MOND Theory

[Jinx]

Gene Vincent said:

I'm a Mathematician, if it fits, it's used, if it doesn't it has no value at all for me.

MOND is valueless.

GV surely as a mathematian there is some worth in exploring the mathematics of a universe where the base assumptions vary from our own. For example where would we be if we didn't re-state theorems in alternate (non-euclidean) geometries just because it they don't fit?

[Gene Vincent]

The Black Flash said:

"This is wrong, that is right, this model is right and will still be right in a thousand year's time".

In what context did I write that? I don't recall writing such but possibly... can you point me to it.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 26th October 17:57

[Gene Vincent]

Jinx said:

Gene Vincent said:

I'm a Mathematician, if it fits, it's used, if it doesn't it has no value at all for me.

MOND is valueless.

GV surely as a mathematian there is some worth in exploring the mathematics of a universe where the base assumptions vary from our own. For example where would we be if we didn't re-state theorems in alternate (non-euclidean) geometries just because it they don't fit?

If you read the link I posted earlier there is a stream of papers looking to test, improve or disprove parts of our Standard Model, I'm dismissive only of those that have proved to be worthless, anything new is jumped on and tested mercilessly.

[The Black Flash]

Gene Vincent said:

The Black Flash said:

"This is wrong, that is right, this model is right and will still be right in a thousand year's time".

In what context did I write that? I don't recall writing such but possibly... can you point me to it.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 26th October 17:57

My mistake, it was a million years
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Gene Vincent said:

At this point in time we know everything there is to know about time, a million years from now no-one will be able to say anything more than I know now and if you grasp this text they won't know anything more than you do either.

Perhaps for the first time in History, by simply understanding what I have written here, you and the entire World can stand on a shared pinnacle of understanding, no-one will ever know more than you do about the immutability of time.

No scientist, no shamen, nobody ever will elevate this pinnacle of understanding.

[Gene Vincent]

The Black Flash said:

Gene Vincent said:

The Black Flash said:

"This is wrong, that is right, this model is right and will still be right in a thousand year's time".

In what context did I write that? I don't recall writing such but possibly... can you point me to it.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 26th October 17:57

My mistake, it was a million years
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Gene Vincent said:

At this point in time we know everything there is to know about time, a million years from now no-one will be able to say anything more than I know now and if you grasp this text they won't know anything more than you do either.

Perhaps for the first time in History, by simply understanding what I have written here, you and the entire World can stand on a shared pinnacle of understanding, no-one will ever know more than you do about the immutability of time.

No scientist, no shamen, nobody ever will elevate this pinnacle of understanding.

So not about this subject then!


Please try and keep up at the back... and stop picking your nose blackflash junior!

Time is something we really have a fabulous grasp of.

[The Black Flash]

Gene Vincent said:

So not about this subject then!


Please try and keep up at the back... and stop picking your nose blackflash junior!

Time is something we really have a fabulous grasp of.

No, it was, rather clearly, a general point about your posting style. Constructive feedback.

Intersting and informative though your posts are, their arrogant tone does you no favours, nor does it make your arguments more compelling.

[Gene Vincent]

The Black Flash said:

Gene Vincent said:

So not about this subject then!


Please try and keep up at the back... and stop picking your nose blackflash junior!

Time is something we really have a fabulous grasp of.

No, it was, rather clearly, a general point about your posting style. Constructive feedback.

Intersting and informative though your posts are, their arrogant tone does you no favours, nor does it make your arguments more compelling.

I've had more feedback stating that my 'positive' tone is actually what makes my threads so readable, I try to make everything I write on my subject as clear and as definitive as I can, when things are not clear cut I delve into more detail explaining why.

[NorthernBoy]

Gene Vincent said:

Maybe...

I'm not in the least bit interested in what you or others think is the right 'attitude' to Scientific endeavour.

I deal with maths.

Yes, which is why you get the science so laughably wrong, so very often.

I must ask, I've never come across your combination of pompous arrogance and lack of understanding of a subject ever before, did you actually attend a decent university, or did your phenomenal understanding of the subject actually lead you to, well, somewhere less respected?

[pointedstarman]

Bit on the fence about this. GV's posts have been inspiring on the one hand - I'm doing my best with my A Level Physics & Maths of 20 odd years ago to figure out some of what he says and have spent a whole bunch of time (technical term..) trying to understand, in slightly more adavanced than laymans terms, Dark Matter/energy, Time, et al as a direct result of GV. This Is Good (in J May parlance).

On the negative side it instinctively irritates when anyone makes an absolute statement about something in the vein of GV's post about time. How many people have made absolute statements about such things only to be found wanting some time in the future?

"Predictions can be very difficult—especially about the future" - Niels Bohr. He knew what he was talking about if you ask me.

Edited by pointedstarman on Monday 29th October 18:42

[Vipers]

As long as this thread is sorted out by Christmas, I don't really care.

[Gene Vincent]

NorthernBoy said:

Yes, which is why you get the science so laughably wrong, so very often.

Gauntlet picked up... show me.

[NorthernBoy]

pointedstarman said:

Bit on the fence about this. GV's posts have been inspiring on the one hand.

