Author
|
Topic: Hunger Strike for Truth in Physics
|
person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4695
|
posted 04 October 2004 04:43 PM
i'm not marcus macgregor but he is so read what he has to say *************************************Hunger Strike for Truth in Physics My name is Marcus MacGregor and I have discovered the link between general relativity and quantum dynamics. The problem being that I assumed that finding the “Holy Grail of Physics” would result in something other than being banned from research and threatened by police. I thought I could actually have an intelligent conversation with an informed opinion. I thought wrong. There is something wrong with the sociology of the physics community. What that problem is I can only speculate on, but it does have the symptom of being close-minded. This is an intrinsic character flaw of the group that must be corrected. There are three ways that the hunger strike will end. 1) Debunk me- as always, I am looking for people who will try to debunk me. There are several basis points involved in the theory. Tackle any one. I) The universe is populated by large primordial black holes of the Zel’dovich not Hawking variety, black holes with radii measured in galactic radii. II) The path between a pair of these massive holes acts as a gravitational lens that focuses the emitted Hawking radiation, increasing the energy density until spontaneous particle creation occurs. III) The Lagrangian L1 point will be the natural area of high matter density and that these are the central regions of most spiral galaxies. IV) The local group of the Milky Way, Andromeda, Triangulum and attendant ejected elliptical galaxies is consistent with this model. V) That, taken as a whole, this model not only solves dozens of unexplained physics phenomenon, but also serves as a rebuttal to both relativity and quantum theory. 2) Fund me. Book, Computer Modeling, maybe an Assistant or two. Small Potatoes. 3) Watch me die There is no other option. The future and the soul of the scientific community are at stake here. I am not giving up without a fight. The question that is to be answered here is not if the professors are close-minded, arrogant or decadent. The question to be answered is not even if I am right. The question to be answered is: Are they evil? Do you want to get involved? You can tell the physicists in charge of BC scientific advancement that you are displeased with Their performance. Remember, this only the work of a very small, incestuous group. It can be changed quite easily. Dr. Stamp, head of CIAR, [email protected] , Dr. Unruh, noted specialist in black hole theory, [email protected] If you want to debunk me, fund me, get a more detailed explanation of the theory or Are just interested in making sure that I do not die, then feel free to email me at [email protected] If you want the taxpayer dollar used to fund physicists who refuse to do physics then do nothing.
From: www.resist.ca | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 04 October 2004 04:56 PM
quote: The future and the soul of the scientific community are at stake here.
It's survived worse. quote: Are they evil?
Well, if they're witholding your Mensa card then they must be. quote: Do you want to get involved?
No, not really. But good luck getting your obvious genius the recognition it so rightly deserves! They're all just jealous. You'll show them. You'll show them all! Muahahahahahahahaha!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4695
|
posted 04 October 2004 09:43 PM
more details: ********************Theory Details Here is the concept in a bit more detail. If you think a particular point is unclear, excessively brief or ambiguously worded, feel free to ask for an elaboration. However my goal is to obtain funding to write the book not to send you a book length email. Also, I must make quite clear that when I use the term black hole I may be using it as a catch all term for energy vortices from a geon to the last stable photon orbit. The first point is about the expectation size or maximum size of a black hole. It has to have one after all. Curiously enough, the literature on this subject is virtually non-existent. In my opinion, this value should be used to differentiate between the various theories of gravity. Instead it seems to be surpressed. There are many ways one could obtain this value. Zel’dovich, the most famous Russian physicist of the past century, calculated it to be the massive figure of 10^47 kg (10^17 solar masses or tens of thousands of galactic masses. There are many ways one can get this figure. Zel’dovich used the concept of the first black hole from the first supernova absorbing the 3 degree background radiation thoughout the history of the universe. Alternately, you can assert that gravity becomes repulsive at great distances as many theories do. In this case, the maximum size becomes the size of a spiral galaxy, which gives you approximately the same figure. Similarly, a black hole of the size required to account for the red-shifting of distant galaxies or for the abnormally high rotation speed of many galaxies point to similar numbers. The second point is that the gravitational lensing of Hawking radiation can create matter. This is a pretty straightforward concept. The gravitation field between two massive spheres is about as basic a primer to the concept of lensing as you can get. The concept that regions of