John said:
---
Since I have free will, I can pick and choose what I want to reply to
and what I don't, so the answer to your question is, obviously, "It
wasn't in the cards."
---
No, you replied because you had no choice. You processed inputs and produced
a quasi-deterministic output, that was modified by a sprinkling of quantum
randomness.
No. No idea who is is., and no I am not gong to even look him up. Its
irrelevant. I can guess your point though, like, everyone said such and such
was wrong...but they were wrong instead. The fallacy of this logic does not
require explanation, but it looks like you need it. For everyone that got it
right, against the odds, millions didn't. You fire an arrow, then draw the
target around it, conveniently ignoring the majority missed.
General relativity may be wrong.
Nope. But I have enough education to know when you need one. In principle,
one could do the work of PhD physicist sitting at home, but statistically,
that does not happen. No amateur physicists has made any contribution to
physics for probably 100 years, if even then.
I see.
In your view, one is not allowed an opinion without having attended a
university which is included in your "approved" list and having
followed a curriculum of which you approve.
Not at all.
What I am saying, is noting the actual facts. Physics is way too technical
now for unqualified individuals to have any relevance at all. Its just the
way it is.
If you were talking Media Studies, Politics, Basket Weaving, Golf...feel
free to believe that your opinion might have relevance. It may well do.
If it is Physics, that belief would be completely delusional. Tell me,
without looking it up, "what's a Killing Vector", what is the "Bianchi
Identity"? I am a rank amateur in this, but its enough to know that you know
are completely out of your depth. One needs to recognise when one is simply
too ignorant on a particular matter to make any contribution to it.
Fortunately, you're not the censor/moderator here and we're all free
to post just exactly what we please no matter how much it rankles you.
I'm amazed that my simple proposition seems to gall you to the point
of apoplexy when it would be so simple for someone with your
"obviously superior intellect" to silence me logically.
I don't have that much of an intellect, I have some knowledge in a few
things. Specifically, I have some knowledge in knowledge. I have a good
handle on what sort of knowledge requires more knowledge on specific
subjects in order to talk sensibly about it.
When you proposed your "theory", it was an instant roll of the eyes...oh..
no..not again.. Its what they say in the phyics news groups "its not even
wrong".
Yes I do.
It's not "mass attracting our universe", it's "mass external to our
universe attracting mass in our universe."
---
I understand that your point here. It is wrong.
---
"Actually accounts"?
All in good time...
---
Yeah...
---
No, it's not.
In the first place, you seem to be assuming that my hypothesis claims
that the external mass is a point source attracting our entire
universe toward it.
No I don't.
It does not.
My hypothesis states that a mass surrounds our universe which
attracts objects in our universe toward whichever part of the mass
exerts the greatest influence upon them.
---
---
Convince you?
I have no need for your imprimatur, you condescending, arrogant boor,
and when I'm ready to publish my findings (if, indeed, there ever are
any) I'll do it with no help from you.
Unfortunately, the truth often hurts. In this particular subject, its is
obvious to any in the field, that in this particular matter, you are
essentially, completely clueless. I am giving you a good kick up the back
side to get some sense into you.
As far as arrogance and condescending, I am not the unqualified individual
claiming that the noted qualified experts are all wrong. I am simple
claiming that someone with no qualifications in physics is wrong. So, on
that basis, who is the one showing arrogance?
I don't know of any easy way to explain to someone, that what they are
saying is based on ignorance. Stating these facts is not condescending.
Actually, it seems, with a great deal of resistance from you.
---
---
What *actual numbers*?
You've already determined what the distribution of the attraction
gradients in the the proposed external gravitational source should be,
with respect to the red shifts of the attracted galaxies, as well as
its distance, shape, and internal machinations and have come to the
conclusion that it can't exist?
Nope. I have stated that experts in the field have already done these
simulations, and for reasons of your arrogance, not mine, you think you know
better, despite having zero refereed papers in any publications on the
matter. Of course, neither do I, but I am not the one making claims that
contradict the conversional wisdom, you are.
Let's see the numbers.
---
---
"Trust me"???
Shirley, you must be joking.
You're no physicist,
Indeed I am not.
Kevin, you're just a garden variety IC designer
Probably.
with delusions of grandeur
No. I don't claim that I know better than the qualified experts, you do.
who wants to believe that anyone who you
consider to be your inferior couldn't possibly come up with a concept
which might be right if you disagree with it.
---
It is a comparison of you with the experts, not a comparison of you with me.
The idea that a novice in physics could come up with concept that is valid,
and is contradictory to the experts, is zero. Novices simply do not have the
background as to what unsuccessful theories have already been looked at, in
complete detail. You simple assume that the experts toe the line with the
establishment willy nilly. This is a mistake. For example, the classic book
"Gravitation" - Misner Thorne and Wheeler, devotes a whole chapter on
*detailed* competing theories to General Relativity, and shows, why they are
wrong. For example, being internally inconsistent, or failing to agree with
observation. Indeed, proving that such theories, in general, are incorrect
can take years, as noted in said book. Any professional expert would give
their right arm to produce a new correct theory that contradicted existing
wisdom, and that also showed why prior theory appred to work. Like, you
think none of these dudes would like a headline "Dr. X proves Einstien
wrong"...dah...
Again, you simply do not have the background to know why the theories that
have made it to now, have actually made it to now. You arrogantly assume
that the experts are stupid.
Your just out of your depth mate. Stop making yourself look silly.
In particular, not as bizarre a concept as external mass.
Oh dear, he says...as he rolls his eyes...here we go again...
20.. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
orthodoxy".
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
I was once told, by an expert, that building a frequency doubler which
reproduced the duty cycle of an input signal was impossible.
Guess what?
I was once told that bozo the clown was a clown...guess what..
Again, see above link
Sorry, no more time to go through the rest.
Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