The problem is that he posts in an authoritative tone, but seems to just be making the science up as he goes along. It's as though he's read New Scientist or similar as a layman, and not bothered actually taking the study further.

As I've mentioned previously, I was a working particle physicist at CERN before I wandered off into banking, and was lucky enough to get a couple of my physics degrees from Oxford, so I have a decent grasp of the subject, and his stuff is just awful, truly terrible.

I feel a bit bad sometimes pointing out where he's wrong, as he seems inordinately proud of his made-up stuff, but others here might get the impression that he knows what he's talking about. There are genuine scientists knocking about here, people who've been taught it to a very high level. He's not one of them.

[pointedstarman]

NM - you clearly are far better versed in these subjects than I but I still stand by what I said. GV spends a fair amount of time trying to explain stuff to numpties like myself and it's nice that I can pick the brains of someone who knows more than I do on these topics. If he is, in absolute terms, wrong I don't think that makes much difference at the level I'm working at and I still will always keep a level of (hopefully healthy) scepticism of what I'm told to the extent that I'll make the time to try and find out more on a given subject using various sources.

I'll have to stay on the sidelines of your debate with GV but I'll watch with interest.

[NorthernBoy]

Gene Vincent said:

Gauntlet picked up... show me.

I'll only engage with you once, as it's pointless trying to educate someone like you who mixes utter certainty in a subject with a lack of understanding of it (I'll ask again, you don't have a serious degree in physics, do you), but, as you asked.

Gene claims that there are no quarks in protons. Particle physicists are in agreement that there definitely ARE quarks in protons, and have looked in extremely close detail at how they are arranged (looking at charge radius, spin distributions etc). There are thousands upon thousands of papers which prove you wrong (and I did my doctorate on the very subject), but just one will suffice,

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=...

To quote one line from that paper,

"Proton is 3 quarks—two up and one down".

I've even picked a paper for you with bright colours and diagrams, explaining what we mean by the valence quarks.

As I've said, though, I shan't engage you directly again. I'll point out where you are mistaken, making it up, or exaggerating, for the people here who are taken in by you, but I'm not going to waste the knowledge gained actually doing this subject at the highest level on trying to educate you.

[NorthernBoy]

pointedstarman said:

NM - you clearly are far better versed in these subjects than I but I still stand by what I said. GV spends a fair amount of time trying to explain stuff to numpties like myself and it's nice that I can pick the brains of someone who knows more than I do on these topics.

If it's on physics, please feel free to ask me. As well as working in the subject I spent some time teaching it to the undergrads too, so hopefully can actually help, as opposed to grandstanding and trying to seem clever.

[Gene Vincent]

NorthernBoy said:

Gene Vincent said:

Gauntlet picked up... show me.

I'll only engage with you once, as it's pointless trying to educate someone like you who mixes utter certainty in a subject with a lack of understanding of it (I'll ask again, you don't have a serious degree in physics, do you), but, as you asked.

Gene claims that there are no quarks in protons. Particle physicists are in agreement that there definitely ARE quarks in protons, and have looked in extremely close detail at how they are arranged (looking at charge radius, spin distributions etc). There are thousands upon thousands of papers which prove you wrong (and I did my doctorate on the very subject), but just one will suffice,

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=...

To quote one line from that paper,

"Proton is 3 quarks—two up and one down".

I've even picked a paper for you with bright colours and diagrams, explaining what we mean by the valence quarks.

As I've said, though, I shan't engage you directly again. I'll point out where you are mistaken, making it up, or exaggerating, for the people here who are taken in by you, but I'm not going to waste the knowledge gained actually doing this subject at the highest level on trying to educate you.

You and possibly your article is stuck with the idea that behaviour is the same as existence.

In a proton there is a residual behavioural pattern that 'resembles' 3 quarks, that's it.

Quarks cannot exist at any temperature now encountered in this Cosmos, they exist for a few moments in the intense heat generated by the huge energy of the collisions in an accelerator.

Citing this (again) as some form of 'proof' I am wrong, just comfirms you as not knowing anything like enough about the subject.


You posted the term 'Science fail'... if so then matey, your a walking talking typing knowledge fail...


For the last time, get your head 'round this quarks don't exist other than those we contrive to make.

Further proof (if you actually understand it) the fine structure alpha particle is said to consist of 12 quarks, yet it doesn't even exist! The FSC is a dimensionless quantity. 1/137 approx.

But its 'behaviour' exhibits the attributes of 12 varying quarks.

A 'quark' in this Cosmos is not anything of any substance, it is nothing more or less than a behavioural trait.

Until you grasp this you're fked.

Break a Proton and you get various energies, these energies have various 'traits' or as we call them 'properties'... but as to having a particle that is a quark is concerned, until this Cosmos approaches a few billion degrees, it ain't gonna happen.

[hairykrishna]

We were having this argument on the over complication of science thread here; http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

[offendi]

Whats with all these posts by the " I have no useful input to the subject so i'll critise GV's "posting style " types ?

Is GV the new 300 bhp / ton ?

I hope GV keeps on posting as he is doing as im enjoying the education . non carborundum etc