high energy density can create matter from nothing is well established. I should point out that there are half a dozen sources of radiation travelling in, out and around the lensing area. The matter creation is not exclusively or even primarily from the Hawking radiation source, it is just the fundamental primer source of radiation. The third point is that the L1 point will be a point of high matter density. The Lagrangian point is the point between two objects that experiences no net gravity. Most bring up the instability of the L1 point and that is an excellent observation. When a spiral galaxy eventually congeals around the L1 point the center mass will fall off in one direction or another. The accumulation of mass leading to the formation of a central black hole and this core hole falling out of the spiral is the natural cycle of a spiral galaxy. This accounts for the variation of active galactic nuclei to name one example. This is also the birthplace of elliptical galaxies. The fourth point is that our local group is consistent with this model. The point being is that this is quite apparent and provable (or disprovable) right now. If it were true we could see a shadow of the three black holes in the CBR.(We do) We would see reflections of galaxies falling away like streamers around the photon orbit areas. (We do) We would see light from distant galaxies shifted dramatically to the red. (We do) We would see more galaxies in the direction of the holes. (We do) We would see surface effects and collisions shifted impossibly to the red. (We do) We would see streams of dust coming and going north and south through the galaxy. (We do) Quite simply, if this model is wrong then there should be something that says that it is wrong. I haven’t found it. I have found so many reasons to believe that it is true that when I come across an “unsolved physics phenomenon” that is perfectly consistent with this model, I am not even surprised anymore. The last point is the most obscure and I wish to avoid the typical banter of the validity of the scientific theories. It is, quite simply, that if there are such massive black holes in our local group then the local group itself will satisfy the black hole requirement. Since the time-like and space-like vector have not exchanged places (or have they…;-) ) then there is something wrong with general relativity. At this point I choose to stop explaining. I could show how all the forces can be tied in a neat little bow but I think that it is important that you accept the validity of the local group model. Once you get it, it is really quite easy to see how it all links together and the ramifications it has on the big question of the universe. The problem with lying is that eventually someone will catch you. There is only one viable option when you are caught in a lie and that is to come clean and tell the truth. Now is the time to tell the truth.
From: www.resist.ca | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 04 October 2004 09:46 PM
quote:
At this point I choose to stop explaining.
Heeheehee. I gotta remember that one the next time I'm trying to skate around something I don't understand well enough to explain properly. Marcus, you do realise that the burden of proof is on your shoulders? That it's not for others to try and figure out what you're trying to say? [ 04 October 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 04 October 2004 10:16 PM
quote: Heeheehee. I gotta remember that one the next time I'm trying to skate around something I don't understand well enough to explain properly.
The Internet has definitely opened up new vistas for would-be paradigm-busters who want to publish their "breakthroughs," all right. I can still remember the first "publication" along those lines I saw, some typed-and-possibly-mimeographed flyers on U of T bulletin boards, back in the 80s. Buddy was going on about how his "short elegant proof of the Four-Colour Theorem" had been Suppressed by the Evul Troglodyte Establishment, blahbity blah. Let a hundred flowers bloom, etc. & so forth, but since then I've never been able to take claims of Suppression terribly seriously.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 04 October 2004 10:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by person: more details: ********************Theory Details Here is the concept in a bit more detail. If you think a particular point is unclear, excessively brief or ambiguously worded, feel free to ask for an elaboration. However my goal is to obtain funding to write the book not to send you a book length email. Also, I must make quite clear that when I use the term black hole I may be using it as a catch all term for energy vortices from a geon to the last stable photon orbit.
Please clarify. The standard definition of a black hole is simply a region of spacetime, the escape velocity of which exceeds the speed of light. If your definition differs substantially from this, then it becomes very difficult to even assess your theory against modern physics, because mainstream physicists could never be sure that you're talking about the same thing. And what do you mean by "geon"? Attempting to look up that term led to this (I was referred there via dictionary.reference.com, in case you're wondering) but I doubt that's your meaning. quote:
The first point is about the expectation size or maximum size of a black hole. It has to have one after all.
