Emergent Gravity or Potpourri of Nonsense

[John G]

The prof who quoted me delays of 10000x is reputable, but so far I have not seen it.

There are certainly delays but I don't know how big they can get either. WMAP just looks at a few discrete frequencies all in the tens of GHz and does calculations for a single frequency at a time (multiple frequencies used for filtering out foreground photons). It's the relative not total amounts for photons of various properties for the single frequency that are looked at, so getting too many or too few photons at certain frequencies is not a problem.

Maxwell seems to blur it qualtiatively by saying that it affects atoms but is not electrons being absorbed. Is it or is it not? If not then he is talking about massless charge effects.

I think the general idea is that only photons get emitted and absorbed but electrons can go into the vacuum at some points and be coming out of it at other points.

 

[durabone]

Thank you again Bluelamp. There is much to discuss, but I think for now I'm going to dwell for a bit on my recent revelation about the kinds of feeding dynamics that can go on in a forum like this. Soon.

 

[ilja]

I'm a newbie here, but I skipped that Newbies section to direct my feet right to this thread as I find it confusing by observing from outside this technical terms din I've been knocked senseless. So, this is what "attracts" me mostly: the major part of discussed persons seem to obtain adequate university training in the fields of maths and physics, so this is why one shouldn't - one the first gaze - to bring diletantism home to them. Mr. Jadczyk, you were right when you said that there's a plenty of crazy physicists in this world so even that training is NOT a guarantee. However, speaking on the subject of working out the theory of vacuum(aka the Unified Field theory), torsion physics and all that relates, shouldn't that be obvious that the work of building up new scientific concepts and paradigmas is being inevitably accompanied by mistakes and errors as the effect of the quest for new means and has always been. As I recall from the history of physics and the creation of Einstein's Relativity theory in the period of 1911-15 his first introduced versions of gravity equations were replete with numerous errors, inconsistences etc. That, of course, would give you a full right to publicly disdain his "non-sensical" theory, but I think all you could prevent from doing this is later acknowledgment by scientific community. While the quetion of credebility of Einstein's Theory is obviously unresolved, because of some its serious misgivings, well... that conception had been supported for years. The same now happens to my mind to the proponents of the new constructs. That leads me to the central point of my post, i.e. wording they (I mean not only torsionists, but all mathematicians/physicians generally) are exploiting and labels they are taunting to each other regarding just mathematical issues: from that viewpoint every error is marked by the word "non-sence". Then question raises what is "sense"? And if you, mathematicians, call each other's papers "non-sense", then why are you producing this non-sence and what is other sence of further theoretizing of such a kind than wasting lots of paper and time to in any case hopeless venture? You know, the one who doesn't make errors is usually the one who doesn't do anything or who is unrisky, coward conformist. So, you feel that they should be critisized even harsher. That's ok, they should be. But do you think your own theoretizing lacks flaws? If yes, could you give me references to such critique of your papers, I wasn't able to find it. What does the latter mean: are you flawless and a kind of theoretical huru both on this board and in the world of physics or does it mean your papers - as elaborate as they are - containg nothing special for practical use in physics? G.Shipov in one of his article on the state of matters in modern theoretical physical put the stress on the fact of numerous theoretical works that are being accepted to thesis defence with later publishing in the leading mainstream journals while being non-sensical, narrow minded and empty, creating illusive impression of being of kind of revelation, even greter than that of Einstein or Newton. I personally, am crazy abour maths, physics and am going to train myself to be capable of adequate understanding of any writing that will ever come before my eyes. But even, when I be able to afford it, I'm sure this won't tell me something "special" that would expand my understanding into the depths of matter and FUNDAMENTHAL laws of the Universe, there gonna be just another 10000000 mathematical exercises. Concidering these, I would like to wonder: to which type of works yours belong? Even if they 200 percent correct, then what is beyond? Is it meaningful or non-sense overfilled with mathematical deductions? Have your works contributed to the fundamenthal physics and made a breakthrough in scientific uinderstanding of basic patterns and, what's the most significant, affected it practically?

I was shocked when you stated incidenatlly that such theorists as G.Shipov, J. Sarfatti shouldn't be given an opportunity to be published in "seriuos journals". At the same time in other place you noticed that very often proponents of the new theories are not allowed to be published and even peer-reviewed by academic press and is forced to reveal their researches in "fringe, very fringe journals". Where's your logic? Where, then, should they do this? I know little of Sarfatti's work, but , speaking of Shipov, do you concider him - a well-trained and fully equiped theoretician-phycisist - to be unworthy to be published? I suppose you are aware of persecutions and oppression of his team and other torsion researchers in Russia on the part of the official science authorities. Yet, there're still - half-legaly - experimentation being continued to be conducted by independent researchers throughout Russia and the results supports the theory of Shipov and Akimov. The russian journaliost Vlad Zhigalov made independent and excessive investigation of the whole situation with torsion physics development inside Russia, you may download it fro this site (I was unable to attach it for soem unclear reason) http://www.second-physics.ru/node/19

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I'm a newbie here, but I skipped that Newbies section to direct my feet right to this thread

Maybe you did not notice that we ask you to introduce yourself as a first post.

