So I was pretty mindblown and I wonder, how did I miss that?
His name & theory was completely unknown to me and I'm pretty interested into this kind of things.
So I thought to myself, why is he a fraud? Where are his flaws? Who does debunk his theories?
And funny enough I didn't find much evidence that he is wrong, because usually any bullshit esoterics are usually debunked pretty easily and quickly (David Icke anyone?).
Now let me tell you ahead of time: whenever he's not talking physics, he's talking esoterical bullshit (IMHO).
However, his physics & math seem to be pretty decent...
Now, who knows this guy and why is he a fraud, if at all?
And where does his theories collapse and why is he wrong?
It seems no big-name scientist are disagreeing too much with him, or I simply cannot find it on the interwebs.
Don't get me wrong, I like this guy a lot, he is funny and seems like a genuienly good human being, it just baffles me that I didn't know about him & his theory sooner and I wanna know "what's the downside"...
FIGHT!
EDIT: I put this into the useless void, because World News seemed not leggit to me, since it's not exactly "breaking news"
"There will be no end to the troubles of humanity, until philosophers become kings, or kings become philosophers.", Plato.
"Hyperbole will destroy us all.", Matt Dillahunty.
"The hyperbole, the demonization of the other opinion and the unwillingness to even read the opposing opinion destroys the so important political discussions necessary for the well functioning of society.", Couleur
Last edited by paxsali on Tue, 30th Jul 2013 17:41; edited 1 time in total
Very simple: in order to be accepted, you have to get through peer review.
The question isn't whether his ideas sound good/plausible/comfortable to the layman. The question is, whether or not, he can convince his scientific opponents. Did he submit the paper to a peer reviewed journal, or did he only put it up on his site?
If he tries to circumvent the scientific process, it's COLOSSAL red flag of crankitude.
I didn't read it all, since my head is splitting, but it's strange for me to see a serious general relativity text without the four vectors and tensors. General relativity today is just mindbogglingly complicated, so whenever I see something too simple to be true I have a big reserve about the authors claims.
Plus I haven't seen any of his text on arxiv.org, not that it's any indication, but usually preprints are put there...
I will read this when I'll have some more time, since the topic is close to the one I'm working on for my thesis (holographic principle).
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Well general relativity wasn't proven in Einstein's live, so what's wrong with publicizing something which can't be proven at the moment?
This sounds like the joke, that the rabbit can never catch the tortoise, because you can divide the distance between them to infinity.
Well it's not wrong to publicize it, I just say from what I saw it looks almost too simple to be true. I mean, all the simple cool stuff was already proven by cool physicists in early 20th century (damn they for taking all the simple cool stuff and leaving us with hard things to do!!!! xD).
And the second one is called Zeno's paradox, but it's not a paradox since geometric series in this case converges, so the rabbit will catch the tortoise
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Essentially what he says: volume of proton * mass density of vaccuum in a proton = mass of the universe.
And he says our current ways of calculating the mass of the proton is wrong, which is why we find it is so much lighter than his calculations show (no proof). He also says the strong force is actually gravity acting at the atomic level (just much stronger due to large mass).
Apparently it has been calculated that mass density of vacuum is really really large, although I can't find any obvious physics articles about it. (although there are various references stating it)
It's an interesting talk to us layman but he doesn't really show much proof. True that his calculations of mass match up, but I wouldn't call that proof. Interesting though.
And he does make a point about planck distance that I have wondered myself (as a complete layman). It just didn't make sense that there was a finite minimal distance in the universe (same as that it doesn't make sense to me that there is finite maximal speed) in a seemingly otherwise infinite universe. That kinda makes more sense now with his explanation of finite <-> infinite interaction.
My intuition says a decent physicist can debunk his stuff easily, but still an interesting talk.
I started to read this, and what kinda bothers me is that his 'derivation' goes like this: I have a measured quantity A (without included error!), and I will make my 'derivation' based on this measured quantity...
Ummm, ok, but where is the math behind it? There are no hard mathematical theorems behind what he's saying :\
If you pick up any textbook in GR (Carroll, Wald, MTW...) you'll see some serious math behind every derivation. Topology and stuff, something non trivial.
There are no such things here :\
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
And...at the end of the talk he starts talking about aliens I would have actually considered some of what he said until now but that's over the top. Another David Icke from what I can see.
You should be. He doesn't use general relativity. At most he uses special relativity which does not work when strong gravitational fields are around. Since it's late I only looked very briefly. I expect his derivation of the schwartzild radius is kind of in the same deal as how you can derive it using newtonian mechanics.
If a proton is a black whole how would we probe the inner workings of it? The binding forces would also be insane.
BearishSun wrote:
True that his calculations of mass match up, but I wouldn't call that proof. Interesting though.
I don't care to really read it so could you point to what you are talking about?
To make it clear: when I "assume" he is wrong in the post, it's actually not a real disagreement, I find his theory awesome, but it does sound "too good (and simple) to be true", right. Right?
To this I am truly curious. What is to good and simple about two black holes orbiting at insane speeds?
You should be. He doesn't use general relativity. At most he uses special relativity which does not work when strong gravitational fields are around. Since it's late I only looked very briefly. I expect his derivation of the schwartzild radius is kind of in the same deal as how you can derive it using newtonian mechanics.
If a proton is a black whole how would we probe the inner workings of it? The binding forces would also be insane.
BearishSun wrote:
True that his calculations of mass match up, but I wouldn't call that proof. Interesting though.
I don't care to really read it so could you point to what you are talking about?
This surely does belong in the useless void.
Is this from the video? I didn't watch the video, only read first few pages of the paper, and got a crackpot feeling about this...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
True that his calculations of mass match up, but I wouldn't call that proof. Interesting though.
I don't care to really read it so could you point to what you are talking about?
This surely does belong in the useless void.
I didn't read the article, just somewhat watched the talk. Around this bit, some math that somewhat matches up (depending if the sources for those numbers are even valid):
Oh I only looked at formulas in the paper and didn't watch anything. Maybe I shouldn't be so definitive before really reading the article. I try and see if I can find the time.
You should be. He doesn't use general relativity. At most he uses special relativity which does not work when strong gravitational fields are around. Since it's late I only looked very briefly. I expect his derivation of the schwartzild radius is kind of in the same deal as how you can derive it using newtonian mechanics.
If a proton is a black whole how would we probe the inner workings of it? The binding forces would also be insane.
BearishSun wrote:
True that his calculations of mass match up, but I wouldn't call that proof. Interesting though.
I don't care to really read it so could you point to what you are talking about?
This surely does belong in the useless void.
Just because he is a hack doesnt mean it belongs in the void. We can have sensible discussions in general chatter. In the void anyone(as they should be allowed to) can just go ham and write stupid shit.
8 out of 10 dentists prefer zipfero to competing brands(fraich3 and Mutantius)!
Yeah, but classical picture of atom was abandoned early in the history of QM Electrons don't have orbits in a classical trajectory sense. You have a probability that electron is somewhere in space.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson
chiv wrote:
thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I would have actually considered some of what he said until now but that's over the top. Another David Icke from what I can see.
Electrons don't have orbits in a classical trajectory sense. You have a probability that electron is somewhere in space.
