Essay talk:Gravitation demystified/Archive1

He was following our instructions to use an essay page, and we've put up with people loopier than this. Lay off. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise there had been new instructions -- I thought he was just recreating the same shite under a slightly different title (the upper-case "D" in the previous version). lay off, yourself. P-Foster (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Souldn't SysOps here read the stuff before deleting? JimJast (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

SysOps? Wrong wiki for SysOps. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it RW which promissed to publish truth if it can be defended rationally? Or I just got fooled by creationists who may not like too much my prose? JimJast (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF??

What the fuck is this? Besides some half-arsed clown sounding like a carnival barker? If Jim J. wants to go ahead and demystify gravitation, then go for it. But we don't need crap like this cluttering up essay space. He seems more worried about it being attacked by dark knights that actually saying anything concrete.

Delete.--PsyGremlinPraat! 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't want to become a repository for a load of nutters (Ace, Nutty, et al excepted of course) The guy's a time cubeist. 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Too stupid for debate. Delete the "essay" and keep deleting until he goes somewhere he can get help.--;;;Brendiggg (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. P-Foster (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We have had a consistent policy of not deleting non-spam essays, what makes this one different? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that policy should allow just anyone to drop in anything as an essay. Whatever the actuality, we are, by hosting such rubbish, condoning it. I cite Essay:Flobberglob as evidence 18:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons for creating essay space was to avoid group-think and to give an opportunity for people to express ideas with which the majority of the wiki would disagree. If it's pure crazy then I think we have a template we can drop on it to distance ourselves (or if there is no appropriate one we can create one). If it is so wrong then we can use it as an example of the pseudoscience which we wish to debunk with a side-by side.

Our front page also says "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Frankly, I think that something like Essay:A Parodist's Guide to Villainy is a worse thing to have on the site. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no way that "by hosting such rubbish, we are condoning it." And essayspace, like every space but mainspace, is cluttered beyond repair. Blue (is useful) 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Totnes. All well and fine, but an essay normally contains content, not some weird shout-out promising some info about something, if the dark knights don't get him first. Ken's essays are better than this. --PsyGremlinPraat! 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What'd I say? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Totnes, Trent... hey, I got some letters right. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just {{drive-by}} it? Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Psy is spot-on there. I feel responsible as I invited Jimmy to create an essay detailing his hypothesis. However such an essay should be about the fucking subject, not blagging in an incoherent manner about something you plan to reveal. This is like a cross between a Ken

gentlemen and a "want to know the secret big ____ don't want you to know? for only $39.95 you...".  So that's why I'm going to delete it; for the same reason as Jim's first effort.  That wasn't an article, this isn't an essay. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, can I now go and delete half of funspace for not being funny and half the essayspace for not being well-written? Blue (pester) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting half of funspace is a good idea. But mayhaps we should leave the essay space alone. Except A Parodist's Guide to Villainy. That should go bye bye. Тy^Talk. 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That was mostly tongue-and-cheek. Blue (is useful) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Q_Q Тy^Talk. 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting this was a bad idea. It goes against the whole idea of having an essay space. It should at least have gone to a vote.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets try encouraging Jim to post actual content as a compromise. If he does so I think there will be less of a call for deletion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bob - I have written several essays and if they are going to be deleted I'd at least like the chance to move them to my personal space. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)My objection to the deletion is not that the content was any good - my objection is that the deletion sets a bad precedent. Now we can delete any essay that we don't like the look of.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If his essay cannot be restored to essayspace, can we at least move it to his userspace? I agree with Bob re deletion, if it matters. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the deletion can stand on the grounds that it was essentially spam linking his site. If he wants to actually write something then I doubt it will be deleted again. The only thing in this essay was a statement that it would be deleted and a link to his website. It just took him a while to formulate those two thoughts. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the original version and don't see a single "http" on it.I agree with BobM - deleting this goes against the idea of essay space, and it should at least be moved to a user subpage. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep looking then. 130.113.218.226 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree it's not an essay. It's a whole lot of "Jim's gonna" but I still think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and dump it in his userspace. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Where do I ask questions?

JimJast (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Is any software engineer (SE) taking care of RW (is it still an open project)?
2. Do you feel like employing someone who might know how to handle "edit conflicts"?
3. I'm a retired SE (from Teradyne - reffs on demand). I have some spare time and don't mind to improve RW since I'm not too fond of creationists who got into science through a back door of cosmology. ^{— Unsigned, by: JimJast / talk / contribs}

The first rule of RationalWiki is you do not ask questions.

Now that that's out my system; RW is an open project owned by the RationalWiki Foundation. Tmtoulouse is the one in charge of site maintenance with a couple of other editors here knowing a thing or two about the wikiquoting and stuff. SJ ^Debaser 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We had a really good SE, but he left after one argument too many. Feel free to suggest improvements to the site (we like being asked first). Nobody gets paid though, although we may throw you a deep-fried jerboa on occasion.^{— Unsigned, by: Totnesmartin / talk / contribs}

If you don't want to know why Wheeler's gravitation is shit don't ever learn Einstein's

Since you guys deleted again Einstein's gravitation (demystified from Wheeler's mysticism) also ignoring my explanation of Einstein's physics titled "Hubble Redshift in Einstein's universe" that is waiting for being printed as my PhD paper, probably not while I'm still around (as one physics professor advised me already "don't do it man, "they" destroy you"). By "they" he understood our friends from Opus Dei). Because of this unfortunate delition event we don't have a text that I might explain in grandma language.

This is a pitty, that relatively intelligent guys (and a gal) don't want to know how Opus Dei is manipulating their science. And it is not an illusion as the Big Bang is. It happens in real time around you and all you do is to look elswere deleting obstacles from "their" way.

Why do you thhink Feynman didn't want to attend gravity conferences? Were they too difficult for him to understand? Or maybe he was frank in his rant against "gravity physicists"? Maybe they are really idiots?

Since I can't write in essay space I'll write it as Feynman should but didn't want to hurt feelings of his friends, especially his professor, John Archibald Wheeler. The guy who once woke him in the middle of the night anouncing that he just discovered that there is only one electon in the universe and we just see its multiple images in different times. So he was crazy. OK. Maybe that's why he believed in God. Many physicists believe in God and we don't mind. But what Wheeler did was much worse even than to believe in God: after Einstein wrote that spacetime metric must be non symmetric (that we have to drop condition that $g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\nu \mu }$ (of course, since how else photons moving through the universe would interact with it gravitationally?) Wheeler, when Einstein was alreday dead kept this as a secret in his 1279 page book "Gravitation"since otherwise the universe couldn't be expanding and energy couldn't be created. It might be crazy Wheeler's idea to serve God. This way Wheeler + stupidity of gravity physicists expanded the reign of mystics at least by one century. And maybe more if you keep doing what you do best (keeping education away from folks who pay for it with their taxes).

Are you interested what happened to the rest of gravitation? Gravitational force? How they were tought in your schools and collegess?

(Boy, I started feeling like that guy from "Atlas Shrugged" ...)

The next chaptet of this lecture might be why things fall. But since you don't care we stop here and let you engage in nicer things like e.g. fucking one another (pardon my French).

Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim, do you roast your own crazy or do you buy it freeze dried from the supermarket? MtD^{Pinko Scum} 00:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So far all I see is bluster, post something other than "wait and see" in the essay and it won't be deleted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Did this essay get moved anywhere that I can still see it? I must know about Opus Dei's influence in physics. --MarkGall (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet is this link that was posted in the essay (or wasn't posted according to some people). Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, The first version of the essay (or whatever it was called then) has been deleted by DeltaStar for containing only two links. One to my main work just quoted by you and the other to "The Einsteinian gravitation for poets", a version with no math (except in a derivation of "gravitational force") which was meant to be a version for non physicists.

DeltaStar maintained that my "article" is no fucking article just piece of shit (asking also to excuse his French) and since he turned out to be also a nice fellow, and electrician like myself, his "langage" was excused and I started rewriting both articles manually, starting with "Gravitation demystified" which I considered more important. Yet translating the math expressions from HTML to WIKI format took me a while and before I was ready with the first part it was deleted a few more times. Which made me a bit nervous and then I started using "French" as well, which I regret because I should rather not convert math formulas, but start with plain text of "The Einsteinian gravitation for poets" since most guys here ain't physicists anyway so they probably don't give a fuck to who is right about gravitation, Einstein or Wheeler (or at least not as much as I do). JimJast (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary - to clear up confusion, provide some background, and have an unnecessarily long header

The original version of this essay that was deleted had no links, but gave some kind of history of the study of gravity, and then talked in the third person that he showed how Einstein was right (though I still fail to see who - besides CP - has said he was wrong). He also claimed persecution for his paper, and freely admits that he was banned from a bunch of internet forums (probably for trolling). This was deleted by P-Foster. JJ then took this to mainspace with a shit article that just spammed links. People, unaware of his previous essay attempt, told him to take his stuff here, where he posted basically the same empty promises, talked about being persecuted, and this time included links, but failed to include even some of the semi-factual content from his first revision. So people looking at the very first revision are correct in that it did not include links. However, all later revision do include links. The first revision slightly mentions what he's actually trying to prove, so if anything stands, it should be that one. That is all. Thunderkatz^Ho! 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well userfy the non spammy one and leave the other one in the shitter. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, restored the non-spammy one. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

With the proviso that unless he does something with it in the not too distant future it may get crap-canned again.MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why we are quite so concerned about links. We regularly link to all sorts of weird stuff to show how weird it is. Furthermore if he were to post the same stuff on his urserpage then he could link to whatever he liked.

We also seem to be moving the goalposts a bit here. First of all somebody deletes it because they didn't like the content, or it had no content or weird content whatever. Then it's deleted because it's got links or looks spammy. (I also think there's a difference between "buy this medicine" spam, and "hey everybody look at my webpage".)

Then, of course, we have the problem that, once it's been deleted, nobody can quickly see what the issues are which confuses the situation a bit more. Frankly, I'm really not keen on anybody unilaterally deleting essays for any reason. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The confusion is since there are two kinds of gravitation: (1) discovered by Einstein, a physicist, in which both space and time are relative (decribed in several short papers, and one about one page paper by me) titled "Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe" and (2) the "Wheeler's gravitation" (taught in universities around the world) in which only space is relative but time ain't and instead there exist in it, so called cosmic time to which all events in the universe "are scaled" by mutiplying their times by a proper number.

"Wheeler's gravitation" was described in Misner, Thorn and Wheeler's Bible, a 1279 page, monograph titled "Gravitation" in which they added as axioms (1) the expansion of the universe (the one allegedly started with the Big Bang) and (2) the symmetry of metric tensor of spacetime. Those two axioms were enough to make the theory non physical since they made necessary the creation of energy from nothing in an expanding universe. Making "Wheeler's theory of gravitation" the creationist "science". While old Einstein's gravitation with the Einsteinian relativity of time remains science without quotes. JimJast (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Move from essay space top user space?

