Śmiechu warte

21.09.07, 09:04
Wystapilem wczoraj na forum
www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69
inicjujac ponizszy watek:

Cosmology needs radical reconstruction

... because is based on false hypotheses. The false hypotheses gave
birth to false theories. And all this mess is caused due to lack of
imagination of what time is. Contemporary Cosmology is abundant in
myths that became rooted over 100 years ago and is unable to perform
a baby's step forward. All in all, so called Relativity should be
moved to the landfill of history without any further delay in order
to make giant leap in science. I keep trying to clarify it since
February 2005 on various forums - unfortunately futile. At the same
time I'd like to stress that I am not slighting scientists, on the
contrary, they are owed respect in spite of their mistakes, however
criticisms should always be severe and mistakes openly discussed.
Science is not a taboo, reserved only for scientists. Science must
be free from mendaciousness. Relativity is treated as holy cow. It
resembles a religion or party. Those who don't agree with
Relativity are treated as iconoclasts. I'd like to stress strongly,
that Relativity is based on hypotheses and theories which cannot be
considered as laws of physics as long as they remain hypotheses and
theories. Let's start from 2 major myths connected with time, i.e.
alleged relativity and its dilation. As scientists cannot comprehend
what time is, they have carried out costly experiments and
squandered money for confirmation of the alleged dilation of time
(e.g. experiment with caesium clocks). Time doesn't contain an ounce
of mysticism. The abstract idea “time” is the basic one and there is
no possibility to define it not to adducing it. That means we can
define time by means of synonyms only. I am setting aside its
colloquial and convenient ambiguities. What, therefore, time is?
Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything. Also: Time
is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of
matter. As you can see, you cannot slow down its motion, because
time is not a body and spontaneously doesn't exists. Any questions?

Andrzej Lechowski

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Watek utrzymal sie ok. godziny i zdazyly go w tym czasie przeczytac
32 osoby, bez odpowiedzi nan. W zwiazku z powyzszym chcialem przejsc
do dalszego omawiania tematu, az tu, po próbie zalogowania sie,
otrzymalem ponizszy komunikat:

You have been banned for the following reason:
Bitter crackpot

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Czy ktos sie z Was orientuje co oznacza okreslenie “bitter
crackpot”. Co tu jest grzane? Widac popelnilem jakis smiertelny
grzech wobec nauki.
    • jarka63 Re: Śmiechu warte 21.09.07, 09:48
      Bitter=zgorzkniały
      Crackpot - zob.tu:
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot
      • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 21.09.07, 11:06
        Wielkie dzieki za oswiecenie.
        Jednoczesnie ze zdumieniem stwierdzilem, ze napisalo mi sie
        zbedne "s" w ostatnim wyrazie przedostatniego zdania - mialo byc
        oczywiscie "exist".
    • kwiatek_leona Re: Śmiechu warte 21.09.07, 15:45
      "Co tu jest grzane? Widac popelnilem jakis smiertelny grzech wobec
      nauki."

      Possibly the word "mendaciousness" caused the moderator to
      erroneously (I'm sure) label you in such kitchenware oriented
      fashion... ;)
      • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 24.09.07, 09:24
        kwiatek_leona napisała:

        > "Co tu jest grzane? Widac popelnilem jakis smiertelny grzech wobec
        > nauki."
        >
        > Possibly the word "mendaciousness" caused the moderator to
        > erroneously (I'm sure) label you in such kitchenware oriented
        > fashion... ;)

        Z tego co napisalem wcale sie nie wycofuje, ale biorac pod uwage
        Twoja rade, na nastepnym forum stonowalem troche, zeby mnie tak od
        razu nie wywalili. Zarzadcy stron bardzo niechetnie widza moje próby
        nawiazania dyskusji na interesujacy mnie temat i zeby go rozmydlic,
        pokazuja mi inne linki, o czym mozna sie przekonac.

        forums.hypography.com/astronomy-cosmology/12885-cosmology-needs-radical-transformation.html

        Trzeba mi sie bedzie rozdrabniac. :)

        • antypody5 ‘physical motion’ and the ‘psychokinetic motionR 22.10.07, 07:23
          Co sie bedziesz rozdrabnial.
          Znalazlem Ci "bratnia dusze" zebys se mial z kim pogadac.

          Nazywa sie Dr Jan Pajak. Glosi teorie podobne do Twoich, z tym ze on jeszcze dalej sie posuwa: "the concept of Dipolar Gravity distinguishes between two different types of motion, i.e. the ‘physical motion’ and the ‘psychokinetic motion’"
          Poczytaj o nim www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1992/4.pdf
          albo poczytaj co on mowi o sobie pajak.orcon.net.nz/

          Moze we dwoch dopracujecie reszte teorii, znajdziecie dowod i nas wszystkich przekonacie.