According to conventional theory, the only limit to the size a black hole can attain is the amount of matter that falls into it. Cosmologists suspect that the maximum size that's likely to exist would be about the mass of a supercluster. The largest for which there is evidence of their existence are the ones at the centres of galaxies, probably including our own. These would tend to be a few billion solar masses. quote:
Curiously enough, the literature on this subject is virtually non-existent. In my opinion, this value should be used to differentiate between the various theories of gravity. Instead it seems to be surpressed.
If by "this value" you mean a theoretical maximum size for a black hole, it's not known exactly. Physicists have a statistical idea of how much matter a black hole could reasonably hope to encounter, but the exact amount depends on the mass density of the universe, which isn't known. If it were known it would tell us a fair bit about cosmology (giving us a better idea, for instance, of whether the universe is going to expand forever or recollapse) but it would not necessarily overturn any of our current ideas about relativity and quantum mechanics. There are many ways one could obtain this value. Zel’dovich, the most famous Russian physicist of the past century, calculated it to be the massive figure of 10^47 kg (10^17 solar masses or tens of thousands of galactic masses. There are many ways one can get this figure. Zel’dovich used the concept of the first black hole from the first supernova absorbing the 3 degree background radiation thoughout the history of the universe. Alternately, you can assert that gravity becomes repulsive at great distances as many theories do. In this case, the maximum size becomes the size of a spiral galaxy, which gives you approximately the same figure. Similarly, a black hole of the size required to account for the red-shifting of distant galaxies or for the abnormally high rotation speed of many galaxies point to similar numbers. [/qb][/quote] Ok. Interesting, but nothing revolutionary so far.
quote:
The second point is that the gravitational lensing of Hawking radiation can create matter. This is a pretty straightforward concept. The gravitation field between two massive spheres is about as basic a primer to the concept of lensing as you can get.
Except according to Hawking's theory, you don't need two massive spheres, just one (the black hole with its event horizon). Hawking radiation is entirely theoretical at this stage, since all known and suspected black holes are so large that they're not expected to show any significant amounts of Hawking radiation for gazillions of years. If very small black holes exist, they might put out a detectable amount of Hawking radiation, but to date none have been detected. quote:
The concept that regions of high energy density can create matter from nothing is well established. I should point out that there are half a dozen sources of radiation travelling in, out and around the lensing area. The matter creation is not exclusively or even primarily from the Hawking radiation source, it is just the fundamental primer source of radiation.
quote:
The third point is that the L1 point will be a point of high matter density. The Lagrangian point is the point between two objects that experiences no net gravity. Most bring up the instability of the L1 point and that is an excellent observation. When a spiral galaxy eventually congeals around the L1 point the center mass will fall off in one direction or another. The accumulation of mass leading to the formation of a central black hole and this core hole falling out of the spiral is the natural cycle of a spiral galaxy. This accounts for the variation of active galactic nuclei to name one example. This is also the birthplace of elliptical galaxies.
I'm a little confused by your discussion of Lagrange points. Lagrange points occur when you have two massive objects (classic examples being the Earth and moon). From what I know, the standard view of galactic formation involves only one really massive object, the supermassive black hole. What is the other object of comparable mass? quote:
The fourth point is that our local group is consistent with this model. The point being is that this is quite apparent and provable (or disprovable) right now. If it were true we could see a shadow of the three black holes in the CBR.(We do)
"Shadow of three black holes in the CBR"? What is the CBR, and what do you mean by shadow? You'll have to go into more detail about this. quote:
We would see reflections of galaxies falling away like streamers around the photon orbit areas. (We do)
Says who? As far as I know, they've never actually observed photon orbit areas. They have a rough idea where they ought to be, but the place where they ought to be in a supermassive black hole is heavily obscured by huge amounts of material. If you have further information on this, please provide a link. quote:
We would see light from distant galaxies shifted dramatically to the red. (We do)
Yes we do, but we don't need your theory to explain it. General relativity does just fine. quote:
We would see more galaxies in the direction of the holes. (We do)
The only black holes for which there is any evidence of their existence are inside galaxies. Please provide a link if you have a counterexample. quote:
We would see surface effects and collisions shifted impossibly to the red.