To keep the stank off of the rest of us? P-Foster (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd sooner drop it in the "drive-by" category, but either way seems fine. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This would be a significant deviation from our current policy. 72.38.27.39 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Who the hELL are you? P-Foster (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please recreate your IP with your real first name and last initial. More importantly, essay policy isn't that well documented, from what I've found in the last 10 minutes...since this essay really isn't about anything but the author's own writings, it could go either way. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a physicist in the house?

Hi Guys, Could you state clearly your problems with this essay so I understand them too? Do you understand the idea of creation of energy from nothing? JimJast (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it's a wall of text without any clear direction (or citation). I have no idea what it suggests about physics and/or physicists. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. What's your name? Why my responses to you don't show up? Another RW's problem? Maybe the guys here shouldn't make their software engineers (SE) angry since sometimes SE have strange sense of humor...
2. The essey is about pseudoscience in math that wants to pass for science in general and gravitation in particular.
3. Without any phisicist reading the stuff and commenting on its truth it looks phony and that's why guys here want to get rid of it a.s.a.p.
4. It's always better to wait and look, than dump the baby together with water.
5. Some don't know this though.
6. Which multiplies the problems. JimJast (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you should see the direction: it is away from Wheeler's pseudoscience and creationism, and towards scientific truth (that turnes out to be much simpler than Wheeler has ever thought trying to propagate his mysticism.

And the most interesting part of demystifying gravitation is yet to come:

The gravitational energy will be derived as Einstein's $E_{g}=m_{o}c^{2}$ (and therefore "gravitational force" is just its derivative along displacement (in which $m_{o}$ is constant (as being invariant mass, and c(x) changes with distance to the middle of the particle. $F_{g}=-dE_{g}/dx$). This way every high school student and her granny can understand gravitation. From the most tangled part of physics it becomes the simplest (as it should, since it is the simplest, thanks to Einsteinian simplicity of physics).

If you still want to delete this essay, and wait until it is published by establishment, maybe in next 25 (or 2.5k) years then I think you might be right. The pearls shouldn't be thrown before animals who can't appreciate them. We have to wait with it for further progress of evolution of society beyond the mystic and the compulsive believer in everything coming from the establishment, till Nitsche's real human with an active brain. JimJast (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you insult the readers - 'anybody's granny could understand it', 'pearls before swine' etc they are likely to be offended.

You claim to be simplifying the theory of gravitation: going by the various 'popular science' books I have read, the version presented is more complex.

Thanks for writing to me but this is not what I said (eg. I never mantioned any "swine") so it shouldn't be the reason to feel offended. But of course touchy people might feel offended even by a suggestion that thier grandmothers might be smarter than them. Even if sometimes it is a fact especially when grannies don't believe in propaganda, which also happens. I may try to avoid offending touchy people but I may not succeed so I can't promiss it. I could stop writing but then everybody misses lerning Einsteinian gravitation which is not taught anywhere so I consider it a bigger loss than a few guys, who probably shouldn't read this anyway, felt offended by stuff they shouldn't read. And I don't even learn that someone may feel offended by what I consider the truth. So it would be much better if you explaind me why you feel offended (if you do).

About 'popular science': what I write is not 'popular science' but science. If I knew where you had problems with understandig it I could expalain it better. So just tell me what it is and you will have the answer in the essay with all the tough parts explained. If you ever read "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, you would appreciate what "complex" might mean. It does contain even truth just 2.5kg of creationist propaganda disguised as physics (since from B. Russel everubody knows that math can lie, not physics though).

And please place those four tildes at the end of your answer so I'd know whom I'm talking to. JimJast (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

First version finished, please comment below

It's the first attempt on my PhD from Physics Dept., University of Warsaw, Poland. It couldn't be published earlier despite its physics is controlled only by $E=mc^{2}$. The reasons are explained in the essay. It can be now thanks to RW. JimJast (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. We are honoured that you have chosen RW as your place to publish your thesis for the first time. Hopefully we will be calling you "Dr" Jim soon. --Damo^Hi 10:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bah, who needs universities. I hereby award you a Ph.D. in physics on behalf of the recently established not yet accredited RationalWiki Institute for Higher Learning. You may ask any bureaucrat to rename you to "Dr. JimJast". Congratulations! Röstigraben (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I rather wait until it is accredited. I wouldn't appreciate trolls whom I won't feed calling me Dr Phony. I'd appreciate though if you asked me for explanation of things that you don't understand in gravitation. JimJast (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you discussed with your supervisor that you're publishing it here? It doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Original content at RW is released under Creative Commons (see RationalWiki:Copyrights). It's somewhat hazy whether this extends to personal essays, but in any case it would be wise to be very cautious about publishing an unfinished PhD thesis anywhere on the internet if you intend to later submit it for academic assessment. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"rejected by Einstein"

Who cares? Your arguments are so riddled with fallacies, such as argumentium by intellingentium, and yet so lacking in math. WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS? ħuman 05:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Numbers are the best part :) They prove that Einstein was right that the universe is stationary. I love you lady :))) Finally someone is asking for numbers :) (I had an impression that nobody here understands the numbers). JimJast (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You aren't very good at this, are you? ħuman 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

At what I'm not very good? I'm perfect in physics and engineering, I'm adequate in math (though once I won at national math opymics in a country of 40 million), at literary skills I'm close to illiterate (as you have notced yourself). What is "this"? JimJast (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Perfect"? Surely you jest. "this" = communicating your ideas clearly in a foreign language - and, well, physics. I sense a case for an article on engineers other than engineers and woo. ħuman 03:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hu, (I moved this response here so don't be surprised if you see part of it elsewhere). Thanks for the piece about engineers. I noticed myself their right bending. I thought that it comes from their limited ability to think clearly. I know a lot of EE's (I'm one myself) and I see that this right bending doesn't apply to the most intelligent of them (at least not to all :). I didn't know it is so widely spread though.

With my "perfect" I was not quite kidding :) With engineers and their knowledge is like this: at certain point they think that they already know everything in certain area. Then they think they are perfect in this area. I think like this about gravitation since it is very small area. That's why it is so neglected by physicists since they also think that there is not that much to know there. They don't know how it works, but they think that they know someone who knows. Not true :). Those professors don't know neither and many of them are just creationists who think they know. They just imagine that energy can be made from nothing. Which can't. That's why gravitation is so important for human thinking at right direction (which happens to be left :) JimJast (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gravitation is "neglected" by physicists??? The major conundrum in modern physics is reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity (I forget whether general or special, I think general). The cutting edge expert theoreticists are so focused on gravity they forget to pick up the milk on the way home, they wander around campuses mumbling to themselves in strange tongues (math), and dream in differential calculus. I think you have oversimplified your amazing solution. ħuman 08:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's general, but there is no conundrum. It's all PR for taxpayers. Since I work in physics doing my PhD project on general relativity and the quantum nature of Einstein's gravitation you may imagine that I know the situation. Since physics have run out of easy problems like gravitation, done 95% by Einstein including this alleged "problem of quantum gravitation" (to which I added a link in my essay, just for you :) also done by Einstein's theory without being described by him and could be left unfinished if not for my 5%. As Hertz said "teories are often wiser than their creators". It happened to general relativity. It is the wisest theory in physics so far. The most important: it prevents the existence of supernatural. Creationists not being able to afford finding themselves outside of science, used gravitation as a vehicle to stay in. That's why they invented the Big Bang that is impossible in common physics. So "the gang of three" returned (partly) to the old gravitation in which no one seriously works except idiots (according to Feynman). Einstein didn't describe the gravitation since he lost interest in it, possibly for its simplicity. JimJast (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Einstein on "How to make a discovery"

Responding to a journalist who posed such a question, Einstein said: "Quite simple. When all the wise men of science, after many years of trying, come to a conclusion that something definitely can't be calculated, and it may be only observed, there comes an ignorant, who doesn't know that, and calculates it."

This is what happened to me, since in my case this ignorant was only a sculptor knowing next to nothing about cosmology. I saw that wise men had problems with finding out what is the spead of expansion of the unierse (called "Hubble constant"), so, not having a telescope whith which I could look, but having a pen and a back of an envelope I calculated it (just kidding a little: I knew that with just looking I couldn't tell, but I didn't know that wise men of science decided it can't be calculated and so I bothered all the physicists I could catch by their buttons at varios parties, asking them why it can't be calculated. I never get any answer to so finally I calculated it myself.

It turned out to be right calculation and it returned out a result that "Hubble constant" is some complcated stuff like a square root of $4\pi G\rho$, but at least it was in right units and the value looked right too. Ca. 70km/s/Mpc. I took it to my friend from Poland who couple of years earlier taught the general relativity at Harvard to check if I did it right. If you want to verify the story, his name is Tadeusz Balaban and now he has a permanent position in Rutgers, N.J. He still teaches math as a full professor. As far as I know he was a second person on this planet who saw "Hubble constant" calculated and not just observed. He checked my derivation and said "OK". So I sent it to "Nature" and it started series of rejections that lasts till today. No single reviewer would explain why the referees thought it isn't fit for print. The most serious one read: "we don't see any errors, but we believe that the universe is expanding anyway.

So I took a two semester general relativity course at Harvard. It was free if professor agree to admit a guy who doesn't want a credit for it. It was my case. I only wanted to know what is the big deal with calculating the "Hubble constant". At the beginning of this course I learned that my "Hubble constant" was really c/R where c is speed of light and R is radius of "Einstein's universe". Then I updated my solution with its beautified value and sent it to "Physical Review Letters", to "Science", to "Nuovo Cimento" then to British "Astronomical Journal" where they never even read it and after I asked them why, they sent me with complaints to the Queen of Brits, warning that the Queen will rather believe physics professors than some American who does not know even proper language (by that time I've learned already some English but still not enough according to those Brits to impress their Queen).

In the meantime I found Feynman opinion about gravitation professors (the same that I publish all over the place) so I stopped wondering what's going on and started to investigate things on my own. That's why I know now that the univese can't be expanding (since the principle of consevation of energy prevents this which makes a contemporary cosmology, with the big bang hypthesis in it a pseudo science: directly vioating tested physical principles, Feynman writes it in his rant in item #4) but the reason for other things is so strange that it probably requires one century more for people to accept Einstein's relativity. So I'm not really surprised. For your personal use I may tell you how to calculate the "Hubble constant" if you had at least calculus 1 (as I had together with it calculus 2, 3, and 4 in my high school since it was a mechanical school (aircraft engines) and the mechanics need sometimes to calculate something and that's why I have known how to calculate the "Hubble constant"; it is also derived in the essay).