I personally, am crazy abour maths, physics and am going to train myself to be capable of adequate understanding of any writing that will ever come before my eyes. But even, when I be able to afford it, I'm sure this won't tell me something "special" that would expand my understanding into the depths of matter and FUNDAMENTHAL laws of the Universe, there gonna be just another 10000000 mathematical exercises. Concidering these, I would like to wonder: to which type of works yours belong? Even if they 200 percent correct, then what is beyond? Is it meaningful or non-sense overfilled with mathematical deductions? Have your works contributed to the fundamenthal physics and made a breakthrough in scientific uinderstanding of basic patterns and, what's the most significant, affected it practically?

First of all, I have seen Ark talk about errors he has made in his papers. Second of all, math is a language. As such, it can be used incorrectly. Since we have all agreed to call those red, round fruits we all know so well apples, then anyone who decides they should be called oranges instead should be corrected. If after that time, they continue to call an apple an orange, then they should accept the fact nobody will understand what they are talking about. If they call an apple an orange AND insist everybody else know what they are talking about, then they will be considered delusional. If Ark sees mathematical mistakes, then he will try to correct them. These errors could be strictly mathematical in nature or they could represent a schism between the qualitative ideas of a theory and the math used to model the ideas.

Ark has himself written during the Bogdanov controversy that there ought to be journals for "impressionistic" phyics. That is, journals where physicists can write about ideas without the requirement of being entirely and correctly mathematically formulated.

To tell the truth, I can't quite see what you are upset about, and your post gives me the impression that you are. I think you should write your introduction post, read the forum guidelines, and then explore and read the forum for a little while before you start criticizing Ark in ways that don't make very much sense.

 

[ilja]

I think you should write your introduction post, read the forum guidelines, and then explore and read the forum for a little while before you start criticizing Ark in ways that don't make very much sense.

First of all, speaking of the form guidelines (if it's the same thing we both mean) they're enormoulsy large and exhaustible to read them from cover to cover, especially reading in details. However, since the most forums guidelines are being composed following the one model, I don't think I'm able to violate them ;) But, ok, I later shall introduce myself, just let me to speak out here (though the major part of what I wanted to say I have written already).

The second, that wordplay about garden fruits and vegetables was pretty nice, but it in fact failed to adress the central point of my message :) I was speaking not of various subtleties and nuances of what Mr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk had ever presented in variuos threads of this forum or somewhere else (though I'll explore them too, promise). I just pointed out to some general aspects that are showing their face while discussing on mathematical issues but are rarely paid attention to.

And the last one, I'm not criticizing "Ark" YET. I noted some obvious inconsistency in what he has expressed as his opinion. To add more, I don't know how to detect a position that he occupies on the "battlefield" of modern physics. Lamenting on how interesting researches not being published in the official academic press (predominated by group policy and corrupcy, by the way) and at the same time flinging off phrases kind of "likes of G.Shipov, Sarfatti and Evans shouldn't be accepted by serious publishers" disorientated me and beared my opinion that it sounds strange from a scientist that belongs to mainstream that usually slams these reasearchers.

 

[John G]

And the last one, I'm not criticizing "Ark" YET. I noted some obvious inconsistency in what he has expressed as his opinion. To add more, I don't know how to detect a position that he occupies on the "battlefield" of modern physics. Lamenting on how interesting researches not being published in the official academic press (predominated by group policy and corrupcy, by the way) and at the same time flinging off phrases kind of "likes of G.Shipov, Sarfatti and Evans shouldn't be accepted by serious publishers" disorientated me and beared my opinion that it sounds strange from a scientist that belongs to mainstream that usually slams these reasearchers.

Ark is going to criticize someone he sees as unethical whether that guy is mainstream or not (i.e. Evans). Someone like Sarfatti (whom I think works on some important concepts that not enough people work on) has almost a greater responsibility not to be sloppy cause you don't want the general idea to look bad by being sloppy. There's a difference between being wrong and being sloppy though as Ark said: "On the other hand, if some of their readers do not mind errors - well, that is their free will." Sarfatti does know people who can help him with the math and he has done that at times but not at other times.

 

[anart]

However, since the most forums guidelines are being composed following the one model, I don't think I'm able to violate them ;)

Actually, with your current attitude you are violating them. All we ask is that you behave in line with the spirit and guidelines of this forum. If you are not able to do such a simple thing as that, then there is really no reason for you to post here. Regarding your questions for Ark, he is very busy right now working on another book, but as soon as he has a moment, I'm sure he'll respond to your concerns.

 

[Alana]

However, since the most forums guidelines are being composed following the one model, I don't think I'm able to violate them ;)

This forum has a specific aim, thus its guidelines are very different than any other forum's. Every member here is required to read them in order to participate, so that they fully understand what this forum is about, and whether they agree to participate under those conditions. Read them, they are in fact much more interesting and informative than any other forum's guidelines.