    • usak "Those who don't agree with Relativity... 21.09.07, 20:20
      ...are treated as BITTER CRACKPOTS."
    • antypody5 Re: Śmiechu warte 26.09.07, 08:09
      Brachu, nie chce Ci sprawiac przykrosci ale niestety musze sie
      zgodzic z moderatorem. Jestes Crackpot. Jezeli ciagle upierasz sie
      przy swoich teoriach to sugerowalbym zebys przeprowadzil nastepujacy
      eksperyment. Zerknij na zegarek i zapamietaj ktora jest godzina.
      Teraz zamknij oczy i posiedz sobie troche az Ci sie znudzi. Otworz
      oczy i sprawdz czas na zegarku. Minelo kilka minut? Ale przeciez
      nie bylo zadnego ruchu. Siedziales sobie po cichu z zamknietymi
      oczami. Oops, wlasnie sobie udowodniles ze Twoje wywody nie maja
      zadnego sensu.
      • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 27.09.07, 10:45
        antypody5 napisał:

        > Brachu, nie chce Ci sprawiac przykrosci ale niestety musze sie
        > zgodzic z moderatorem. Jestes Crackpot. Jezeli ciagle upierasz sie
        > przy swoich teoriach to sugerowalbym zebys przeprowadzil
        nastepujacy
        > eksperyment. Zerknij na zegarek i zapamietaj ktora jest godzina.
        > Teraz zamknij oczy i posiedz sobie troche az Ci sie znudzi. Otworz
        > oczy i sprawdz czas na zegarku. Minelo kilka minut? Ale przeciez
        > nie bylo zadnego ruchu. Siedziales sobie po cichu z zamknietymi
        > oczami. Oops, wlasnie sobie udowodniles ze Twoje wywody nie maja
        > zadnego sensu.

        Szok. Nie bylo ruchu, powiadasz? Otóz w ciagu 5 min. przebywa sie w
        fotelu 9000 km w podrózy dookola slonca oraz ok. 139 km wokól osi
        ziemskiej.

        • antypody5 Re: Śmiechu warte 28.09.07, 01:23
          > Szok. Nie bylo ruchu, powiadasz? Otóz w ciagu 5 min. przebywa sie
          w
          > fotelu 9000 km w podrózy dookola slonca oraz ok. 139 km wokól osi
          > ziemskiej.

          So, you accept the "Myth of Relativity" after all.
          You no longer want it to be moved to the landfill of history?
          Make up you mind, Buddy and stop contradicting yourself.
          Or better still, get off the public forums and stop embarrassing
          yourself and your country.
          • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 29.09.07, 02:34
            antypody5 napisał:

            > > Szok. Nie bylo ruchu, powiadasz? Otóz w ciagu 5 min. przebywa
            > > sie w fotelu 9000 km w podrózy dookola slonca oraz ok. 139 km
            > > wokól osi ziemskiej.
            >
            > So, you accept the "Myth of Relativity" after all.
            > You no longer want it to be moved to the landfill of history?
            > Make up you mind, Buddy and stop contradicting yourself.
            > Or better still, get off the public forums and stop embarrassing
            > yourself and your country.

            No reason to chane my mind. Apparently you have no idea what
            relativity consists on. And now tell me where you have found
            contradiction. You are the last person to show me the door. If my
            country is not yours it's not your headache after all.
    • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 03.10.07, 03:08
      My answer is not going to be as laborate as yours, nevertheles I have a few points to make.
      1. Yes relativity is based on hypotheses and theories, but those are the best we currently have. Research is progressing.
      2. I believe that there are more than four dimensions.
      3. Time is my enemy...I wish that the night will last forever.


      • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 03.10.07, 14:35
        mudzyn7 napisał:

        > My answer is not going to be as laborate as yours, nevertheles I
        > have a few points to make.
        > 1. Yes relativity is based on hypotheses and theories, but those
        > are the best we currently have. Research is progressing.

        Yeah, since over 100 years. Cul-de-sac.

        > 2. I believe that there are more than four dimensions.

        Really? We can move left - right, upwards - downwards, forwards -
        backwards. Could you find a at least one dimension that wouldn't be:
        left - right, upwards - downwards, forwards – backwards? Than I
        could believe you. The more dimensions you find the more I will
        believe.

        > 3. Time is my enemy...I wish that the night will last forever.