Without understanding any knowledge is useless. This is the "knowledge" that they have now about the "expansion of universe". They "know" some rules since Einsein told about them but they don't understand them because they are "too strange". So they don't understand that what they know is just primitive creationism and that's why they think it is "science" even if it does not predict anything (unlike Einstein's relativity which is a full knowledge of these physical laws) which predicts the "hubble constant", its acceleration, "Pioneer effect", quasars, and some more abstract phenomena like flatness of spacetime and it degenerate metric and lack of existence of "Einstein's cosmological constant" that he called "the biggest blunder of my life" that turned out to be unnecessary, just no such thing at all). [User:JimJast|JimJast]] (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And I should care because ... ? Hint: invoking Einstein does not make anything automatically correct. NDSP 20:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Who "shoud care and why" (or: "what is the question?"). Of course it doesn't make it automatically correct (or: "what is the point?") JimJast (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So why didn't you publish in your native tongue? Science is written and read in other languages than English, you know. Also, you are hilarious. ħuman 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know it well enough. I didn't pay much attention at the language classes since I've been drawing all the time at the language classes and then I was misclassified as an "idiot" and left alone to do what I want :). While I had just an "asperger syndrom". English is simlpler (or: Look at Korzeniowski-Conrad, author of "Lord Jim", and of course I know I'm no Conrad, just as an illustration).JimJast (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you write so badly in English it's no wonder your offerings to journals aren't taken seriously. Spelling and grammar matter, you know, and if they are bad enough, they make anything unreadable and incomprehensible. ħuman 08:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I write the same bad in Polish. Or even worse. But to English language journals I send stuff edited by native speakers and it doesn't help neither. All of them say: "if I edit it, it must be printed" and I just end up with more well edited papers. The one deleted last time from RW, titled "Einsteinian gravitation for poets" since it was without any math, was edited by native speaker (Crum375). JimJast (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not being able to write clearly in any language is an immense drawback to getting published in a scientific journal. ħuman 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You bet! And additionally trying to propagate a theory that eliminates the possibility of existence of supernatural (even if it is Einstein's theory) makes it next to impossible (which is also tested experimentally during 26+ years of tests). JimJast (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not understanding sarcasm in any language is also a drawback. ħuman 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It just occured to me that maybe for this reason Einstein left his theory unfinished ... but how could he suspect that there won't come another ignorant who will see it unfinished and won't finish it? Leaving only those poor scientific editors as the only guardians of tradition. JimJast (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

List of English speakers editing Jim's stuff to comply wth English spelling, gramar, and style:

• Prof. Dr Yolanda Fishman, TUFTS University biochemist,
• Dr Andrzej Szechter, physicist,
• Crum375 (native English speaker of unknown profession, met in wikipedia) who translated the deleted recently RW essay "Einsteinian gravitation for poets" from Jim's English to good English).

None of them succeded in editing Jim's stuff in a way that it would secure access to peers (despite one of them is a physicists, recently retired, after life of working in physics and therefore understanding the recent rules not only of English language but also of language of physics and those of publishing scientific papers in physics. So isn't it an interesting question why scientific journals (like "Nature", "Physical Review Letters", "Science" and many others) don't want to discuss via a peer review process the possibility that Einsteinian theory, denying the possibility of expansion of universe on the basis of physical impossibility of creation of energy from nothing, which also predicts numerically the apparent speed of expansion and its acceleration, both as they are observed, may be true? JimJast (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the task was not possible. ħuman 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hu, thanks for piece about engineers. I noticed myself their right bending and I thought that it comes from their limited ability to think clearly. I know a lot of EE's and I see that it does't apply to the most intelligent of them. I didn't know it is so widely spread though. JimJast (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed, I might write more on the topic one of these days. Note: I will wait until I can write it in coherent, mildly humorous, English. ħuman 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather try to talk you into writing a book on gravitation

There is yet no scientific book on gravitation and all the knowledge about it is in Einstein's theory (called "general relativity" or more properly "Einstein's theory of gravitation"). True, there is a dorstop sized book titled "Gravitation" but its only purpose is to push creationism. It contradicts science in a few points. Eg. the principle of conservation of energy. Ours will be on real gravitation, supported by observations, with true numbers, that high school students may use. Some of gravitation was unknown even to Einstein but following his theory is easy and I have also things I added to it (this 5% I told you about earlier). I can explain all the subtle thigs about it to you. You just supply the knowledge of the language which I lack in any language. What I'm able to write is just what is seen in this essay ("Gravitation demystified") and some in this "Gravitation Demystified", which contains a lot of refs to various parts of gravitation, if you want to learn on your own. If they aren't explained well enough you'll tell me and I fix them. Some are to make it lighter. This is a piece edited by Crum deleted from RW for unknown reason, which doesn't contain any math except this what is necessary to understand where the grvitational force is coming from. I proposed Crum a few times to work with me on the book but he refused for lack of time. What about you? JimJast (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, let me think about your generous offer for a while and I will get back to you. Damo^Hi 22:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking to Hu. I thought that you don't want to have anything to do with my stuff. But whoever decides to help in this enterprize is welcome. Just Hu is first in line when the rejection of offer is concerned. JimJast (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I was, as we say here, taking the piss. You mention Crum375 above. Perhaps you need to take his advice that you recieved here which is basically the same thing that we have been saying to you, as well as many others have in your WP talk archives such as here. Damo^Hi 01:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim, are you flirting with me? ħuman 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm too ugly and old for that. And besides, a woman with a beard is not my ideal form despite that it is like me: half sculptor half engineer and half physicist. I think about women as models for sculptures and posing bear-footed is OK. No problem as your socio-political attitude, so I thought that you may want to write a book that takes away from creationists their last hope for scientific legitimacy. I don't know if you aren't a creationist youself though reading about your faith in the age of the universe, which for sure is much older than that. Acording to what we know now it's eternal (as Carl Sagan guessed already). Seeing your piece on engineers I think you are reformable since you noticed their rightism and didn't like it. So I thought you might want to do something about it (writing the book I'm talking about). JimJast (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I could shave. Very closely. Just for you. ħuman 09:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hu :) what about the book though?

And Damo: I can't follow your advice since life is too short for that. I still have a few sculptures to make and a few devices to invent (BTW, I hope you anjoy staring at the device in front of you that I invented and made one of the first working models of, installed in Warsaw Univercity Computing Center). If not for guys like me you might have to read those messages from a TTY tape, since it was how comps communicated with people at those times. When I made it they also said it has no future "since computers need paper to fix their communications to"). JimJast (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

... and it didn't help when I said: "I'm going to add a camera, which will record all the stuff that you want to keep for the future generations", which I did, at the cost 3x bigger than my hole display project with a generator of alphanumerics, and organized the 24h film processing cell downstairs. Depite all of it my display device was never used (except by me, drawing nice curves of some frequency characteristics of some servos that I've been working at elsewhere. In the meantime displaying a ticking metronome to show that it is still alive. So I emmigrated to the US where people are happy with any improvement that makes them work less (lazy bums) and discovered that neither there is any democracy nor the universe is expanding (with the same luck, discovering also that people don't like to forget what they think they know even if it is contradicting true (consistent with the real world) science :).

The book that I mean, would be such that it would show why the univese has to be such that couldn't have any beginning, since (for the relativity of time) such a moment existed only in sick imagination of idiots or other gravitation experts (see Feynman's opinion). JimJast (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A few questions

1. Is there a way of loging myself for as long as I keep writing my stuff, to avoid this little pussy looking at me at the moment I finish and reminding me that my login time expired?
2. What is this time?
3. What is the purpose of setting such time limit?
4. Where to look for help on archivizing stuff from a talk page? JimJast (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Check "remember me" when you log in. As long as your IP address does not change, you will stay "logged in" for about 30 days, I think. If your IP changes frequently, you are out of luck, since that's the only way a website can track who you are. ħuman 03:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

4. See user:pibot if you want time-based archiving. Or maybe our help files. Or create a link like Essay_talk:Gravitation_demystified/archive1, then copy a bunch of old stuff to it and leave the link at the top of this talk page. ħuman 03:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ħuman. JimJast (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question

What is this shit?Silvermute (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Silver, this shit is about physics discovered by Ms Einstein and published in 1905 under the name of her husband Albert.

I updated the part of Einstein's theory that produces the illusion of expanding universe.

So far I'm simplifying "Einstein's field equation" by removing the non existent in the real world "cosmological constant" ("Einstein's biggest blunder of his life"), showing that contrary to the opinion of creationists the universe was never created, and calculating numerical values of various cosmological parameters: density of universe, its apparent accelerating expansion, the "Pioneer effect", and generally popularizing Einstein's work in this not so rational wiki and elsewhere. JimJast (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, except proposing Ms Einstein being considered the real discoverer of Mr Einstein's theory of realtivity (reasons on demand) I also proposed to rename RW the CCW ("crypto creationist wiki", reasons on demand as well), so far an equally unpopular proposition. JimJast (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

are you real? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While the first is my best guess the second is based on cool math proving that the univese is not expanding and therefore was never created. For certain reason (that might be called in short "the relativity of time") It must have been existing always. Therefore whoever believes that the Big Bang is a historical event, as a lot of "rational" wikipedians do, gets automatically a crypto creationist. JimJast (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jim, I had not heard before the claim that Einstein stole relativity from his wife. I assume you mean his first wife Mileva. There are some suggestions she had some role in his development of it, which aren't taken particularly seriously... but the extreme claim that he stole it all from her, I have never heard before. Do you have any evidence? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not stolen. Most likely Mileva Marić cooperated with her husband. Certain features of the theory though look like discovered by the female mind. After all it is the greatest theory in all physics, which seems not possible to be discovered by a male of Albert's type. While stayng already without Mileva he couldn't even get rid of his "cosmological constant" from "his equation" (which he called "the greatest bluder of his life". Possibly really meaning leaving Mileva, the greatest mind in physics so far). JimJast (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Certain features of the theory though look like discovered by the female mind. Can you elaborate on this? What exactly is it that makes certain features look like they were discovered by a woman? Is the chintz? Jack Hughes (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Relativity of time. The male gravity professors don't agree on it till now and they try to patch Einstein's theory with "absolute" (cosmic) time to save the Big Bang at the cost of "creation of energy from nothing" against common sense. Apparently it takes a woman's mind firsely insisting on the relativity of both, the time and the space. Something that Albert has given up, not figting couragiously enough against the Big Bang that violates common physics (since relativity of space can't survive without the relativity of time). It is also in special relativity published in 1905 when they were still together. JimJast (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Woman's mind" has the connection between halves of the brain that men lack. Aparently it is needed to understand physics in its totality as in the "time unified with space" which men might be biologically unable to comprehend. As do all my male teachers in my university.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily so, but only that it may be the reason why the female is statistically a better thinker than a man. I've seen it in many other cases when a female was thinking faster and more precisely while the men couldn't comprehend something.

