15 of 16
15
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
Posted: 03 September 2013 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 03 September 2013 10:33 AM

You did it again, kkwan, googling a bit without knowing what you are quoting or linking…

This John C. Baez, not that John Baez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez

John Carlos Baez (born June 12, 1961) is an American mathematical physicist and a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Riverside (UCR) in Riverside, California. He is known for his work on spin foams in loop quantum gravity

Family:

Singer and progressive activist Joan Baez is his cousin and her father, physicist Albert Baez, was his uncle.

John Baez is married to Lisa Raphals who is a professor of Chinese and comparative literature at UCR.

You are truly incorrigible, GdB. You pick up one name and go off on a tangent to accuse me of “not knowing what I was quoting or linking…”. That is neither justifiable scientifically nor rationally.  LOL

So, who do you think I am?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Do_You_Think_I_Am

In a lighter vein, from http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/42.html

What is the meaning of 42?

In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, the number 42 is the “Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”. But he didn’t say what the question was!

Let me reveal that now.

If you try to get several regular polygons to meet snugly at a point in the plane, what’s the most sides any of the polygons can have? The answer is 42.

BTW, there are much more fun stuff to explore in his website: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper. - Eden Phillpotts

My correction of Philpotts to Phillpotts

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 09:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

kkwan,

You quoted from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_theory:

Relationist physicists such as John Baez and Carlo Rovelli have criticised the leading unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics, string theory.

In Wikipedia ‘John Baez’ is hyperlinked with John C. Baez, the page you link to in your previous post.

His homepage is http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/, where the crackpot index can be found, and also a very good explanation of GR, and references to conventional books about SR.

So what was wrong in my posting?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 03 September 2013 12:59 PM

I’m just used to you not thinking very deeply. It was a lot better when we had Doug Smith’s skill with these issues.

Yes, me tuu stupit, knoow nothin ‘bout rellatiffity.

I am in the position that I am not a moderator here, so in the limits of the forum rules I can be mean so now and then. But I tell you I know the basics of special relativity, and Scott is wrong as wrong can be. His hubris stimulated a few mean remarks from my side, but you can be sure that the arguments I used were correct.

But of course you do not trust me and my academic background…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2013 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5184
Joined  2010-06-16

And Doug is still the Administrator.  He’s smart enough not to waste his time getting involved in minor issues.  (unlike me LOL )

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2013 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
Occam. - 04 September 2013 10:19 AM

And Doug is still the Administrator.  He’s smart enough not to waste his time getting involved in minor issues.  (unlike me LOL )

Occam

Just tryin’ to stay sane!

smile

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 02:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 03 September 2013 09:38 PM

So what was wrong in my posting?

In a narrow sense, there is nothing wrong but in a broader sense, it is fundamentally wrong as explained below.

Of course, John C. Baez is also known as John Baez.

However, you picked him rather than Carlo Rovelli and linked him only to his crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html instead of to the wiiki on him which was subsequently provided by me in post 211. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez

Obviously, John C. Baez in 2013 is not just the John Baez who wrote the tongue-in-cheek and provocative crackpot index in 1998 (which must not be taken too literally i.e. it should be taken with a grain of salt) and he is much more than that. Hence, this John C. Baez is not that John Baez.

For instance, the highest score in the crackpot index is:

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

This could be String Theory. Does that mean all string theorists are crackpots?  grin

So, what is wrong with your post 206?

1. Omissive and misleading in only linking him only to his crackpot index article instead of to the wiki on John C. Baez.

2. Presumptuous in assuming I needed education wrt relativity with the link to his long “brief introduction to general relativity” discourse on “The Meaning of Einstein’s Equation”.

3. Unjustified accusation without sufficient evidence:

You did it again, kkwan, googling a bit without knowing what you are quoting or linking… 

4. Overall, your post 206 is fallaciously ad hominem.

Q.E.D.?  LOL

GdB, no offense intended. You asked me for it.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 02:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 05 September 2013 02:11 AM

Obviously, John C. Baez in 2013 is not just the John Baez who wrote the tongue-in-cheek and provocative crackpot index in 1998 (which must not be taken too literally i.e. it should be taken with a grain of salt) and he is much more than that. Hence, this John C. Baez is not that John Baez.

You should have become a theologian…

And btw I did not only link to the crackpot index. Obviously you forgot that.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

hgdhfgj

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

ghdjkn

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5184
Joined  2010-06-16

Geez, Scott.  First you say you want to be banned and complain that you can’t erase all your posts, then you do two more and immediately erase them.  Weird!  From your picture, you would seem way too young to be suffering from Alzheimer’s, but you apparently have a problem with the flow of reasoning.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 05 September 2013 04:27 PM

Geez, Scott.  First you say you want to be banned and complain that you can’t erase all your posts, then you do two more and immediately erase them.  Weird!  From your picture, you would seem way too young to be suffering from Alzheimer’s, but you apparently have a problem with the flow of reasoning.

