Mass Explained By Someone who knows about Science

[Brain Man]

You can have poor code and good code, but you wouldn't pay much attention to someone who persisted in saying "the assembler language is inconsistent with my formulation of C, we must switch to OO programming to avoid the inherent conflicts of the chip architecture" - every time you asked them to explain why a different piece of code they produced failed. Would you?

Sure of course not. Where is the failure ? It seems that what farsight had done was integrate some interesting but marginalized research into a framework that does work. i.e You can read it, and it all fits together. I know this isnt scientific, but neither was evolution when it was first proposed. That was just a rough theory to integrate a lot of mysteries of the day. Ok Farsight..or John has given a high level framework without the underlying coding proficiency, but it does appear to tie a lot together in one neat package.

i.e. You can skip to, mass, gravity, charge etc and all the pieces cross reference in an integrated manner. That never happened previously in physics.

[Brain Man]

If you don't do that, you are left evaluating between sales pitches, and on the whole scientists aren't good salespeople. They are too concerned with trying to put their language truthfully and explain, rather than compete with fundamentally clueless people with an agenda. See the climate science debate and historically, the flat earth debate - for details.

When I'm naive about something, I tend to look for answers from reputable sources.

So does John, his work is really an integration of rebutable sources. I havent seen anything too out there in his references. Sometimes an outsider is able to come along and put things together because everybody working inside the area of expertise is too braindrained working on smaller territorial points that give a clear reward to risk even thinking about it.

[ChildInAZoo]

So does John, his work is really an integration of rebutable sources. I havent seen anything too out there in his references. Sometimes an outsider is able to come along and put things together because everybody working inside the area of expertise is too braindrained working on smaller territorial points that give a clear reward to risk even thinking about it.

The sources he uses really are "out there". He relies on Robert Close, an obvious crackpot and on other works that obviously cannot get published because of quality alone. When he does quote reputable scientists, he quote-mines from introductory paragraphs or from out-of-date sources that the author rejected later. He refuses to actually support his choice of quotations with actual science from the same document that he uses in his citation. This is not an integration of sources, this is academic misconduct.

[Brain Man]

So does John, his work is really an integration of rebutable sources. I havent seen anything too out there in his references. Sometimes an outsider is able to come along and put things together because everybody working inside the area of expertise is too braindrained working on smaller territorial points that give a clear reward to risk even thinking about it.

The sources he uses really are "out there". He relies on Robert Close, an obvious crackpot and on other works that obviously cannot get published because of quality alone. When he does quote reputable scientists, he quote-mines from introductory paragraphs or from out-of-date sources that the author rejected later. He refuses to actually support his choice of quotations with actual science from the same document that he uses in his citation. This is not an integration of sources, this is academic misconduct.

I couldnt find anything on a robert close. Still That accusation deserves a fair evalution. For example even when citing, published references, from institutions you can still end up with bad quality ones.

Is that a real appraisal of his work or being selective ? If we were to pull out all farsights references (i.e. from his book) would the majority be reputable or not ?

[colubridae]

So does John, his work is really an integration of rebutable sources. I havent seen anything too out there in his references. Sometimes an outsider is able to come along and put things together because everybody working inside the area of expertise is too braindrained working on smaller territorial points that give a clear reward to risk even thinking about it.

The sources he uses really are "out there". He relies on Robert Close, an obvious crackpot and on other works that obviously cannot get published because of quality alone. When he does quote reputable scientists, he quote-mines from introductory paragraphs or from out-of-date sources that the author rejected later. He refuses to actually support his choice of quotations with actual science from the same document that he uses in his citation. This is not an integration of sources, this is academic misconduct.

I couldnt find anything on a robert close. Still That accusation deserves a fair evalution. For example even when citing, published references, from institutions you can still end up with bad quality ones.

Is that a real appraisal of his work or being selective ? If we were to pull out all farsights references (i.e. from his book) would the majority be reputable or not ?

Why don't you do that I would certainly be interested.

[Brain Man]

Ok.. A summary of the criticsms so far, add if there are any more, but these would be applicable to actual publication according to the criteria around 1980. i.e You didnt need to be sponsored by another author or work in the field you publish in.



1. Lack of originality

There is not a new fundamental premise. This is not in itself damning as many good works are purely integrations

2. Quote mining

Taking existing works out of context so much that they do not represent the main theme of the original

3. Bad Data

The core of the presentation whether original or not is dependent upon authors of questionable standard

[colubridae]

Ok.. A summary of the criticsms so far, add if there are any more, but these would be applicable to actual publication according to the criteria around 1980. i.e You didnt need to be sponsored by another author or work in the field you publish in.