I'm almost sure that the present trouble with explaining cosmology to scientists come from the lack of the ability of male professors to think about several things silmultaneously with which "female mind" so easily copes. That's why I counted on Eira so much while explaining the spacetime physics to her. In which it is necessary to think about space and time together since only then the spacetime may be "flat". Thinking about the delated time separately from the curved space can bring only Newtonian results and can't "flatten" the spacetime, which is needed to understand why the "the enegy can't be made out of nothing" which many male physics professors can't comprehend, turning mystics in the process. That's probably why crationists are mostly men. It might be funny if it turned out to be the only reason behind this Big Bang idiocy noticed also by Richard Feynman :) JimJast (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also look at psychological portrait of Ms Granger in "Harry Potter" by Ms J. K. Rowling :)) JimJast (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok Jim, I felt a tad guilty after my initial comment, but on the evidence presented here I can only conclude that you're spouting twaddle. For a start, you seem to be very confused as to the meaning of "nothing" in a quantum-mechanical sense, and now you seem to have made assertions regarding Einstein with no evidence whatsoever to support them. Does your "theory" make any predictions that are both testable and differ from the generally accepted big-bang-plus-inflation model? Because if not, you're talking out of your arse Silvermute (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Of coures it does, othrewise how I'd be so sure that I'm right? It is not my theory though but Einsteins'. I suspect it is rather Mileva's than Albert's (which is a minor detail).

The best prediction is of course that the universe is not expanding and that its density is equal roughly $6\times 10^{-27}kg/m^{3}$. The observed acceleration of apparent expansion should be such that $dH/dt=-H_{0}^{2}/2$, and the acceleration of Pioneers should be roughly $7\times 10^{-10}m/s^{2}$. All calculated just with Einsteins' physics. There are also other things available if you are interested. E.g. a way of eliminating the "cosmological constant" from Einsteins' field equation which Albert didn't find and that's why I suspect Mileva of being the main proponent of their theory. JimJast (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JJ. Us men should stop pretending to be better than we are & leave all the thinking to the women & their joined-up brains while we go back to our biologically programmed activities like hunting, fighting & raping. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

are you real? Since if you are joking you might be surprised. Women are really biologically beter suited for thinking than the men. How many men you know who can take care about 3 (or more) conversations simultaneously and rememember all the details of each? (I know at least one such woman). And it has been proven that women are better mathematicians than us (or at least than me). Eg. Ms Kowalewska and possibly Mileva Marić to whom we might owe relativity. Just think where the world would be without the A-bomb. JimJast (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, anecdotal evidence! I'm like all convinced & stuff now. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Which evidence you call anegdotal? About Mileva is not important since both Einsteins are dead and so it soesn't make any diff to them. We may fantasize about their roles. The important part is though that we have their theory and we may use it in real science as I did to prove that the universe is not expanding. The lack of the expansion of universe is supported by such hard evidence (look above) that no creationist can revive it. If you were an astronomer you would have known it by now. Though astronomers don't know enough physics to understand relativity. That's why it has to be published somewhere and wait for accidental reader who understands relativity. Then the problems with the Big Bang and creation of universe will disappear (to the Carl Sagan's taste). That's why it's good that RW agreed to publish the stuff. Now some chances are that someone fluent in relativity will read it when they have unsolvable problems with the Big Bang (as about now but they still think they may be patched) and someone cares about their solution (which unfortynately for me didn't happen yet). So I need to be patient, but in the meantime astronomers make money out of people credulity so basically everything is OK. JimJast (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like a hug? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

? JimJast (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Offer still stands. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn Weasel, i'm glad someone finally gets who's really in control around here. evidence? the chick that found pulsars. Some other chick looking at far away stars found a constant light something or other that let hubble do his work... and shall I say Currie (and i don't mean the sauce). tisk tisk, all you disconnected men should just wander into the woods, kill things, and start wars! En attendant Godot 01:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

could you expand more on this connection between the two sides of the brain that men dont have ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why astronomers act like idiots?

To me, though I'm only a sculptor, it is an intereting question. Some time ago, when Carl Sagan was still alive, I read an appeal to him from an astronomer to do something about the Big Bang since "it makes all astronomers look like idiots" (to quote the gentleman).

The astronomers allow the mathematicians to make an allegation that the expansion of universe is observed while what is observed is only the redshift, that is caused by the simple relativity of time (the time runing slower in deep space than anyplace at an observer roughly proportionally to the curvature of space).

And the relativity of time was already proven by Einsteins (the proper expression is $d\tau /dt=exp(-r/R)$ where $\tau$ is time in deep space ("proper time", time of place in deep space), $t$ is our time ("coordinate time"), $r$ is the distance to the place in deep space (usually to a galaxy over there), and $R$ is the radius of curvature of space, known that it exists (calculated by JJ as 13 billion light years).

According to my opinion (while it may be wrong of course) the astronomers are disouraged by the amount of math the allegedly cosmology involves. Allegedly, since decision whether the universe expands or not is only a world view decision: Either one belives in life after death (as most people do) and don't want to piss off God by not believing (applying Pascal wager) or one doesn't (as some like e.g. Carl Sagan did, or rather didn't, ambiguities of English). JimJast (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, scientists hate having to do math. And pissing off God. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on both accounts. But how did you learn it? They never tell it to the civilians ... You must have a lot of intuition ... JimJast (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it funny when something you mean as a "good joke" turns out to be actually the truth reflecting on our creationist anvironement which we thought (or at least some of us) imune to such mishaps. JimJast (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's super. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.--En attendant Godot 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr

But at least you seem to know your maths.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

QUESTION: Should we have a "CRANK" namespace?

As above...please for to comment. C®ackeЯ

YES P-Foster (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If his physics is as bad as his psychology...the female mind thing reminds me of this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

nah. essay space is fine. Maybe a disclaimer in the essay template like "this does not necessarily reflect the views of RationalWiki or its editors"--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean ... like, for example, the disclaimer we already have in the template?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

lol. I done and said so many stupid things I've become numb to the resulting embarrassment --User:Brxbrx/sig 20:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes This has been desperately needed since Maratrean and JimJast showed up (and won't go away). The only question is who gets relegated to it and how we decide. 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I really think essay space is fine. It's not like we have mainspace articles for Maratreanism or whatever the fuck it is JimJast is always going on about. Only other editors see these essays. Branding JimJast and Maratrean (he's actually a nice guy, even if you disagree with him- JimJast, not so much) as cranks is only mean and degrading. Let them be. We've plenty of server space.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mean and degrading? Essay space is fine? You're not paying attention to the problem their distracting presences creates. Crank and concern troll are descriptions based on evidence, not just name calling. The interminable discussion of unproductive bullshit is the problem. 13:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking if we should delete this dreck, (dreck though it is), nor make fun of the author(s) but to properly demarcate these "essays".

Ok, we don't have to call it CRANK, we could gussy it up, "Alternative ' Science' Hypotheses", (might do nicely), to let folk know that we don't think the "essays" are worthy of being in the Essay mainspace. 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

How's this template look?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty bad, brx. How about a category for such essays? ħuman 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody will see a category. Just make the template to your liking. This sort of disclaimer is a rather simple solution to the problem we're discussing: distinguishing the work of users like JimJast from other editors to preserve our egos.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired of your use of "we" when you're not even wrong. Did you think this through for longer than it took to type that or are you just looking for attention by popping into every discussion you can find and adding nothing of value? This isn't about egos and templating is "the rather simple solution" that solves nothing. Who gets to decide who is a crank? What if someone disagrees and we have to accommodate yet more interminable shit from these cranks. At some point enough is enough. The problem with cranks and concern trolls like Jast and Maratrean is that discussions they're involved in never end and their very presence and inability to just shut up like sane people faced with the reality they're spouting bullshit ends up being tremendously disruptive at times. It's unproductive all the time. That's the big problem to solve. 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And what do you propose to do about it Nutty? Ban me? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like for you to go away on your own, but that and any decision to relegate you to crankspace are not mine to make. I will say that the staggering volume of absolutely batshit crazy rambling about your made-up religion you've got on your blog and wiki, and the degree to which you've gone around the web trying to peddle it and only sticking around places you get attention (and now concern trolling on no less than 4 websites about whether the users here and the site itself are rational) is alarming evidence against you. If you're unhappy, go away. You're not going to change the ethos of a site that's existed for 4 years before you hallucinated your fake god up, if you even actually believe that shit. 13:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RW was started to criticize CP. But any criticism of RW is "concern trolling" and invalid? Do you really think RW is so precious that it is beyond any criticism?

If my religion is "made-up" and "batshit crazy", what about Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Shinto, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, etc. Are they all made-up and batshit crazy too? Or just my religion? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not that precious at all. We'll accept relevant criticism from anyone. The heart of this is that your religion is objectively not appropriate to discuss here, you know this, yet you persist in trying to present it as reasonable, even on this page. That's why some of us wish you would fuck off and have been telling you that since you appeared here shortly after you started trolling around the internet looking for a place to get attention. Your complaints about that response to you are frivolous and I think evidence an affected concern for a website that's very obviously not an appropriate place for you to pontificate. Thus, I view you as a classic concern troll. As for your religion vs. others, yours is obviously made-up. You made it up earlier this year, didn't you. Was it divinely revealed to you as Zarancy, the protoprophet or Maratrea? ROFL. 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My criticism of this site's rationality is independent of my religion. There are editors here who have totally opposite views on religious matters to me, but whose rationality I cannot fault. And I've seen irrationality in arguments that had nothing to do with my religion. You also make the mistake of thinking that I am only here to talk about my religion. If you review my contributions, you'll notice that I participate in discussion on matters that are totally unrelated to my religious views. I don't agree that I made up my religion, in my mind it was revealed to me. Now, maybe I am crazy, and somehow it was generated by my unconscious. But if that is true of me, then surely it is true of Jesus and Muhammad and the Buddha and so on? So, if my religion is invalid, then Christianity and Islam and Buddhism are equally so. The revelation did not happen earlier this year - I couldn't tell you exactly when, maybe in 2008, it was a progressive process. But, a revelation received in 2008 CE is inherently no more and no less valid than one received in 8 CE. Either all claims of revelation are bogus, both in the distant past and in the present; or, if it's possible that some claims of revelation in the distant past are valid, then it is also possible that claims of revelation in the much more recent past are also valid. Röstigraben's position makes logical sense (both Christianity and Maratreanism are equally bogus), your position (Maratreanism is more bogus than Christianity) doesn't. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Define crankery. Take for instance my latest contribution, Essay:A response to Sasayaki which I just posted. Should that essay be "crank-labelled" or go to "crank-namespace" or so on? A lot of stuff in there is pretty standard defense of theism, which many theists would agree with. Some bits are admittedly more specific to my distinctive beliefs; but a fair chunk of it is pretty standard theism. Is all disagreement with atheism form of crankery? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a definite feeling around here that if "people say things I don't agree with, they're cranks and must be chased away." Somebody has also claimed that they have the right to be abusive towards another editor because "In my own conception of the social situation, I was not even really addressing a peer. I was addressing a crank who posts bullshit on RW, which is devoted to demeaning and snarkily attacking bullshit."