Which "surface effects and collisions" are you referring to? quote:
We would see streams of dust coming and going north and south through the galaxy. (We do)
That may be. It doesn't sound revolutionary to me. quote:
Quite simply, if this model is wrong then there should be something that says that it is wrong. I haven’t found it.
I've found a couple of suspect claims, as mentioned above, as well as claims that you don't provide enough information for me to make a judgement, also noted above. quote:
At this point I choose to stop explaining. I could show how all the forces can be tied in a neat little bow but I think that it is important that you accept the validity of the local group model. Once you get it, it is really quite easy to see how it all links together and the ramifications it has on the big question of the universe.
Do you always stop explaining at this point, with all the above loose ends? Because if you do, it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain why nobody's taking you seriously. quote:
The problem with lying is that eventually someone will catch you. There is only one viable option when you are caught in a lie and that is to come clean and tell the truth. Now is the time to tell the truth.
No comment.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 05 October 2004 12:41 AM
quote: At this point I choose to stop explaining.
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once, with a very long and tedious proof of something-or-other on a blackboard, complete with an embarrassment of Greek characters, square root signs, curly brackets, etc., and ending with — in nice block letters — "AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS QED".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 05 October 2004 05:59 PM
I used Altavista and found a couple old posts of his to some Physics bulletin board, including a familiar schtick: quote: The radius of hydrogen is about 5e-11. This implies electron orbits are in highly curved space timeAny debunkers out there? 1)Is there any problems with rearranging for density? 2)Is there any problems with EM causing singularities? 3)Is asserting the the electron is an EM singularity crazy?(ie more crazy than 11 dimensional space time with little wiggly strings) If this is true it changes everything. Please someone tell me if I'm right or wrong.
In other words, "I have a loopy idea, but I want you to do the work of determining whether or not it's right". The only difference now is that he's threatening to off himself if nobody does. I strongly doubt that Einstein ever said "E=mc2! I think. Is that right? Would somebody please check that, or prove me wrong? Don't make me whack myself here folks..."
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 05 October 2004 08:58 PM
5e-11 what? Kilograms? Meters? I may leave units out when I do intermediate steps in my calculations but I always leave them in when I write my final answer.(and yes, I know the Bohr radius is 0.529 Angstroms, which is what he meant.) "EM singularity"? If he thinks the fact that we consider the electron to be a pointlike object for the purposes of quantum mechanics in chemistry to be batshit, I'd hate to imagine what else he thinks is wrong with science that he'd go on a hunger strike for. The consideration of the electron as a pointlike object with an associated wavefunction has led to such successful things as: - Analysis of why Mercury is liquid (due to relativistic effects on the electron energy levels)
- Why many-electron atoms exhibit bonding behavior not predicted by the simple hydrogen atom model (has to do with showing how the degeneracy of electron states is lifted when you put multiple electrons into the wavefunction for an atom; they interact with each other and this mutual repulsion raises the energies of the orbitals)
- How to predict the bonding and chemical behavior of gaseous elements based on a comparatively easy to understand molecular orbital theory, which uses those pesky pointlike electrons and their wavefunctions to show how they can act in phase or out of phase, and thus be lowered or raised in energy.