1. Lack of originality

There is not a new fundamental premise. This is not in itself damning as many good works are purely integrations

2. Quote mining

Taking existing works out of context so much that they do not represent the main theme of the original

3. Bad Data

The core of the presentation whether original or not is dependent upon authors of questionable standard

I thought you were going to get the quotes from his book-thingie. You seemed to think it was important

[Brain Man]

Ok.. A summary of the criticsms so far, add if there are any more, but these would be applicable to actual publication according to the criteria around 1980. i.e You didnt need to be sponsored by another author or work in the field you publish in.



1. Lack of originality

There is not a new fundamental premise. This is not in itself damning as many good works are purely integrations

2. Quote mining

Taking existing works out of context so much that they do not represent the main theme of the original

3. Bad Data

The core of the presentation whether original or not is dependent upon authors of questionable standard

I thought you were going to get the quotes from his book-thingie. You seemed to think it was important

Well get to that. first of all its necessary to assemble all major and reasonable criticism of johns work so a review can take place in one sitting.

[colubridae]

Is that a real appraisal of his work or being selective ? If we were to pull out all farsights references (i.e. from his book) would the majority be reputable or not ?

errr… you wanted to pull out farsight's quotes.

Now you want us to do something else.

Well get to that. first of all its necessary to assemble all major and reasonable criticism of johns work so a review can take place in one sitting.

You assemble them. I don’t give a ratz arse for farsight’s comic book. I’m here for the beer humour content

I don’t gotta do shit massa. I a free man.

You do your bit first i.e. this

... pull out all farsights references (i.e. from his book) would the majority be reputable or not ?

That’s what you imply should be done. You do it. You think it’s important.

Then maybe someone else might look at whatever you want to do next.

I’m fucking sure I won’t. A long time ago I was gullible enough to buy and read 'The Bermuda Triangle' by a clever con-man who made a lot of money out of naivete.
I’m not going to make the same mistake again! not on your say so.

[Farsight]

I have always been very clear, farsight, that all I have done on these threads is to represent textbook physics...

Bollocks. Go back and re-read your OP in the light of what you know now. Chew on that 1%. What you're doing is promoting a fucking myth.

You want me to go back to the musings of Aristotle and Maxwell in the 19th century? Perhaps I should advocate you do the same with computer science...

Go and read On Physical Lines of Force. What I want you to do is think for yourself instead of swallowing bullshit and regurgutating it as if you're the font of knowledge. You ain't. You're a font of ignorance and overweening intellectual arrogance that can't bear to see some guy like me explaining things to the public that you can't.

If you bothered to read the OP, you would see I was quoting a science article for laypeople...

Oh I read it. And guess what, it's garbage.

[Farsight]

The sources he uses really are "out there". He relies on Robert Close, an obvious crackpot and on other works that obviously cannot get published because of quality alone. When he does quote reputable scientists, he quote-mines from introductory paragraphs or from out-of-date sources that the author rejected later. He refuses to actually support his choice of quotations with actual science from the same document that he uses in his citation. This is not an integration of sources, this is academic misconduct.

I support my case with scientific evidence backed by robust references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell as well as a variety of more recent papers from a wide range of authors. Your failure to address all this with counter-evidence or counter-rationale, and moreover your dismissal with barbed comments such as "obvious crackpot" is the academic misconduct. What's your real name by the way?

[Trolldor]

Yet to be explained:

[lpetrich]

I support my case with scientific evidence backed by robust references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell as well as a variety of more recent papers from a wide range of authors. Your failure to address all this with counter-evidence or counter-rationale, and moreover your dismissal with barbed comments such as "obvious crackpot" is the academic misconduct. What's your real name by the way?

Farsight, let's face it. Your quote-mining is just like what creationists do. You act as if Maxwell's and Einstein's writings are some sort of sacred books of physics, and that we are ignoring the superior wisdom that they contain.

[Pappa]

I have always been very clear, farsight, that all I have done on these threads is to represent textbook physics...

Bollocks. Go back and re-read your OP in the light of what you know now. Chew on that 1%. What you're doing is promoting a fucking myth.

You want me to go back to the musings of Aristotle and Maxwell in the 19th century? Perhaps I should advocate you do the same with computer science...

Go and read On Physical Lines of Force. What I want you to do is think for yourself instead of swallowing bullshit and regurgutating it as if you're the font of knowledge. You ain't. You're a font of ignorance and overweening intellectual arrogance that can't bear to see some guy like me explaining things to the public that you can't.

If you bothered to read the OP, you would see I was quoting a science article for laypeople...

Oh I read it. And guess what, it's garbage.

Farsight, you have been previously reminded to heed the rules. The above post contains a personal attack on another member. If it happens again, you will be temporarily suspended from the forum.

[Farsight]

I trust you will take a similar line with those who direct personal attack against me Pappa.