This needs to stop.

The essay space is designed for people to write what they like - NOT WHAT YOU LIKE. It's enough that it's kept in essay space.

In addition, the harassment of editors with differing points of view to yours STOPS NOW. Or you can go to CP, where they like to control who wries what. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

@Maratrean - it's appallingly long but that's fine. Of course not everything a crank says is crankery. Your made up religion is. @Psy - my old friend, you are missing the point. This isn't about ideas people don't like. It's about an attempt to come up with a solution for sparing us the disruption of endless discussions with people who won't shut up in defense of things that they are literally the only people in the world who care about, and insincerely at that. Our goal has to be to present mainstream responses to nonsense that there's any possibility someone will see in the wild. Hosting it at RW is counterproductive. I admit my case re: Jast is weaker than Maratrean because I don't understand his material as well as I understand the absurdity of multiplying the problems inherent in the existence of the Abrahamic god by making up a new one accompanied by a staggering amount of mythology and apologetic material. If this fake religion with exactly one adherent is based on solipsism, the necessary implication is that none of us is anything more than a concoction Maratrean's imagination, and yet the degree to which he rails against our supposed irrationality belies his insincerity in solipsism, for if he actually believes what he peddles then the problems of evil, suffering, and pain would be trivially resolvable. I don't know why we need to indulge that kind of insincerity. And if it's not insincere, presenting a fake religion as deserving of being discussed any differently than a homemade D&D campaign is fucking nuts. @Brxbrx - maybe if your points made intrinsic sense or you had the ability to do more than argue my assertion, and seemingly move the goalpost, I'd treat you differently here. You got no real defense for talking about silliness like egos and use of terms like mean and degrading when you yourself are proposing setting at least Jast's stuff off as worthy of some kind of category denoting it's, what, written by a crank-not-crank? 14:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Insincere? Where is there any evidence that I am insincere? Or that JJ is for that matter? I think you'll find, rather than multiplying the problems of the Abrahamic religions, my beliefs actually improve on the Abrahamic religions by removing many of their difficulties. Maratreanism is not based on solipsism; it explicitly rejects solipsism as false. So the whole premise of your post is false. You call my religion a "fake religion", what makes it fake? It's not like a "homemade D&D campaign", since the author of a homemade D&D campaign doesn't believe its contents is true, whereas my beliefs are (in my own mind at least) non-fictional. Can't you accept the concept of New Religions? It's not like the immense religious creativity of humanity only existed two thousand years plus ago and has since been turned off. New religions appear all the time, that's been going on for millennia, and shows no sign of stopping. All of them started out with just one person, and then spread to a small group, and then onwards. Once upon a time, there was only one Christian (Jesus), only one Muslim (Muhammad), only one Buddhist (Gautama Buddha). To say my religion must be false because it is new and small is basically just an argumentum ad populum and an appeal to tradition. Major religions, which I assume you'd give them and their adherents more respect than you do mine, were once small and new too. Imagine if the Internet was around back in Jesus' time, and Jesus was editing RW, I'm sure you'd reject him as a crank too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Either you're insincere or mad. I have no idea about Jast. I think he's nuts but I also don't remember saying his crankery had anything to do with insincerity. I don't care about some hypothetical situation involving Jesus. We don't know very much about his ministry and whether he actually performed miracles. Your religion centered around a god it looks like you made up in February "improves" on the Abranhamic religions by removing many of their difficulties? Bullshit. I'm agnostic to the existence of the Abrahamic god. I am not agnostic to the existence of "Maratrea" or your "protoprophecy." I'm not going to get further discussion about the merits or substance of your made-up religion with you because this is the very problem that needs addressing. You've made your points amply elsewhere and I reject many of them. We will not agree on very much. There is no consensus possible between us on the relative merit of a fake religion made up by an insincere or mad crank. @Rosti - any established faith has at least moved past the problem of its adherents knowing without the least possible doubt that this one crank didn't literally make the whole thing up out of whole cloth, mythos and apologetics and all in hundreds and hundreds of blog posts and entries in a personal wiki, 4 or 5 months ago. As an agnostic I'm forced to give Christianity some small amount of respect that I can't give to "Maratreanism." 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's the main reason why Maratreanism is still a one-person-cult and will remain one. On the other hand, I have to commend him for being forthcoming about how he made everything up. As to why he's putting in this massive effort despite the obvious impossibility to find new recruits here, I've got no clue. I've ruled out trolling, because they prefer to do as little work as possible to provoke others, while he must be spending hours each day writing essays and engaging in debates. Anyway, regarding the original question, I'm with Psy, at least as far as Maratrean is concerned. There are apparently still some editors who are willing to debate him, so you can't blame him for keeping it up. With Jim, the case is different - literally every editor he's interacted with has told him that they don't want to discuss his theories, and yet he keeps spamming repetitive nonsense on their talk pages and insults them. That one's either a very persistent troll, or an attention whore with a disability that's bordering on Autism. But even Jim's antics don't have anything to do with an inherent essay space problem, he's more of a general case for the new mods/revamped chicken coop or whatever will be used to deal with disruptive editors. Röstigraben (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nutty-"any established faith has at least moved past the problem of its adherents knowing without the least possible doubt that this one crank didn't literally make the whole thing up out of whole cloth..." How do we know that Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, etc., just didn't make the whole thing up out of whole cloth? We don't really know; if you believe in their religion, you will believe they didn't; if you don't, you may well suspect that they did. So it's hard to see how there is any real difference between my religion and the more established ones. The fact that I publish stuff on a blog and a wiki isn't relevant, because those technologies weren't around back then, and if they existed in Jesus' or Muhammad's or Buddha's time they may well have used them. @Rosti-"As to why he's putting in this massive effort despite the obvious impossibility to find new recruits here, I've got no clue". I have no expectation I'm going to recruit anyone here. You never know, but I don't think it is likely. Why then do I participate? One reason is that it gives me an opportunity to hone my arguments, to give them a dry run as it were. Even if no one accepts them, the kind of objections or reactions I get is useful information. And besides, I find there is interesting discussion on this site about topics that have little or nothing to do with my religion. People have this idea I'm only here to talk about my religion, but if you look at my contributions you'll find I take part in unrelated discussions too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation to you, I give Maratreanism the exact same measure of respect as Christianity. Röstigraben (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all Christians cranks? Is Christianity a form of crankery? Because I struggle to see the logic by which I am a religious crank but Christians are not. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If we define a crank as someone having an "unconventional viewpoint" (as posted below), they're not, simply by virtue of being so many. If the word is supposed to imply anything about the (un)soundness of their ideas, they are - at least those who sincerely believe in all of these doctrines and tenets instead of just professing adherence. I don't think Maratreanism is any more nonsensical than Christianity. Unfortunately, it's not less nonsensical, either. Röstigraben (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no argument with that, but what would creating a "Crank" space change in terms of "disruption of endless discussions with people who won't shut up in defense of things that they are literally the only people in the world who care about"? The counter argument to that is that they are not shutting up in defence, because people are constantly going "WTF?" at them. Moving to crank space won't change that. I have no problem with keeping this out of main space, but the minute we start labelling things, we're in trouble - who decides what gets sent to crank space? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Beats the shit out of me and it's not for me to decide. I've obviously got my own ideas but this is Serious Business and requires more than a contentious discussion, involving at least one "little bitch," on an essay talkpage. 15:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, quit being a little bitch. We are discussing a means of distinguishing essays such as this from the rest of the site (other than ignoring them). That is perfectly clear. I proposed a solution. You are welcome to critique the solution. You are welcome to critique the template I made. But do not try and delegitimize my attempt to help out. --User:Brxbrx/sig 14:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My response to this child is above, timestamped 14:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC). 14:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

PsyGremlin, you're absolutely correct. I regret trying to mark JimJast.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cranks can become productive & valued members of the community. Look at ListenerX for example. If they're bending mainspace to their fringe POV, that has to be addressed in the relevant articles. If it's just essays, live & let live, &/or engage in constructive dialogue. (Common sense exceptions apply for essays containing overt hate speech, pointless obscenity, libel, incitement to crime, etc. etc.) I think it would be fair to add this essay to Category:Odd essays if you want to mark it for what it is, but a distinct namespace for this kind of thing is completely unnecessary & could encourage more crank content here. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Since when did crank mean someone with an unconventional viewpoint? How is ListenerX a crank? Let's reserve the term for bad science--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Since always. Check the definitions used at RationalWiki, Wikipedia, etc. If we reserved the term for "bad science", we would be divorcing it from its common usage, & would have to remove about half the names in our famous cranks list. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• No - There's literally no reason for "crank-space". An editor's own opinions belong in an essay - that's what it's their for. SJ ^Debaser 14:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Call me petty but, why don't you just ignore them? it's not like anyone with a brain would think that something literally unintelligble is "the major opinion" of RW. and it IS an essay. Essays are hard to find unless you are looking, would NEVER show up in a guests "random list", etc. the fact that you are having this argument is just what gives trolls life. if you don't like what he's saying (in essay space), then "change the channel". we are all grownups, last time i checked.--En attendant Godot 16:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation needed

"I was born much earlier than the mandatory 19 years to comprehend the contemporary algebra (and that's why it is taught at the first year) so I was at the time way too old to comprehend it, which has been faithfully reflected in my first year exam score." um.... huh?--En attendant Godot 07:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This was what prof. Jacek Jezierski told us after he finished his two semeter long lectures, before the algebra final exam. This is a known truth among scientists who know that math (as algebra) can't be learned after 30. It is since algebra is "science" based exclusively on memorizing tons of definitions and no "understanding". That math is not science (as physics, based on experiment, is) was discoverd only around 1900 with "Russel's paradox" which turned attention of mathematicians to dependence of "truth" on definitions. Which matematicians know by now, and does Maratrean but stil not most od RW folks, which I label "crypto creationists", since they, glorifying science, missed this subtle point that to support something it is not enough to know its definition but also to "understand" it.