Of course the laundry list goes on, but the point is clear. Mr. Marcus MacGregor also ignores the fact that highly curved spacetime implies a very high mass density, which isn't the case for even a number of electrons distributed through space. The electron WEIGHS 9.1 * 10-31 kilograms. Even if you have 100 electrons distributed through space, that's still only 10-29 kilograms in a comparatively large volume as seen from the perspective of an electron. We've accepted for over 50 years the notion that the electron is a pointlike object. Only since the 1980s has string theory even begun to say that maybe it has some structure and therefore a finite extent. I highly doubt that MacGregor's #3 is a useful question. --- Addendum (putting moderator hat ON): I would like to get a feel for whether we should have a rule in this forum that obviously "Crank" ideas or models should be closed unless there is sufficient reason to take the time to explain what is wrong first.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136
|
posted 06 October 2004 03:42 PM
Actually if one reads the history of Science or any other endeavor, you find that most great breakthroughs were considered crank ideas or heresies. Of course we only now hear about the ones out of thousands which turned out to be closer to the truth. The above post looks like it should be classified as 'camp'.I do agree though that it is much better to err on the side of freedome of expression. [ 06 October 2004: Message edited by: libertarian ]
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 06 October 2004 04:43 PM
Is that the one where the lighter unit is perpetually in orbit around, and in the shadow of, the heavier, more delicious unit?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 07 October 2004 03:39 AM
There's a difference between a new, revolutionary idea backed by a rational explanation for why it should be considered. Albert Einstein didn't just say "You all suck, here's special relativity." He pointed out, using math any high schooler today can understand, why a new perception of spacetime (that is, by letting space and time be variants instead of invariants) leads to explanations of strange phenomena near the speed of light.MacGregor boy here can't even use the right terminology, let alone say where conventional explanations break down. He's just tossing out big words and hoping people will be impressed by his poor-me stance. Has anyone tended to notice that the people who cry "the scientific community is repressing me" usually tend to be people who know their ideas really wouldn't stand up under proper scrutiny (like Uri Geller, who has refused to ever subject his allegedly magical spoon-bending skills to scientific investigation). As you can see it's not always the "mystic" con artists that cry poor me. [ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anti_crank_fan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7087
|
posted 12 October 2004 04:25 PM
quote: i'm not marcus so i can't respond to your questions, i merely presented his case as he has presented it to me, i'm not a physicist or a mathmetician so very little of it is comprehendable to me. i offered to help spred word of what he is doing because he seems quite convinced himself and is going on a hunger strike because of his belief.
If you have no scientific background, then you're in no position to evaluate his theory, and hence support it rationally. Seriously now, go ask Dr. Unruh and he'll tell you why Marcus is dead wrong.Then again, since you don't have any background, how could you tell who's right? If you're that naive that you will support any cause without knowing what it's about, how about giving me $10 to buy myself some food? I'm in Hennings 205 right now.If you're really in need for more stuff to do, here's a few more of these misunderstood science geniuses: would you like to support them as well? www.thefinaltheory.com http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ http://www.flat-earth.org/ In closing, feel free to buy all the snake oil you want, but don't take on a position of travelling snakeoil salesman: you'll just get bottles thrown at you. Meanwhile, why don't you visit this site http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html, and then give us a proper report on Mr. Marcus MacGregor. Edit: as you can see from this link, Marcus has been busy hunger striking for other causes... I'm quite sure he won't end up dead over this one. If you believe the Breatharians , he'll be just fine... If he does die, it probably qualifies as a Darwin award... P.S. I'm really hungry. [ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: anti_crank_fan ]
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 October 2004 11:36 AM
Or a better question for person: if you don't know this crank, and you've never met this crank and you have no scientific grounds, by your own admission, to believe that his theory is in fact accurate, why are you getting your panties in a bunch over it?A bunch of babblers with a background in science have pointed out that this guy is going about it all wrong. And this seems to upset you. You seem genuinely peeved that we haven't all downed tools and taken time to write a personal e-mail to this guy to inquire about his supposed groundbreaking theory. Why on earth would we do that?? Would you then expect us, by way of proving our openmindedness to you, to e-mail every flat-earth, abducted-by-aliens, CIA-stole-the-plans-for-my-engine-that-runs-on-water type crank and give them the attention they obviously crave? In short, I don't think you've been entirely open about your personal interest in this.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 14 October 2004 12:48 PM
I vote keep the cranks in.Question: I seem to recall the point being made once and somewhere that the entire Universe could realistically be contained within a black hole event horizon. It's just that no one could ever know this or test it in any way, so it's a meaningless speculation that doesn't advance knowledge in any way. Seems to me Mr. Macgregor's thesis falls into the same category, and is even cut from the same cloth. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The third point is that the L1 point will be a point of high matter density. The Lagrangian point is the point between two objects that experiences no net gravity. Most bring up the instability of the L1 point and that is an excellent observation. When a spiral galaxy eventually congeals around the L1 point the center mass will fall off in one direction or another. The accumulation of mass leading to the formation of a central black hole and this core hole falling out of the spiral is the natural cycle of a spiral galaxy. This accounts for the variation of active galactic nuclei to name one example. This is also the birthplace of elliptical galaxies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm a little confused by your discussion of Lagrange points. Lagrange points occur when you have two massive objects (classic examples being the Earth and moon). From what I know, the standard view of galactic formation involves only one really massive object, the supermassive black hole. What is the other object of comparable mass?
