmann and Einstein were referring to, then we are talking about the same exact thing.  Do the math.

It has been established that the topic here the luminiferous aether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this