That's why I dedicated this essay to prof. Jacek Jezierski in hope that he wants to discuss Einsteins' gravitation, which he being himself a physicist, and suposedly a suporter of rational thinking, the same as JJ, "understands" it. JimJast (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jim, cannot agree with your characterisation of Russell's paradox. Russell's paradox was historically important, but its importance was in showing that naive set theory was inconsistent, which in turn led to Russell's theory of types, and the historically most important set theory (Zermelo-Fraenkel), and various other alternative formulations too (such as NFU, or paraconsistent set theory). I don't think Russell's paradox lead to a discovery that "math is not science (as physics, based on experiment, is)". If you define science in terms of experiment and observation, then it has always been known that maths is not science. (However, the history of the term science is a lot broader than just experiment and observation, so maths really is a science, for at least some meanings of the term science.) As to the dependence of truth upon definitions, of which you speak, it sounds to me like you are advocating for a formalist position in the philosophy of mathematics. But, the philosophy of mathematics is not really part of mathematics, so I don't think a mathematical fact like Russell's paradox commits us to a particular philosophical position. And, in giving birth to formalism in the philosophy of mathematics, I think the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry, or complex numbers and quarternions and so on, were more important in historical terms (even as I think none of them are actually relevant theoretically speaking.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mar, While studying physics I took a two semester course of "history of math" and it was the belief of the professor who taught this course (that math is not science), a mathematician, and an extremely intelligent guy. So I just repeat what I was taught. I was taught also other things so I appreciate the power of complex numbers in algebra (being also an electronic engineer) but I know that the experiment is the base of science and one can be easily fooled by believing otherwise (see Feynman, an experimentalist, and our frends in RW, non scientists). Though I appreciate also a fact that physicists are taught by creationist physics professors that 4-vectors are not invariant (which I consider collision of creationsm with math) and those physics students belive their professors too. So, one needs also common sense while believing. JimJast (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So, what then of Experimental mathematics? If all science is experimental, and experimental mathematics is experimental, is experimental mathematics therefore a science? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Science is what is left as reaults of experimens. Positive or nagative. With God and creationism we had negative so far and that's why we (the atheists) don't believe in neither (neithe in the Big Bang with its creation of energy from nothing). JimJast (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lame excuses for poor performance, tying into JJ's ideas about intelligence (or certain types of intelligence) being linked to age, gender, genetic make-up, etc. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

oh. so the reason i can learn math at is cause i'm a chick.gotcha. i'm better than all of you, there is a Cabal, and only the women know of it.--En attendant Godot 15:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

“”It is since algebra is "science" based exclusively on memorizing tons of definitions and no "understanding".

Wrong on so many levels. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jack, You are also right :) Really. But some math ain't. And I'm taking abou this which ain't. And @Waiting: I just gave you the translation you wanted. If you need more details just ask. JimJast (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"This is a known truth among scientists who know that math (as algebra) can't be learned after 30" - you're fucking full of it, and you know it. or your prof is, and you know it. My husband tutors math to adults. to graduate college, you need algebra. most of these adults have never seen algebra, but learn it just fine. for fuck's sake, JJ - grow up. I mean, if you want to live in neverneverland, that's fine but understand, you are not exactly making any points here, or making a single rational argument or doing anything that anyone thinks is anything other than stupid, irrational, blathering -- of course, yeah for you.--En attendant Godot 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this still going on?

I can't believe that people are still "debating" with this guy. Can't you people see that JJ is not interested in getting closer to the truth about gravitation, rather he is just stirring, hoping for reactions, which we all seem to give him, over and over again. --Damo^Hi 10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Damo, why don't you join in with some rational arguments for the Big Bang? JimJast (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Damo, he's not even doing that. he's just convinced he's right and everyone else is wrong, and uses RW to splurge his pet theory because we let him. just let him jabber to himself on this page while get on with something useful. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 11:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Real. The same as Damo JJ is right until proven wrong. But diff is that Demo was proven wrong just does not know it not knowing neither physics nor math and JJ knows both and both still say "JJ may be right". As you may know, in science the things are wrong only unless they are proven wrong either by their physics or their math (which is the only "scientific" role the math has: to prove things wrong) and the Big Bang hypothesis is PRATT though no one in RW, except JJ knows it for their neglecting science in their education) which you can't say about JJ who was double winner of the national olympics in math and physics some time ago. Besides I don't think that only I'm right but also Einsteins since it is their theory that I'm promoting.

@Damo, I was not really counting on you joining the discussion since you already told me that you don't know anything I might to use in my promotion of Einsteins theory, which is the sole purpose of my presence in RW. But why don't you want let someone else who may know something that would contradict Einsteins' to join the discussion and then proves me wrong?

@Wating, if your husband teaches algebra he might know tensor calculus since it is a part of algebra, and might know where I goofed in my elimination of $\Lambda$ from Einsteins Field Equation. So why don't you just ask him and tell me. It would be more productive involvement than your involvement so far. Besides, my algebra course contained in one year what in math colleges takes 5 years, so maybe it was too much compressed. I had to repeat that course next year thinking that the naxt year it must be better but with another teacher it was completely different course. He taught completely different things despite it was called the same "algebra". The part I'd like your husband to look into is in my essay section 4.4 Correcting Einstein's field equation JimJast (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Waiting, I understand that you didn't talk to your husband so I figure you don't know neither his opinion on 4.4 Correcting Einstein's field equation nor whether I'm such a crank as you think I am. I'm already waiting for an expert opinion on Einsteins' theory for over 25 years and that's why I started this PhD project that you hopefully read. This PhD is meant to force someone to pretend at least that he/she understands Einsteins, and produce a written opinion on it. Nobody so far in my university's physics dept. was so brave). So far the bravest ones teach their students that Einsteins' (though they put it in singular unlike me) theory requires creation of energy from nothing and as I saw myself the students share their opinion.

Small wander since most of them are Catholics, some even members of Opus Dei. That's why I call your whole bunch "crypto creationists" (as supporting contemporary gravitation physics). I think it is nicer (since assumes only lack of proper information) than "Bunch of bigots" (Sorry Bob for the abbreviation, I didn't mean you since you seem to be an exception that confirms the rule. I should call them Bunch of Archie Bunkers and bigots (BAOBABs) which assumes also stupidity (prejudice against "cranks" like JJ and a very civilized "troll" like Maratreanism whom only JJ (though atheist himself) supports since Maratreanism religion is not as silly others.

Coming back the subject we still dont know the opinion of your husband on Einstein's blunder (who himself considered as "the biggest in his life") so I'm not that far frim Einsteins judgement so why do you think I'm wrong? Or why Maratreanism is more silly than other religions? JimJast (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you are brave enough to respond to my serious accusation of CC and I may promiss that I won't continue if you don't wish any continuation.

It's just possible

It's just possible the obscure scientists that JimJast cites are right and all the scientific Evidence for the Big Bang gathered by talk.origins and others is wrong. Still it's much more likely that JJ is trolling as his blockies show. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Blockies" are not evidence for or against a scientific theory. ħuman 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Proxima, If you judge the truth by counting votes then you are right (at least on number of votes) but you may be also wrong on issues. If you also understand the issues then your bets are rigged since then you know for sure. So my bets are rigged since I've seen the calculations which few people have seen yet. Hopefully the results will be published and then everybody will know why the things fall and why the Big Bang was the myth of 20th and 21st centuries, and we may be able to moveo to more intresting things. JimJast (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are curious but not enough to wade therough my mumbling as Eira and other ladies didn't care to, I may just tell you that things fall since $E=mc^{2}$ (wich even Einsteins didn't notice at their time) and the universe is not expanding since it doesn't care that according to us it should (the rest is in Einsteins' theory so learn it - no expensive gear needed - just a peice of paper and a pencil, and maybe a pencil shrpener, but it's all you need to see it too) or just wade through my mumblings. BTW, thank you Human. JimJast (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocks in JJ's case are evidence for trolling which makes it harder for him to argue credibly from authority. I feel it's more likely that all those obscure papers he cites are part of an insane delusion or some type of trolling. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim, PC is a native speaker of English and a skilled writer. If you ask nicely, she might be willing to help you... ^{— Unsigned, by: Burndall / talk / contribs}

Hi, PC. How nicely you have to be asked to help me? I'm looking for someone who would like to write a book about gravitation and cosmology with me in the sense that I'm explaing the stuff and the other guy or better gal, takes care about proper formulation of sentences and the structure of the book. What to explain first and what later. As a composer of opera taking care about its structure and music (language). I am going to deliever the substance. The gravitation and cosmology itself.

One of my problems is that my English stinks so I'm not able to communicate clearly enough for people to understand what I'm talking about. But another problem is that my type of thinking is parallel (in pictures) as opposed to serial thinking of most other people. It's like a distinction betweein sculptor who has to think about all things in his sculpture silmultaneously, as they will look from all 24 directions, to make a dicent skulpture, and a musician who to play decently only needs to think about one tone or chord at a time and then moves to the next and may forget all the tones that he already played. Composer is more like a sculptor. Also the designer of a book.

Presently gravitation is not science yet (most people including gravity physicists think that the Earth attracts them as if there were no Einsteins. It is ridiculous situation and that's why Feynman rant and why I think that some decent text book at least for high schools should be published. And there is nobody willing to write that book. Would you want to try? It does not be of doorstop size like "Gravitation" by those 3 idiots MTW. It only needs to show all sides of gravitation and cosmology: why things fall, how to prove that the univese is stationary (eternal). What would you say? (Was it enough nice asking?) JimJast (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you, I think the Big Bang happened. Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

JJ, you say my type of thinking is parallel (in pictures) as opposed to serial thinking of most other people. Given that, maybe you should explore something like mind-mapping? Try to present your ideas diagramtically. I already mentioned to you the debategraph.org site, you can use that to draw pictures to explain the structure of your own viewpoint, the structure of the Big Bangist viewpoint, and what is the difference between the two, and the evidences/arguments/responses for each of them. As I said, I'm not going to help you write your book, but if you drew some debate graph diagrams I'd be happy to review them for you. Or, I'm sure there are some other mind mapping tools/software/websites out there you could use instead, other than debategraph. Point is, if you are more of a parallel thinker, and struggle to get your ideas down into linear text, then a more graphical approach can help. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mar, we had an edit conflict while I was responding to PC. I respond to you later. JimJast (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

PC, Of course you may believe in what you want. 85% of the Earth population believes in more silly things. Like ghosts, but tell me how do you square the belief in the Big Bang with the fact that the universe is not expanding according to Einsteins theory of relativity. What I discovered accidentally in 1985 just by calculating the amount of "real expansion", in which, at the time, I believed as well (as you still do), and the one that comes from illusion resulting from dynamical friction of photons? And later adjusted to Einsteins relativity by explaining the dynamical friction of photons by the coupling betwee the time dilation and the curvature of space (expressed by the Hubble tensor "overlooked by MTW") that came as numerically equal effects, now allowing to fix "Einstein's biggest blunder of his life"?

