Discriminated upon on the forum,where do you....what?

[MJ kihara]

I opened a thread on spacetime and presented what seem to be a simple straight  forward mathematics to illustrate fundamentals of spacetime.math that would have shown how Christoffel symbols used in general relativity are affected...it was just a tip of the iceberg...and just like that Swanson disregarded my simple math without further questions and blocked the thread. What make fear to develop when issues concerning  nature of the universe are to be revealed,when it's time has come.you can't tell a single person to give a model of the universe at once or at ago,it has to be developed bit by bit and with possible help and input of other people, Swanson should review the math I have posted with no prior notions.

 

[swansont]

I admit, we discriminate against people who don’t follow the rules. 

[MJ kihara]

Discrimination goes with comparison...anyway which rules did I break,you never talked about the math...is it the rules or is it the ideas that re not palatable?

The simple math I posted,Since I understand this forum to be a learning opportunity,I was patiently waiting for persons like Modred to comment about the math so that I can make improvements where necessary or provide clarification if required to,I feel locked 🔒 for seeking knowledge or because of free reasoning.

[iNow]

Update your approach. Communicate clearly. Provide evidence. Support your stance on the merits. Address criticisms clearly and specifically without hand-waving.

Whining like an infant or claiming discrimination / free speech issues on a private internet site like SFN, a site with rules to which you agreed when registering for membership, will get you nowhere other than maybe banned when we get bored of you. 

Welcome to the NFL. Nobody is forcing you play. Nobody is forcing you to carry the football live on the field.

Everyone else here meanwhile will keep playing without you until you figure out how to properly defend your ideas when challenged. Step up or step out, cowboy.

 

 

Edited April 26 by iNow

[pzkpfw]

I'd add: learning latex would be a good start. In the photo of math, it's not all oriented the same way as the forum, and being a photo is impossible to properly quote, or dissect for discussion. Nobody is being paid to review your posts, if you want feedback you need to make the interest high and the effort low.

I will say your handwriting is very good.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

anyway which rules did I break,you never talked about the math...is it the rules or is it the ideas that re not palatable?

First rule of the speculations forum

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure

I pointed this requirement out to you, and you still did not comply.

It’s explained further here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Palatability is not an issue; your posts don’t convey any coherent thought that I can discern. I think you overestimate how effective your diagrams are at conveying useful, scientific information.

[MJ kihara]

The comments are helpful,the latex and machete,I will try where I can or mayb try to reverse engineer my own ideas and theories,to be on the same table rather than light-years away to avoid a hangman noose.

All the same I thought I hand tried to step away from diagrams for simple brains to mathematics...and mayb the input of likes of Mordred, sincerely talking not trivializing others,in my other thread, simplified quantum gravity, he had a lot of input and i had been waiting for him to come back on the forum to just get his take, brilliant brains seems to vanish away with age i.e you can't ask today Higgs a question regarding Higgs boson. and after reviewing my former thread i saw a need for mathematics to bring clarification to my thinking and to tackle  Genady on issue concerning geodesic paths and finally settled the issue on faster than the speed of light that unsettled exchemist and others.sometimes whining help but in this form 😂😂😂 or rather 😭 to clean the eyes.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

bored

<yawn>

[MJ kihara]

On 4/27/2024 at 6:54 AM, iNow said:

<yawn>

🦬 I should then become a bull boy instead of a cowboy...just look at the math I posted in a sketchy photo,then ask me a question,that is more helpful than over sleeping.

[MJ kihara]

- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions..

I outlined the equations  which were initial set of equations before other equations and explanations that could have led to measurable conditions and predictions...I was not given time to do so. 

On 4/27/2024 at 1:37 AM, swansont said:

I think you overestimate how effective your diagrams are at conveying useful, scientific information.

If it links quantum mechanics and general relativity,it explains geodesics paths in a simple way,it explains issues concerning time dilation,it explains wave function colapse,it explains expansion of the universe.....

The issue according to my thinking is deciphering it,not overestimation...just do this,look fo a diagram all over the internate and books that is simple and can compete with that diagram/those diagrams in explaining the outlined issues,we see it,and then I will be done trying to explain or deciphering those diagrams.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

- A model is often an equation or set of equations, so that one can predict some measurable outcome under a set of measurable conditions..

I outlined the equations  which were initial set of equations before other equations and explanations that could have led to measurable conditions and predictions...I was not given time to do so. 

Your “quantum gravity simplified” thread went on for 7 pages without a model.

You knew that people responding were familiar with quantum physics, so simply writing down the e.g. energy-frequency relation or the Schrödinger equation wasn’t necessary. And you were told you had one chance. Nobody forced you to hit the button to publish the post.

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

If it links quantum mechanics and general relativity,it explains geodesics paths in a simple way,it explains issues concerning time dilation,it explains wave function colapse,it explains expansion of the universe.....

They don’t explain anything.

[MJ kihara]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

so simply writing down the e.g. energy-frequency relation or the Schrödinger equation wasn’t necessary.

You are missing the point I used those equation so that I can introduce metric tensor frequency(as far as am concerned,unless told otherwise it's a new concept) that I used in already known energy-frequency relation so that I can bring the idea of quantization,after that I solved Schrodinger equation to get the actual spacetime metric tensor,that is clear on that photo...my point was establishing equivalence in energy frequency relationship and metric tensor frequency....whose solution i had to give it further interpratation.. (how I get to scalar field) I was not given that chance.Is there something wrong with beginning from known to unknown?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

They don’t explain anything

It's difficult to get it if am not given that chance to offer explanations....thats why I talked about prior notions.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

It's difficult to get it if am not given that chance to offer explanations

As I pointed out, you had previously been given plenty of chances to explain yourself. You get less leeway after you’ve squandered your opportunities. You’re acting like you had not already given us >200 posts and not had other threads closed. 

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

It's difficult to get it if am not given that chance to offer explanations....thats why I talked about prior notions.

This doesn't match what happened in that thread. You could have offered explanations but you didn't. You talked about a lot of stuff, and promised to make things clear, but you never did. You strung us along claiming you had a point but never made it. Now you complain you weren't given the chance?! I don't think you understand what an explanation is.