As far as I can figure out his verbiage, he seems to be implying that the central black hole postulated for spiral galaxies will somehow 'fall out' of the galaxy(?), producing elliptical galaxies. That wasn't in any of *my* astrophysics textbooks.. The L1 point is, IIRC, the point lying at the centre of mass of a two-body system, so the L1 point for the galaxy vs. central black hole 'two body' system is probably near or within the event horizon of the central black hole. My suspicions are that he knows just enough astrophysics to get in trouble, but not enough to get out of it. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fourth point is that our local group is consistent with this model. The point being is that this is quite apparent and provable (or disprovable) right now. If it were true we could see a shadow of the three black holes in the CBR.(We do) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Shadow of three black holes in the CBR"? What is the CBR, and what do you mean by shadow? You'll have to go into more detail about this.
CBR is the Cosmic Background Radiation, the 3K background radiation visible in all directions, wihtin which anisotropies can be observed. I suspect these 'shadows' are very large scale anisotropies that Mr. Macgregor has observed, such as those caused by the Earth orbiting the sun, the motion of which causes one segment of the 3K radiation to be slightly redshifted, and another opposing segment to be slightly blueshifted. If that's *not* what he's on about, then I'm stumped too. Italics mine since I didn't know how the cut and paste would turn out. [ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 14 October 2004 03:08 PM
On earth you're right of course, Magoo, though they could lose volume too. But they could lose weight by going into orbit, or to the Moon. (Why, in laboratories, does no-one ever talk about "massing" an object?) [ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7102
|
posted 14 October 2004 03:16 PM
Hello this is Marcus and I am disgusted with all of you. No I am not dead, I am on day 14. So let me get to your snide comments. "At this point I choose to stop" is a Steven Hawking quote. It is how he ends most of his papers. If you actually read some physics you might know that. The elliptical galaxies being ejected from spirals is one of the main ideas so no it is not in your textbook. It was however mainstream physics theory in the sixties. It was dropped since the reason for this happening was properly explained. I want to give the full explanation. That would be a 600 page book. That requires funding. Don't put the cart before the horse. If you have something to say, say it to me. (Unless you are a coward, in which case pick on my spelling on some BB I am unlike to read) "Is he dead yet?" Immoral Bastards
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 14 October 2004 03:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by Marcus: Hello this is Marcus and I am disgusted with all of you. No I am not dead, I am on day 14... ..."At this point I choose to stop" is a Steven Hawking quote. It is how he ends most of his papers. If you actually read some physics you might know that... ...If you have something to say, say it to me... ..."Is he dead yet?" Immoral Bastards
Marcus, this is an internet forum; why do you expect anyone on it to be a physicist, or to recognize a quote from Hawking's papers, or to bne able to appreciate your theories? Why would you expect anyone here to recognize your genius, if in fact you are a genius? Why should anyone here believe what "person" said about you going on a hunger strike, or what you yourself write, if in fact you are not the same person as "person"? Have you received any media attention? Any independent reports that you could cite? If you are a starving genius, why are you wasting time going on a hunger strike? Exactly what do you expect that to accomplish? It will not publicize your theories, it will not impel anyone to take you seriously, it may cause permanent physical damage or kill you. Are you in fact suicidal? In that case, talk to a counsellor, don't expect a physics professor to be able to deal with your problems.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7102
|
posted 15 October 2004 04:40 PM