Do you remember Einstein's surprise when observation of amount of bending of light ray turned out be twice as big as he predicted the first time, from which we know now that the space is curved as much as time is delated? Do you believe that Einsteins theoory is a fake? Just to make us believe in miracled? (My assumed porpose of those 3 guys MTW). Did you read their 1973 "Gravitation" and have seen that they didn't mention in their bibliography Einstein's 1950 paper suggesting that the spacetime metric is non symmetric, which might make people think about their symmetric metric needed "to prove" that there is no dynamical friction of photons (lack of it being another myth of creationists meant to hide inconvenient facts, and so the energy "must have been made from nothing"? By divine intervention?) Aren't they all documented facts? And the Abstract of my "Essay: Gravitation demystified"? How do you respond to its serious 7 conflicts between science and creationism? They don't exist too? JimJast (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

JimJast, did you see what she said? "It's possible...JimJast...are right and all...others is wrong." Whatever she said below, it's clear that W.PC has some understanding that the rest of the idiots on this website doesn't has. Do you want to has some regrets later that you missed your chance, or do you want to involve the one person who can actually understand Einsteins' theory and help you extend that to the world? ^{— Unsigned, by: Burndall / talk / contribs}

Burndall, I see and understand this. JimJast (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

While waiting for PC to respond

Mar, Why do I need to draw a graph while I already think only in graphs? I'd need your help to put this graph on paper since I don't know how your techique works. I expect that it would be series of questions but I just have a problem with formulating those questions thinking about everything at the same time (in parallel, as a cow :). No problem with responding to questions (mostly "I don't know" :). JimJast (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could start with a clear statement of your claim? I assume your basic claim is The universe is infinitely old and has no beginning. You can put that in the centre of the page, and around it the chief reasons you have to believe that. Then, your opponents chief claim is The universe is finitely old and had a beginning, approx. 13 billion years ago. You can put that in the centre of another page and around it the chief reasons they give to believe that. Then, around each of their reasons, you write your responses. Around each of your reasons, you write their responses, and then around each of those, your responses to their responses. And so on we go. That at least is a start. If you make a diagram and show it to me, I can suggest improvements. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please start your msg with empty line since it makes answering easier as one does not need to look (usually several times) for the beginning of your msg and it cost only 2 additional charcters which may save with othr means, as above. Separating paragrph with an empty line helps too.

"The universe is infinitely old" is not a scientific statement as not falsifiable. It is a creationist type thinking. So I can't use it. Science I can use only falsifiable statements. So the central one would be: Since 4-tensor of stress-energy has to by definition a tensor the universe can't be expanding. Now creationists have to prove that this tensor is not a tensor which I doubt can be done but I dont claim any a priori knowledge so I have to wait for your answer. JimJast (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so your central claim is "The universe is not expanding". (I think references to tensors is too specific to be your central claim, you should really make it a supporting argument rather than the central claim.)

Is your claim that the universe has never expanded? Or just that it is not expanding right now? If it is not expanding now, maybe there was a Big Bang in the distant past (much more than 13 billion years ago), but the rate of expansion slows over time, and by now it is effectively zero? Otherwise, if it has never expanded, that implies its volume over time must be constant, which would suggest it has no beginning, and thus is not of finite age??? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in collaborating with JJ end of story. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, PC, for trying, but any time you want to join ("donna e mobile") please do. JimJast (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, since PC is out, at leat for the time being, we may discuss it using the full width of the line without any more edit conflicts (ECs) providng we wait with a respnse after receiving one to our question.

You are right about central question. I just add a comment that if we are going to get to some scientific truth then all the questions have to be answered consistently: Y/N/D (yes/no/don't know), consistently with previous answers. I hope we are no idiots, dispite it has been suggested already by a few ladies, so we both understand that much about the rules of discussion.

The answer to the question whether the BB couldn't happen earlier than 13.7 billion years ago is "No". Comment (1): it's the same non scientific question as the previous nad for the same reason, and it is covered already by the "central question". Since you are a creationist, I think I may understand your reasons for asking, but I think that once something was proven that it can't happen, as I think will follow from our future talk, there is no need to come back to it (see the cosistency of answers). Comment (2): as we see on this example there is a need of commenting certain answers which in my experience makes this method of discussion nearly usless since it very quickly becomes boring to observes. Hopefully we won't have any. Comment (3): it shows the superiority of writing a text book on the subject like MTW did though wanting to prove the opposite point from what I'm trying to prove writing a book. That's why I classify MTW's book as an attempt in creationist cosmology. Since they wanted to prove something not true it has to be door stop size book which no one would understand except aficionados like JJ wo already proved the opposits to their idea and so he head scintfic interest in understanding book's errors. Other folks just "believe" that it is a scientific book. But if we continue this discussion long enough it is bound eventually to happen to prove my point. That's what my parallel way of seeing the world tells me pretty loudly :) JimJast (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the question whether the BB couldn't happen earlier than 13.7 billion years ago is "No" - you mean to say, that the Big Bang could not happen more than 13.7 years ago? I'm confused because of the double negation (Couldn't...No)

Second question, because your answer isn't clear - when you say the universe isn't expanding, are you saying (A) the universe isn't expanding right now, but maybe has in the past or future; or (B) the universe can't expand, or is very unlikely to, at any time?

Thirdly, who is MTW? Don't understand the reference. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for double negative. It is a legecy of old English grmmar teachers who tried to ban it from English not understanding that doble negation is just stressed negative like in many other languages so I might have picked it up from Polish.

An exaple of English gemmar teacher lecture: "There is a double negative in English used sometimes by uneducated people, which actially means positive, but there is no double positive that means negative". A voice from the audience: "Yeah right".

For the first question I meant "No" (could not happen more than 13.7 years ago). Second question is (B). MTW is Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, the authors of 1973, 5 pound "Gravitation", a.k.a. Bible, with creationist version of cosmology that predited decelerating (due to "mutual attration of masses of universe") axpansion of the univers. In 1998, after observations by Supernova Cosmology Project team it was changed to accelerating expansion (due to "negaitve gravitation" and even later being due to impossibility of negative gravitation in Einsteinian theory that MTW claimed was allegedly supporting their cosmology it has been renamed "dark energy" of unknown yet nature that have to be investigated obviously at taxpeyers expense. The most important 7 errors in MTW Bible (there are many more some as if readers were idiots not knowing any physics) are specified in my Abstract to this essay. JimJast (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so if the universe is not infinitely old (you stated "The universe is infinitely old" is not a scientific statement as not falsifiable. It is a creationist type thinking. So I can't use it. Science I can use only falsifiable statements.) but you state that anyone who believes in the creation of the universe is wrong as well (your statement Therefore whoever believes that the Big Bang is a historical event, as a lot of "rational" wikipedians do, gets automatically a crypto creationist). It seems like the two options for the beginning of the universe automatically makes some one an evil creationist. My question to you is how the hell did the universe get here then? ~ Subsound ~ 17:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It must have been always there. So the question makes no sense and then we don't need to worry about it. There are more interesting things about the universe. E.g. how it does it that time on certain remote galaxy runs slower then in our galaxy but for guys over there our time runs slower than theirs. In the whole universe time runs the fastest there where we actually are to measure the rate of time. Thats why wherever we look we see only redshfts. Which looks as if the yniverse were expanding. That's why so many people got fooled by this illusion and thught that it is real and the universe really was expanding. And interesting part is thet it's logically OK. No logical contradiction with anything. This is the nature of relativity of time. Even Einstein couldn't it accept at the beginning and suspected a logical problem. Yet there are none. It is all logically consistent. JimJast (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not an answer, that's an excuse. The definition of a universe that has always been there is a universe that is infinitely old. Words have things called meanings, you can not have a universe that has always been there and not be infinitely old. Something that is always there must be infinitely old because it has no start. Claiming there are more interesting things in the universe is deceit by misdirection. Answer the question. If you believe the universe has always been there (and is infinitely old), how are you not by your own logic a creationist that believes in non-scientific and non-falsifiable statements? ~ Subsound ~ 22:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course that the universe is infinitly old (didn't I tell you that it existed always?). But why you have problem with this. The other result ot this is that it, of course, was never created. And so creationists are automatically wrong. One more sensible statement. Why do you question my logic and speak about the deceit? Anything wrong with my logic?

Einstein mentioned that there are only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but he was not sure about the former. He meant the extension of the universe in space not in time in which it is obviously infinite. In space it is obviously limited and is 3-sphere of radius $R_{E}$ ("Einstein's radius"). it is even visible by the minimum of radial diameters of galaxies between redshifts 1 and 2, which agrees perfectly with Einsteins physics. So what are you takling about? Science is not discovering truth with logic. This is called "math", which is not science (since it depends on assumptions, and those may be wrong and if humans make them they are likely to be wrong. That's why it takes a century to discover that there could be no Big Bang. That's all about science, and logic. Logic is good though to tell us that we are wrong on some issue (like eg. Big Bang). Einsteins knew it, and now you too. JimJast (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@Subsound: you can not have a universe that has always been there and not be infinitely old. Well, you could if time was circular (which is what I believe). If you go back far enough into the past, you get to the future, and then going back further you get to the present. So there is no beginning, no end, but only a finite age. (Although, while I do think time as a whole is circular, I think time extends beyond this universe, so this universe has a beginning, but time itself does not.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What Maratrean says an example of Logic not Science so you may believe that it is right or not, according to your other beliefs. There is no way of not believing the science, since it is what is found to be true experimentally (or observetionally with a caveat that observations are subject to interpretation, as they interpreted redshift up till 1985 not knowing that it is an illusion, or the movement of Sun up tp 1543). That's why it is good to know history, and that's why I started my essay with the history of cosmology. But then it took the whole half of the essay, to much for the readers to read it since they rather belive in cration of universe. That's why it should be a book written by someone who knows English, or Esperanto, since Polish, even if one knows it better than me, is too difficult to learn for non Polish speakers (each noun only has 14, mostly irregual, cases, and there are also other words, many, like verbs also flexed, often irregularly like in Esperanto, where fortunately are only 2 cases and all flection is regular). Unfortunately neither English nor Esperanto speakers want to cooperate with me. Maybe only for them being creationists. Or actually, except Maratrean, crypto creationists, with no respect for logic. JimJast (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim again I point out that you stated yesterday {JimJast(08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)):"The universe is infinitely old" is not a scientific statement as not falsifiable. It is a creationist type thinking. So I can't use it. Science I can use only falsifiable statements.} and now state today that {JimJast(07:07, 5 July 2011):"Of course that the universe is infinitly old"}. Even the start of your theory is not scientific, not falsifiable, not logical and should be ignored by your own statements. This is logic a 6 year old could follow, and the problem is you don't seem to get the inconsistency. ~ Subsound ~ 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsound, The problem might be (correct me if I'm wrong) that you assume that "logical" equals "scientific" (and there was also a typo: "science" instead of "since in science" which might have confused you) while they are two different things. "Logical" applies only to math, "scientific" applies to nature (or to physics, which means the same). E.g. "time and space" have no "absolute meaning" and that's why two events in various places can never happen simoultaneously. Nature does not know even what simoultaneously mean. It understands only "collisions". "Simulteneous event" has no physical content beyond "collision" which is the only "simulteneous event" possible. Otherwise "simulteneous event" is the human speech only. If you understand Einstein's theory you must be aware of this already but if you don't then I have to clarify it why physic (science) is different than math (logic). One can state what one believes is true (eternal univese) but one can never know if it is true for the simple reason that there is no way to test it and gain "scientific knowledge". It is human speech only. Then one does not waste time on finding out. It's what agnostics do. Don't care a bit if the universe was created or not. If we do care, to tell us from creationists, then we should be able to estimate probabilities. And IMHO the universe was always there though it is not a scientific opinion since scientific in this case does not exist yet. And I don't have any "my theory", I use Einstein's and so far it sufices in all cases. So if I say "of course" it regards only to logic which does not need to be consistent with a different "logc". And when this happens people should think which "logic" is right. Which shows why logical is not scientific (designed to gain true knowledge not just human speech logic only). Helpful?JimJast (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How to imagine such universe and not get crazy :)

