http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928024.100-gravitys-bias-for-left-may-be-writ-in-the-sky.html
Interesting article concerning gravity being "left handed"
Regardless, I found the reference in the article to loop quantum gravity suggesting that an asymmetry might be embedded deep into the laws of the universe rendering gravity left-handed fascinating. I believe Hans is referenceing his own work, if I recall corectly.
Hans: Unlike what you previously wrote, the first sentence you made contained a mistake. This again tells me that you are using a program to generate sentences that appear to be scientific but, in fact, are nonsense. Another proof of my hypothesis is that you do not cite references. Where are your references to work done by previous scientists and philosophers? Not once did you refer to such references. Finally, the sentences do not follow a logical structure. For example, they do not build an argument to arrive at a conclusion. Based on the above, I suggest that you throw away this program and start contributing arguments that make sense.
Hans,
Nice but still irrational argument. I read your “articles” and my conclusion is still the same: you have some sort of program that generates sentences which appear to be scientific but, in fact, are not. At the end of your http://www.crypts-of-physics.eu/Ontheoriginofdynamicsandrelativity.pdf “article” you mentioned Wikipedia. Have you looked at Wikipedia and seen how citations are cross-referenced? Where are the cross-references in the “articles” you wrote?
My conclusion is further confirmed by your unsupported arguments. You said that I seem to be a religious fanatic that likes to oppress my beliefs unto others. However, you did not support this allegation with facts and did not show exactly what I said or did that suggests that what you allege is true. In medical terminology, irrational fear of persecution is called paranoia and here is the cross-referenced Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia.
My conclusion is also further confirmed by your hasty conclusions when you made a reference to religion. I never mentioned religion in my responses to your arguments. Hence I ask: why are you insinuating that I talked about things that I never raised? In medical terminology, fractured thought process could be a symptom of schizophrenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia.
Please respond logically to the arguments I made above.
Hans:
In your “How the brain works” article you said:
"Mathematical theories and physical theories tend to build upon the results of other exact theories. After some generations a very complex building is obtained. After a while it becomes humanly impossible to check whether the building elements are correct and whether the binding is done correctly. So, complex exact theories should be questioned."
Accordingly, I am practising what you are preaching.
You said that I have scanned and not read or comprehended the first reference, which you say is an elongated abstract of the second reference, and which I clearly have not read.
Your conclusion is incorrect. As you can see below, one needs to know only the beginning and last letter of words to read the words. Extrapolating that, one needs only to scan your “article” to understand what you are talking about.
http://bestuff.com/stuff/if-the-first-and-last-letter-of-a-word-are-in-the-right-place-it-is-possible-to-read-it-even-if-the-other-letters-are-jumbled-up
You said that you assumed religious fanaticism from the discussion about Twelve Gods and my "fierce" reaction to the remark of Sidney.
Here is a proof of where you went wrong: you made inaccurate observations and thus drew wrong conclusions. It is evident that you find yourself in this situation because you do not believe in the twelve gods. To have salvation for your soul, I suggest that you get to know and start believing in the twelve gods.
You said that you deduced my scientific incapability from my unfounded qualifications of other peoples work.
Since you already made inaccurate observations and conclusions as shown above, I am of the opinion that you again reached a wrong conclusion for the same reason.
You said that the way I react characterizes me. As to that I fully agree with you.
John Forbes Nash, Jr. (born June 13, 1928) is an American mathematician whose works in game theory, differential geometry, and partial differential equations have provided insight into the forces that govern chance and events inside complex systems in daily life. His theories are used in market economics, computing, evolutionary biology, artificial intelligence, accounting, politics and military theory. Serving as a Senior Research Mathematician at Princeton University during the later part of his life, he shared the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with game theorists Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi.
Nash is the subject of the Hollywood movie A Beautiful Mind. The film, loosely based on the biography of the same name, focuses on Nash's mathematical genius and struggle with paranoid schizophrenia.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash
Ni Ha. I fail to see any relavance in your banter to gravity or the article I cited above. If you exist merely to troll against Hans, then kindly do it elsewhere, and take your twelve disciples with you.
David:
I am sorry if you misunderstood my actions but my intent is to reach the truth and not troll others. By the way, frequently in science serendipitous new discoveries are made while looking for irrelevant things. It is possible that we are onto something here in this thread.
I can't deny that. Some of the most important discoveries in history were made while looking for something else. It just seemed like you had an ax to grind with Hans. We should be learning from each other. Of course we are going to argue. It is our nature to always believe ourselves to be correct. I have found correctness is a transitory state.
- Badges
- Science topic