You decided that a commentary on my character was needed... that isn't part of a debate on science. Any debate should have both sides pushing their points rather than misrepresenting the other's points (or applying points not even put forward).
I didn't misrepresent your point. You may have stated your point in a fashion which resulted in it being misinterpreted. But misinterpretation isn't a WILLFUL act.
You keep talking about "commentary on character" being inappropriate, yet at the same time you're making commentary on my character... as you just did in the comments above.
I have not made commentary on your character, certainly not DEROGATORY commentary on your character. I did address the point which you made (or at least what appeared to be the point you were trying to make). And I pointed out that your approach - "talking down" - isn't really productive.
You, on the other hand, have made comments about my character repeatedly here. From "having some hidden animosity" (patently untrue), to "having a chip on my shoulder" (patently untrue) to "having some trauma in my past around this subject" (patently untrue), to "purposefully misrepresenting your points" (patently untrue). Please stop. You're mistaken about EVERY ONE of those points. And saying that sort of thing is NOTHING if not "personal" in any case.
I've never shared my beliefs on this topic in the forum, nor would I. I have theories (actual papers on this very subject) which differ greatly from the standard view of things, and not a single example of those ideas have I ever put forward to anyone here. Until that work is published (and vetted) it is my personal world view and I care to keep it that way (no matter how much mathematics and empirical evidence supports it). I believe that everyone should be presented with the same basics I was and they can reach their own conclusions.
Okay, I'm a little confused here... you're saying that you won't talk about your own position? That whatever you happen to think is the case on this topic, you haven't, and won't, talk about it?
If that's the case, I'm not sure why you're taking part in this conversation at all. Technically, if you feel like legal/jurisdictional/I.P. issues preclude you from talking about it at all, the best solution would be to entirely avoid the conversation. Of course, such "can't talk about it at all" situations come up very rarely, and mostly in terms of "my world" (where an advance translates into an immediate, real-world financial benefit) than in the pure theoretical world (though I'm sure that I.P. theft is an issue there as well). If you need to protect your I.P. prior to publishing, then the smart choice would be to not discuss the topic at all. Even if it "hurts" a little bit. I've been there myself.
So, if you haven't been published - yet - where are you trying to get published? Is the vetting underway? Peer review and all that? Are we talking "Journal of Applied Mathematics?" Something else?
I'm intrigued... but from the first time someone told me that they had "real info" that wasn't public knowledge, claimed it was antigravity, and then proved to be utterly incompetent (confusing e/m field attraction for "antigravity"), I've always been a "show me" sorta guy. If you can't "show" yet... I understand. But I can't take it seriously until I've seen something to make me believe, ya know?
My feeling on math and physics in general can be summed up in this quote from a talk I gave a few years ago in which I described why I found mathematics so much more alluring:
"I see both pure mathematics and theoretical physics more as art than anything else. But where physics is restricted to attempting a better and better representation of a single subject (nature), mathematics supplies endless possibilities... whatever the mind can think up."
I've repeated that statement (not always in the same exact words) many times in the last 17 years (including in a conversation about a week ago).
We all have our own "quotes"... got quite a few of my own... which we've picked up, or made up, to define our own world-view. That's not a bad line, but I see math very much differently.
Math is a screwdriver, or a yardstick, or pastel chalk... it's a tool, and a way to represent something else - something real. Math, itself, isn't "real" at all. It's just the tool.
For that reason, yes, math is much less limited. But reality has limits. I think of the relationship between mathematics and reality as something along the lines of an Escher print compared to real architecture.
(For anyone who's not familiar with who Escher is, do a quick web-search... he did architectural drawings using optical illusions... most commonly the "staircases" type stuff.)
Don't misread that - I LOVE having a tool that has no limits. But it's important to remember that the tool is only that... a tool... and that what it's being used on may have limits which the tool itself does not. In other words, just because math says "this is possible" doesn't mean it is.
Do any of your representations of my points reflect that? Doesn't look like it to me.
If you feel you're being misrepresented, that's the nice thing about a "public discussion." You can clear those things up yourself, easily enough. And... remarkably enough... without it being necessary to take offense.
Now, if you DO clarify your point, and someone makes a conscious effort to misrepresent what you've said, that's a different matter (seen that on here multiple times myself). But that's not what I've been doing. I've basically argued against the points which, very clearly from my point of view, were being made by you. If you didn't mean to make those points, well... that's a matter of miscommunication, not "malice" on anyone's part.
If I misread what you were saying - that's a mistake. If I didn't misread what you were saying, that's not a mistake. If you didn't mean to denigrate those who were saying "the science isn't settled," then let's just be clear, once and for all. Did you, at any time, intend to be critical of those who stated that "we don't really know that much about this topic?"
If the answer is "no," then it's a miscommunication."
I've also stated many times that I believe we (as a species) can never know everything... and that is what should give us hope for the future.
And yet you've been debating me as if I believe something totally different. Nothing I've said here runs contrary to what I've believed most of my life, but you've represented my position as what ever you needed it to be to make your own points.
If you are going to make up both sides of the debate, you sure don't need my participation. My actual positions seem to have no value to you.
There you go again... pretending that you're being victimized by some intent to mischaracterize your perspective.