Eg. what happens when we look at some galaxy and we see our time running at "normal rate" and their time running slower. And then we go there and somebody from there comes to us. What happens to time here and there? Nothing particular: while we all move towards one another their time rates start runing faster and when we are passing the guys from there and say "Hello" to them all our time rates run with the same "normal" rate (as they always run for us). After we pass them their time rate starts going slower according to us and then again after a while we start seeing their time rate as slower depending only on distance to us. Always our "normal" and their slower, and we see again only redshifts (exponentially poportional to the distance that separates us from the others. No contradiction with anythig else. And if not for those time rates we wouldn't have any gravitation. Since nothing attracts anything to anything. It is only the relativity of time that runs slower in distant places and "normal" at those where we just happen to be. Strange thing is that people didn't noticed that it must be so and thought that it is the universe that is expanding. Though it is not that easy to figure out why it must be so. It required a century of believing in expending universe and the Big Bang until it became obvious that it is all so simple. Just relativity of space and time. JimJast (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mar, the maratrean universe has a disdvantage that a circular pipe has to be bent which goes against the fact that the time runs only forwards (inside the light cone) so it can't be bent as it can in SF books. Also how spacetime may be quantified. So it seems unlikely that Subsound is going to convert to Maratreanism any time soon. You have to explain this contradictions with the time locked inside the light cone, the bent 3D space pipe, and not smooth spacetime. Otherwise you appear as no creationist but as an ordinary atheist believing in science with its Einsteinian universe.

And if you want to discuss it further let's do it in this new section or crate newer sections or new essay about science and logic (if there's none like it already, or BTW, how to make a new essay? I forgot already how I made this one.) Since I seem to be the only guy in this wiki who uderstands physics I might share "my wisdom" with others here so they don't need to stay crypto creationosts. JimJast (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

JJ, I always thought that time always running forwards was a psychological thing, rather than a physical thing. I agree our subjective time always runs forward, but backwards time travel means our subjective time running forwards may run objectively backward. And, it is known that general relativity has solutions that permit time travel - e.g. the Gödel metric is just one example, there are quite a few. Myself, I think time has two components, (1) a tensed notion of past/present/future, how things relate to nowness, (2) an untensed notion of temporal distance and direction, of duration, of before/after. This what the philosopher John McTaggart called the "A-series" and "B-series" of time. His conclusion was that the A-series and B-series were incoherent, and thus time does not exist and must be illusory. By contrast, my belief is that time is very real, but we can't further explain the A-series and B-series, or reduce one to the other - this is a brute, irreducible fact, for which no further explanation is possible, or ever has been or ever will be possible. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mar. I have an opposite approach,which I call "Einstainian", since it is according to Einstein's saying: "things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". For instance the Big Bang aficonados unnecessarily complicated the things by introducing a lot of non physical concepts, some even where introduced by Einstein himself. Like "cosmological constant" which Einstein couldn't get rid of till the end of his life, which prompted me to think that the general realativuty was Mileva Marić discovery, not his. And it was so easy to get rid of, just by assuming that the universe was never created, then think "how is it possible?" And the solution comes by itself: "except symmetric tensor of curvature of space ($R_{\mu \nu }$) there must be an anti symmetric tensor of time dilation ($H_{\mu \nu }$) that Einstien missed. This way Einstein's equation gets rid of "cosmological constant" which is not needed any more since Einstein's equation becomes $R_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }$. The equation that Einsteins got when he was still with Mileva, but later changed to one with "comological constant" when mathematicians started to complicate things not believeing that the universse may be so simple. And the simplicity had to be discovered by a sculptor without any training in GR. It came around when I calculated, in Newtinian way, the Hubble redshift (which mathematicians forgot to calculate, or just wanted to push in the "miraculous creation" of the universe). It turned out, as my first algebra teacher, Jacek Jazierski, told the class: "except some usefull things the mathematicians invent many things good for nothing". And then the science (physics) has to look for solutions and finds them by geting rid of unnecassary stuff. Read the abstract of this essay and tell me whether you think I goofed somewhere. JimJast (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you reject the notion of the cosmological constant, then of course the Gödel metric is ruled out. I should make clear, no one actually claims the Gödel metric is a model of our universe, it clearly isn't. But, the point is, here we have at least one solution of GR which permits backwards time travel, even if it isn't an accurate representation of our universe; maybe there is another solution, which accurately represents our universe, but also allows backwards time travel? Maybe there is a solution to GR, which matches the known properties of our universe, has no cosmological constant, and permits backward time travel? (maybe a solution for a universe with wormholes?) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But wouldn't we rather have a universe without the backwards time travel? Without people walking backwards and disappearing at the end of their lives in their mothers tummies? NB.: if such solution shows up to be mathematically possible physicists usually reject it on the principle that such solution has no physical sense. JimJast (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how closed timelike curves don't make physical sense. We haven't observed any; it may well be that none actually exist. But it doesn't seem to me in anyway physically impossible that some actually do. So, I don't see why we should reject CTCs as impossible a priori. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we don't see any. Like with ghosts, gods, and any other magic. The diff between physics (science) and math (magic, not even mention religion): "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily (unless in fairy tales)." JimJast (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a region of spacetime X. Now, maybe X contains a CTC, maybe it doesn't. For it to contain a CTC, its topology must be of a certain type (let us call that A-type). Otherwise, if it doesn't contain a CTC, then its topology will be different (let's call that B-type). So, the question is, does the universe contain any A-type spacetime subregion, or are all subregions of spacetime of B-type? How is Occam's razor "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" relevant here? We still have the same number of entities (we have one entity, spacetime). We are just discussing about what possible geometry it might have. Different answers to "what is the geometry of spacetime" do not posit extra entities for the purposes of Occam's razor. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to describe the details of life while time runs backwards ...

... if it turnes out that life in such universe is still possible then OK, we may have two universes, one straight and the other, its mirror image in temporal sense, runing backwards all the time.

But if you start building such universe, and it turnes out that it works for regular non organic matter (since most "laws of physics" are perfectly reversible timewise) but for the living things this universe is a little bit awckward, then I guess you may give up constructing such a universe as non livable and consider it to be unnecessary extension of perfectly livable universe we see around us. Without trying you wouldn't know. Would you?

So try to get an answer experimentally, to see what are the limitations of your perfectly sensible (from the point of view of regular, matter), which runs both ways equally well, religion. JimJast (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring relativity here, though. Suppose we are considering two observers A and B, and B travels backward in time using some kind of "time machine". Both observer's time always runs forward relative to themselves, but while B is travelling backward in time, their time is reversed relative to A, but is still forward relative to themselves. Rather than talking about time in the universe as a whole running "forwards" or "backwards", the arrow of time can point in different directions at different places/times. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. It might be but the important question is whether the arrow of time runs really backwards on occasions.

Feynman allowed such instances during collisions of certain particles that than looked to the observers as particles of the same mass but opposite charge. But is it real or just a fantasy allowed by the existence of positive and negative particles of the same mass? And another question: can it be done permanently, not only "on occasions", on the level of interactions of elementary particles? JimJast (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I suggest, look at solutions of general relativity that permit backward time travel. See the Wikipedia article on Wormhole § Traversable wormholes. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that I ever have time to be seriously involved in the above (life's rather short). While I not even believe that they are serious by themselves. I'd rather stay involved seriously with Einsteins universe (note the prular here: the other person, probably the main, is Mileva Marić) which looks to me real (a universe in which we really live). When you notice something that might seem to contradict the idea of Einsteins universe being real then please tell me and then I have to find time to pay attention. JimJast (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) PS.: I also tried to limit cp list of Counterexamples to Relativity (talk page last item so far).

Thought this was kind of odd

From the essay {In February 1985 an astronomy student who, as predicted by Einstein, didn't know that such calculations are a taboo since may ruin a nice "theory" that gives employment to many folks}. Wait, are you saying that Einstein predicted that you (or another sculptor) who didn't know the formulas were "taboo" would come and present these theories? I'd like to see that prediction myself. ~ Subsound ~ 22:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how instead of addressing the rather comical bit, you just deleted it on 22:38, 19 July 2011 JimJast (Talk | contribs) m (90,193 bytes) (→Wtat's wrong with expansion of space?). Oh, and what is spelled wrong. 00:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sub, Einstein actually said answering a question by a journalist "how to make a discovery?" Einstein answered: "Very simple: when all wise men decide that something can't be calculated comes an ignorant who does not know that and calculates it". My text was a paraphrase of Einstein's since I didn't know that wise men decided that Hubble constant can't be calculated (has to be measured) and I calculated it from plain Newtonian math (later supporting it with Einstein's physics and making sure that it is also true in general relativity). Now it predicts also "accelerating expansion of space" (apparent only though) with accuracy better than one standard deviation (max possible) so I'm pretty sure (one never can be 100%) that I'm right about the expansion of univers (that there is none). JimJast (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Source that Einstein quote, as the first thing that come up on a search for it is the first archive of your talk page...and nothing by Einstein. At no time does the second quote you provided say anything about being taboo or ruining employment for any folks as your first summation states, which is not a paraphrase in any sense of the word. That's sticking words in some one's mouth.

I am talking about the quote, stay on topic. I am not talking about the universes age/expansion. ~ Subsound ~ 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)