Ok apparently none of you are smart enough to understand"Speak to me" I am not coming back to this website so don't respond here. I am too weakEvent horizon shadows - should add "or other nonsense" the method in which primordial black holes could avoid gaining mass via CBR. Remember I believe PBH are large not small Falling out - so the spirals are forming at the L1 point, which is unstable. The mass that forms here will fall off. Thus the variation in active galactic nuclei. ie mass forms -> central black hole forms -> Large central hole accelerates north or south dragging many stars with it -> elliptical galaxy emerges from center -> cycle repeats. That is why stars in ellipticals are older. The prof were rude to me first. I am being rude to them back. I am not hurting them, in fact I am hurting, badly now. Beside they have a MONOPOLY on research funding here. arxiv have an endorsement system thus I need endorsement before I publish. Einstein was a patent clerk, that is a cushy high paying low work job. It is not to be confused with a clerk. Sure if I had a job that paid 80K and required me to works 2-3 hours a day I would not have a funding issue. Now if you want a real discussion I will be outside the Hennings building.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rjedwards
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7052
|
posted 15 October 2004 06:32 PM
Marcus, Until recently, I was a graduate student in physics at Caltech. Despite this relatively low position on the physics ladder, I still received emails and letters about once a week from different people claiming to have a theory of everything, or a similar ground breaking theory. Most of these messages contained voluminous amounts of mathematics and physics and most of it was garbage. I realized pretty quickly that one can't spend his time as a researcher trying to disprove every idea someone else comes up with. Since Bill Unruh is much better known that myself, he probably recieves such manuscripts daily. My guess is that he doesn't read many of them either. And I can only assume that he is even less reciptive to going through someone's theory that isn't even written down. Indeed, arxiv does have an endorsment policy, but an endorsment only needs to come from a researcher with some papers in the database. There are many of them, myself included. Researchers do tend to have a semi-monopoly on research funding, but that's because they are researchers. I am sure Unruh doesn't mean you harm, but there simply isn't enough time in the day to do his research, teach his courses, advise graduate students, and do adminstrative work if he spends half the time working on other people's ideas. Here is part of a poem that Einstein on this problem: To my Dear Fellow Man Manuscripts of endless weight Some quite good, some second rate The mail does bring me every day Without a rest or long delay. I am not a wicked man And want to help all I can Everyone whom cruel fate Has selected to create. Science and philosphy and riddles of psychology; Cure-alls for humanity And, of course, much poetry. Each one thinks that only he Has his parcel sent to me And his rage turns to a tirade If my answer is delayed.
From: K-W | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546
|
posted 26 October 2004 06:23 PM
From Marcus:"Einstein was a patent clerk, that is a cushy high paying low work job. It is not to be confused with a clerk. Sure if I had a job that paid 80K and required me to works 2-3 hours a day I would not have a funding issue." From Einstein's biography: "Einstein finally got a job at a Swiss patent office, and earned just enough money so that his parents didn't have to support him, his young wife, and their new-born baby. Then, he started to work in solitude in the patent office, in between patent applications, on problems that had intrigued him as a child." [ 26 October 2004: Message edited by: fuslim ] [ 26 October 2004: Message edited by: fuslim ]
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605
|
posted 18 March 2005 08:09 PM
And what do you mean by "geon"? John Wheeler coined this term, also the term blackhole. 1911–, American physicist and educator, b. Jacksonville, Fla. Educated at Johns Hopkins University (Ph.D., 1933), he joined the faculty at Princeton in 1938, and after 1976 was director of the Center for Theoretical Physics at the Univ. of Texas until he retired (1986). In the 1930s, Wheeler worked with Danish physicist Niels Bohr; they were the first to explain nuclear fission in terms of quantum physics. Wheeler went on to work on the U.S. atomic and hydrogen bomb projects, and joined with B. K. Harrison and M. Wakano to develop the equation of state for cold, dead matter and a complete catalog of cold, dead stars, firming up the evidence for black holes (a term coined by Wheeler). A charismatic teacher, Wheeler mentored many distinguished physicists, most notably Richard Feynman. 1 See his autobiography, Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics (1998).
[ 18 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]
From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|