I've responded to what you've said here, not to anything I've been able to read from your deepest thoughts. If you have made statements which somehow infer something opposite from what you actually believe, then it's incumbent upon you to clarify your position, not to retreat to a point of "aggressive defense," assuming foul motives on the part of those who may have read your words in a light other than that which you (seemingly, now) intended them to be read.
And it seems that when I discussed a range of people who can be blinded by their beliefs, you decided that the lower bound was aimed at people in this thread. Again, that is an interesting read of what I said, but not what I said.
Actually, what was largely evident was that you were claiming that the people in this discussion... including, but not limited to myself, of course... were being "blinded by our beliefs." In other words, it seemed quite clear that you were applying that to others, and by contrast setting yourself above that level.
What seemed clear, and still does to be honest, is that you were attributing an irrationality to those who question the "infallibility" of certain current in-vogue assumptions about the relationship of "time" and "velocity." That you gave a "range" of delusions seems not as significant as the fact that you seemed to be describing those who disagree with this particular "fact" as being guilty of self-delusion.
Were you not, in fact, doing so? Do you believe that people who question the current assumptions about what's colloquially known as "modern physics" and in particular the so-called "relativity" aspects of it are guilty, for whatever reason, of some form of denial or delusion? If so, or if not, well... let's just clarify that now. That way we can put the whole "misintepretation" thing to bed.
It looks (to me) like you have long standing animosity towards me, which is the seeming reason for your commentary on my character in public, and that you have projected the bad scientist stereo type that you have onto me to fill in the gaps (or ignore what was actually said) to make sure you have something to argue against in making your points.
SHEESH. Get over yourself here.
I have made two statements, on this BBS, about "bad scientists and engineers." In one case, you weren't even part of the conversation at the time, yet you clearly took great personal offense at it. In the second (right here), I have made a fairly general comment about "bad science."
Let's be clear - do you believe that there is no such thing as "bad science?" That no one has ever engaged in supposed "science" while violating the primary precepts of what makes for real science?
If not... why would you POSSIBLY have assumed... at ANY point... that anyone was applying that to you?
FYI... I what I call "bad science" is science which is "outcome-oriented." That is, when you go into an experiment with a desired outcome in mind, and furiously "tweak" and manipulate the experiment and results until you get SOMETHING that seems to support your original thesis, instead of simply observing "we did 'A' and the result was 'B'."
My favorite personal example of "bad science" is how some folks on the "Global Warming" bandwagon are able to describe a global COOLING TREND as being evidence of "global warming." I remember that when I described that (without ANY reference to you, or even any THOUGHT of you) several months ago, you reacted with great personal offense, as though I'd somehow targeted that "bad scientists and engineers" line specifically at you.
At the time, in PM, I had to explain that to you. I never thought about it again since then. But clearly you have, huh?
Look... there ARE "bad scientists" and "bad engineers." There are.
One hallmark of "bad scientist and bad engineers" is that they get so attached to their ideas that they react to any challenge to those ideas as a personal attack. Almost like it's a religious article of faith.
Good scientists, and good engineers, not only allow their ideas to be challenged and questioned, but DEMAND it.
Another hallmark of these "bad scientist and bad engineers" is that they let what they WANT TO HAPPEN trump what's really happening. For them, it's not a matter of "we put this much of this material in a pot, heated it to this temperature, and this is what happened." Good scientist and engineers, let the facts guide them, not vice-versa. Bad ones let their predispositions guide them into manipulating the facts, or rejecting the facts that don't match their personal predispositions.
If you don't do that... then I'm not talking about you,.
And if I'm not talking about you, I really, honestly, have NO EARTHLY IDEA why you're somehow taking it as though it's "all about you."
If you would go back and remove the personal stuff and the misrepresentations of my positions, I would be more than happy to discuss this topic with you.
I will do no such thing, and I would never consider asking anyone else to do anything of that nature, either. You said what you said, I said what I said, it's all out there in the open... it happened... and it's either ongoing or it's over. I'm not going to "revise history," either way.
That's a moral thing, as far as I'm concerned. Even if I screwed up (and I don't think I did, by the way), it happened and we all have to live with reality. I'm not a big fan of "revisionism."
I did not "misrepresent" your position. It's possible that I "misinterpreted" you (though upon review, it seems unlikely from my standpoint - having just now re-read your posts).
As I said, I offered you, and you alone, my insights (which is far beyond textbooks) on this subject (the standard version of General Relativity) as it should be taught without bias (leaving my personal beliefs outside the scope of the discussion). And as it seems that that offer (which I don't make to just anyone) was offensive to you, it is officially resended with my apologies for ever believing that I had offered you anything of any value.
If you intended to offer something "for me alone," the proper venue for that would have been in PM. I assumed, and not unreasonably, that the comment was made "in the clear" for a reason.
I read your comment as having been somehow offended and as something of a challenge. If that was not your intention... again, it's a matter of miscommunication. And if your reaction, now, is about feeling like I'm spurning your offer... well, that's not the intent on my end. So let me make it very clear - If you have some insight you'd like to share, privately, I'd love to hear it. I don't claim I'll necessarily agree... but that's how science works, after all.
I'll watch
this post to see if you've edited it, otherwise it seems you don't need the real me in this debate, you seem more than happy with the imaginary version you've created.
Enough melodrama... if the "real you" didn't mean what the "perceived you" said... which I'll certainly accept is a possibility... then clarify what you meant. That's the best, and easiest, way to deal with miscommunication, isn't it?