Occam

Sophomoric is the word that comes to mind.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2013 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 05 September 2013 02:15 AM

You should have become a theologian…

Oh, my goodness gracious me! LOL

Apparently, there is a local catholic priest who looks like me and I have been mistakenly identified as him at several times by various people. I have quite a few Christian friends. They are innately good people, I respect their religious beliefs and hopefully it is reciprocal wrt my irreligious free thinking and philosophical taoist perspective on their part.

OTOH, consider the catholic Society of Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

Jesuits in science:

The Jesuits have made numerous significant contributions to the development of science. For example, the Jesuits have dedicated significant study to earthquakes, and seismology has been described as “the Jesuit science.“The Jesuits have been described as “the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century.” According to Jonathan Wright in his book God’s Soldiers, by the eighteenth century the Jesuits had “contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light.”

The present pope is the first Jesuit pope.

The catholic church and science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

Some leading Catholic scientists:

Scientific fields with important foundational contributions from Catholic scientists included: physics (Galileo), acoustics (Mersenne), mineralogy (Agricola), modern chemistry (Lavoisier), modern anatomy (Vesalius), stratigraphy (Steno), bacteriology (Kircher and Pasteur), genetics (Mendel), analytical geometry (Descartes), heliocentric cosmology (Copernicus) atomic theory (Bošković) and the Big Bang Theory on the origins of the universe (Lemaître). Jesuits devised modern lunar nomenclature and stellar classification and some 35 craters of the moon are named after Jesuits, among whose great scientific polymaths were Francesco Grimaldi and Giambattista Riccioli. The Jesuits also introduced Western science to India and China and translated local texts to be sent to Europe for study. Missionaries contributed significantly to the fields of anthropology, zoology and botany during Europe’s Age of Discovery.

Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was founded in 1936 by Pope Pius XI. It draws on many of the world’s leading scientists, including many Nobel Laureates, to act as advisors to the Popes on scientific issues. The Academy has an international membership which includes British physicist Stephen Hawking, the astronomer royal Martin Rees and Nobel laureates such as U.S. physicist Charles Hard Townes.

Church and science as complementary:

The Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin argued in an influential 1959 book, The Phenomenon of Man that science and religion were two vital sides of a same phenomenon: a quest for perfect knowledge.

Science is a human endeavor to understand nature and reality and it does not matter whatever any scientist is or is not if they can contribute to that end.

BTW, how do “Jesus Lizards” walk on water? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1116_041116_jesus_lizard.html

The Jesus lizards, or basilisk lisards, accomplish the seemingly miraculous act of moving on top of water by generating forces with their feet that keep their bodies both above the surface and upright, according to Shi-Tong Tonia Hsieh. Hsieh is a graduate student in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University in Massachusetts

Charming isn’t it? smile 

And btw I did not only link to the crackpot index. Obviously you forgot that.

No, I did not. The crackpot index was your first link and the most prominent.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2013 02:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

I just stumbled in another forum on this site:

HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST by Gerard ‘t Hooft (be sure you have the ” ‘t Hooft” correctly…)

It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know. First of all, be serious about it. All necessary science courses are taught at Universities, so, naturally, the first thing you should do is have yourself admitted at a University and absorb everything you can.

<snip>

It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student. The names and topics of the absolutely necessary lecture courses are easy to list, and this is what I have done below.

<snap>

Theoretical Physics is like a sky scraper. It has solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant” since now we have so much more. In those days, the solid foundations were laid of the knowledge that we enjoy now. Don’t try to construct your sky scraper without first reconstructing these foundations yourself. The first few floors of our skyscraper consist of advanced mathematical formalisms that turn the Classical Physics theories into beauties of their own. They are needed if you want to go higher than that.

It is followed by a huge list of links to solid and correct works of physics.

If Scott is still reading here, he now knows where to start…

Maybe next time when a crackpot comes here with a theory why Einstien (Crackpot index, point 8) was wrong I should just link to this page, and leave it at that. On the other side, it was nice to refresh my knowledge of special relativity…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2013 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
Occam. - 04 September 2013 10:19 AM

And Doug is still the Administrator.  He’s smart enough not to waste his time getting involved in minor issues.  (unlike me LOL )

Occam

This is a serious issue Occam, I just hope Scott is OK.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2013 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
DarronS - 03 September 2013 01:53 PM
StephenLawrence - 03 September 2013 12:51 PM

I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get Scott to see the errors in his thinking and the arrogance of believing he could correct the so-called mistakes of some of science and mathematics’ greatest geniuses, especially considering Scott’s obvious ignorance of freshman physics and astronomy.

So just stupid then.

Stephen

You need to look up the word “ignorance.” Ignorance can be fixed. I don’t believe Scott is stupid.

What I meant was either you were having fun at Scott’s expense or you really were trying to change his mind with your approach.

If you really were trying to change his mind with your approach that was stupid, but of course you weren’t for a moment and nor was GdB.

If you wanted to do that you would have engaged with the thought experiment Scott started with.

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 16
15