        Time is motion. No motion, no life.
        • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 11.10.07, 02:19
          You never thought about inwards, but thats besides the point. The classic bug walking on a rope...I don't know, I heard that there can be as many as eleven dimensions to explain the quark theory.
          Anyway not that long ago they said the atom is the one and only elementar part of the matter. Go figure.
          • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 11.10.07, 02:22
            No motions no life, I wish that time could stand still for a while, dont we all?
            • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 14.10.07, 21:38
              mudzyn7 napisał:

              > No motions no life, I wish that time could stand still for a
              > while, dont we all?

              Siur na mur, but:
              The above sentence is a colloquial phrase. For physics it doesn't
              make a sense. Time is motion and motion cannot stop, because it
              spontaneously does not exist.
          • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 14.10.07, 21:36
            mudzyn7 napisał:

            > You never thought about inwards, but thats besides the point. The
            > classic bug walking on a rope...I don't know, I heard that there
            > can be as many as eleven dimensions to explain the quark theory.
            > Anyway not that long ago they said the atom is the one and only
            > elementar part of the matter. Go figure.

            Apart from proper mathematical calculations common sense must be
            applied too. We do not find more than three dimensions in the
            macrocosm, and that is why I doubt in more dimensions in the micro-
            world. Quarks are still hypothetical. If they exist do they really
            need 11-D to justify their existence?
            • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 15.10.07, 01:29
              Quarks are still hypothetical. If they exist do they really
              need 11-D to justify their existence?

              Do you really think that quarks are hypothetical?
              You are shiting me, tell me it was just a joke!
              Przecierz kwarki sa i kolorowe i sympatyczne.
              • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 15.10.07, 01:33
                No they don't need 11-D explanation to exist, you and i are made with quarks, we just dont have the technology to put them on paper.

                • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 15.10.07, 01:36
                  Jeez simple proton is made out of three quarks, so is neutron, and so is electron and so is Al1.
                  • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 15.10.07, 12:48
                    mudzyn7 napisał:

                    > Jeez simple proton is made out of three quarks, so is neutron, and
                    > so is electron and so is Al1.

                    I am an owner of some number of particles. Shouldn't I multiply them
                    at least by tree then?
                • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 15.10.07, 12:47
                  mudzyn7 napisał:

                  > No they don't need 11-D explanation to exist, you and i are made
                  > with quarks, we just dont have the technology to put them on paper.

                  And how about simplest forms of matter, e.g. electron or photon. Are
                  we in position to outline them?
              • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 15.10.07, 12:44
                mudzyn7 napisał:

                > Quarks are still hypothetical. If they exist do they really
                > need 11-D to justify their existence?
                >
                > Do you really think that quarks are hypothetical?
                > You are shiting me, tell me it was just a joke!
                > Przecierz kwarki sa i kolorowe i sympatyczne.

                Ja na powazne tematy nie zartuje. Pomylka wynikla z braku
                nienadazania za wiedza. Ja o kwarkach czytalem dawno. M.in. Ksiazke
                Franka Close “Kosmiczna Cebula”. Byly tam bardzo dobrze opisane. Nie
                dam glowy czy to w tej ksiazce czy innej, ale znalazlem informacje,
                ze hipoteza istnienia kwarków nie jest potwierdzona. Pózniej o
                kwarkach czytalem okazjonalnie. Oczywiscie, ze o kwarkach powabnych
                i dziwnych, ich trzech kolorach, kwarkach dolnych i górnych
                slyszalem. Tematyki nie zglebiam, bo jestem w niej za cienki.

                • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 16.10.07, 01:46
                  No to czy np. proton sklada sie z kwarkow, czy nie?
                  Wedlug Ciebie?
                  • mudzyn7 Re: Śmiechu warte 16.10.07, 01:48
                    Cause is you say no, well than there's no topic that we can even remotely talk about.
                  • al.1 Re: Śmiechu warte 16.10.07, 11:50
                    Sorry, I've used wrong word.
                    Was:
                    "And how about simplest forms of matter, e.g. electron or photon..."
                    Should have been:
                    "And how about easier forms of matter (to examining of course), e.g.
                    electron or photon..."
                    • al.1 Poprawka 16.10.07, 11:54
                      Mialo byc:
                      I used... (a nie I've used...)
                      • mudzyn7 Re: Poprawka 16.10.07, 15:48
                        > Tematyki nie zglebiam, bo jestem w niej za cienki.
                        Ja tez jestem za cieki, tylko tak udaje. Ale sie staram. lol

                        Pozdrowionka!
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja