User talk:JimJast

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive1

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, JimJast!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Hello there. Welcome to the cabal Wiki. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 01:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gravitation lesson 4[edit]

To make it short I use links to the pieces from my Gravitation Demystified, alpha version of my PhD paper, starting with quantum features of Einsteinian gravitation, then comes piece telling in more details what is gravitational force and finally how it can be demonstrated how the speed of light chages around the gravitating particle to produce the required gravitational force.

Why not CP?[edit]

It seems that everyone here at RW is rather committed to wrongheaded ideas about gravity, but there is another Wiki where they do reject the common interpretations of Einstein's work: Conservapedia. It doesn't matter if you aren't a conservative, I think they will take your essay anyway. Just make an account, post Gravitation Demystified, and see what happens. Right now they don't have any editors who know anything about science, so I'm sure they would be grateful for work on cp:Gravity and other physics articles. Good luck. --95.154.230.191 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I know RW people like to mock Conservapedia, but the bottom line is that CP gets much more traffic than RW ever will (though some RWians are in denial about this). If you post your stuff on Conservapedia a lot more people will read it, especially if you stick it in the main gravity article. --95.154.230.191 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked at CP:Gravity and it needs a lot of fixing since those people still believe that things attract each other (as in times of Newton most folks did, except for Newton himself, who knew enough physics not to believe in action at a distance). So it looks that the amount of work needed is going to be like cleaning Augean stables: arguing with folks attached to their convictions against common sense.
I tried it already in wikipedia and was kicked out by consensus 9:1, out of whom there were 3 physicists (not even gravity physicists though, about whom Feynman already expressed his opinion). So it looks like level of ignorance in contemporary society is still high even among physicists. On the other hand, comparing to RW where many still believe in creation of energy from nothing (supporting the outdated Big Bang hypothesis) the CP may not look as bad. So I'll try to register there and test their world view. At least I don't think that many folks outside RW may still believe in miracle of creation of something from nothing as it is indirectly insisted upon in 1973 "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. JimJast (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is boring[edit]

Try A Storehouse of Knowledge. They are creationists, but they may yet be interested in your rebuttal of Big Bang theory. (((Zack Martin))) 10:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dynamical friction of photons[edit]

Please don't arbitrarily recreate pages that have been deleted by consensus. It's hardly going to endear you any more than you already have. This is not the place for you to spout you random theories. PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Psy, where did you get the idea that I have any theories? I'm curious. Are you so ill informed that you don't know that they are Einstein's theories. Please tell me what is your source of this information. I'll be happy since I hear it also from creationists that I have some theories that they don't approve (because they notice, unlike you, that they might be Einstein's whom they hate for not beliving in creation of souls from nothing; or even the souls themselves).
And also why do you call Einstein's theories "random". If you don't understand them, the same as those creationsts, it doesn't mean that nobody understands them. There may be people who understands them and are unhappy if you delete something that thay might be happy to read.
Suppressing information is not a good thing, even if more often applied here than in CP. RW folks love to suppress information. How they want to learn enything beyond some tightly guarded dogmas? Maybe that's why they have such tight minds not allowing any new ideas. But it is not rational. So why to keep this name and mislead guys like me who look for rational wiki? I already got the message theat rationality here is only in name, and that CP with lass propaganda is much more rational as far as science is concerned than RW. So actually I don't need your prompting to move Einstein's "random theories" elswhere. JimJast (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"suppressing information" would mean we stopped you from writing your essays. RW presents itself to be a place for challenging bad dogma and psuedo science. That means, "if you say something on the main page, make sure you have sufficient evidence to back up what you say, or it will be deleted". Your comments fly in the face of main stream theories, which i suppose is fine, if you can justify it with evidence or articles or logic. Until you do that, feel free to write as many essays as you want, about anything you want. No one is suppressing you. We are just keeping a clean wiki.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Waiting, Nice to see you again. The story was like that: while writing my essay I needed expalanation of term Dynamical friction of photons so I thought that since everybody would like to know what an animal it is (and noticed it missing from your vocabulary) I might have just as well try to enrich your vocabulary, by placing it there. To know what it is meant by Jim is better than not to know anything about it (I thought). And then someone noticed that it contradicts standard cosmology (which is a science by idiots anyway) and that's why the whole affair :).
That consmology is science by idiots was already anounced here by a man greater than little me so I don't think that you should be so strictly supporting those idiots who were also opponents of Feynman in his discussions with them. Besides, the recent results of "Gravity probe B" support Einstein against creationists and creationism, so you may soon be the only guys on the internet supporting creationism with its idiotic Big Bang "theory" (which is not even a scientific theory). I don't mean anything bad, just open your eyes to the world (slowly) progressing. Don't try to slow down even more this slow progress. Think that almost three generations believed already in idiotic "Big Bang" only because three creationsts mathematicians wanted to promote their Catholoc faith. All I want is you to be a little less strict especially when you happen to be wrong. This relaxed attitude happen to be your advantage over WP though not over CP, since they handle those things better. So just learn from them. And don't feel offended since if I did offend you it was my clumsiness not my intention. JimJast (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, this is science, there is very little "right or wrong" there is "standard understanding". You want to posit things that Science as a general "body" disagrees with. in your specific Red Shift issue, you are quoting a guy who did the math WRONG, as was pointed out just one year later by his fellow countryman. When you are published in a science journal, and those who have sufficient expertise in this area "the 'idiots" as you call them, have had a chance to critique your rather odd and unintelligible views of science, you can publish here. until then, your ideas are as fringe as creation science ideas. If you are in school, publish your ideas. But as it stands now, there is nothing to explain how you didn't just pull all of this out of your tush. sorry, but evidence and documentation and citation rule. even if you have to cite "Idiots". I'm sure those "idiots" would enjoy knowing that you know more than they do. But you might have a read of Neil Turok, he's about the closest you'll find to anything you are saying - if by close you mean the distance the sun is to our nearest sun...--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This concept was disproved more then 80 years ago, and only one person looked at it after that in 1943. Largely because the concept was based on a mathematical mistake. Get something new published and validated (not just a your own ranting essay on a website). If that is all you have, and flinging about insults while assigning people their viewpoints, all it does it make work for the people around you. ~ Subsound ~ 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sub, Are you talking about Zwicky? I know that he made an error since I fixed this error, so I know everything about it and also its relativistic (very interesting) interpretation. But if it is simething else then what is it? And what do you want me to publish beyond my one page paper which nobody had ever time to peer review? JimJast (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You probably don't take under consideration fact that I'm an engineer (except a sculptor) not a physicists so my credibility among "scientists" is zero. So how can I force anybody to read my paper? Or review it if no editor wanto to send it even through a peer review process? All say that if I belive that Einstein's universe corresponds to general relativity than I must be wrong a priori and my stuff is not worth reading, since the universe expanands for sure, and energy can't be conseved also for sure. Only creationists who belive in creation of energy from noting are allowed to be engaged in science today and I oppose them. Probably that's why Feynman was so angry seeing the situation in cosmology. JimJast (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude, grow up. if you really "solved" this math error, you'd not be sitting around here yapping at Rational Wiki, you'd be giving conferences all over the world, and probably getting nobel prizes. it's the sure sign of a nutter, a liar, or a fundi that you solve things but "can't be bothered to publish" or "no one will take my call" trust me. if the math works out, they'll take your call. as it doesn't, you're just one more lun in the bin.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Waiting, do you ever think before making speeches? Maybe we should wait for an opinion of some grownup who knows a little bit about science with decision about press conferences? JimJast (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If you are part of a real major university physics departments there hundreds of undergrad, as well as many grad students, that go out of their way to be part of research/papers that might possibly become famous (as happens in many departments). They have tons of time on their hands, it doesn't cost anything, and it's great CV material even if it turns out wrong later. The statement that people don't have time to do it is outright false, and I know first hand from spending time in one of the best areas of physics research in the middle of the US before transferring to a business program.
If people won't take your calls anymore I could see, as I wouldn't want to review a paper from a person who pretty well has diarrhea of the mind that always spewed forth insane crap that would waste my time. Considering the paper doesn't even work a problem to completion, or reference Zwicky's formulas at any point, you could not have "fixed" anything.
I have great respect for engineers, as I was an engineering student for a few years during undergrad. I know how hard it is. Now you are just making shit up about me in some sort of persecution complex. ~ Subsound ~ 21:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides, he clearly HAS time on his hands, as he is editing here. we are not exaclty high traffic for math and physics. Why wouldn't you be editing on a science blog, if you really thought what you were saying was ground breaking. sorry, just not buying it, cause i have a brain. NO, i know NOTHING about math or physics. I do however know how the academic world works, and you are on the outside saying "I can't get in", but so have been many famous people. numbers, not degrees or fame or whatever, talk. if you had the numbers, they'd take your call.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
there are a number of popular science publications that would seriously consider a caefully titled paper if the maths works out. A few universities have in-house publications that would be likely to run it also. Hamster (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Very true, using this Wiki seems like a desperation attempt because everyone who works in this field daily thinks it is insane or fraudulent.
Students love to do this, my wife has several citations in papers from professors and PhD students where she vetted and did the grunt work on during her undergrad (some paid, some not). It helped her leverage into a major medical institution, and is now working on medical research projects at one of the largest medical centers in the mountain west. She leveraged her research experience and contacts she made during the process, which every student wants to do. Any professor I have known would answer questions or look over things during office hours or special appointment from any student, or any polite member of the public. One of my professors did so with a member of the public, and in the review was able to become an editor on the project with a big raise at the end (a great book deal with money for the author). For his students work in doing the real grunt work, we got a beer and some pizza...but we were happy.
It doesn't matter if it challenges convention, usually it is better if it does. Even if it's wrong people get their name out in the world and gain notoriety. If it's right then both the author and them become the leaders in the new field and can pretty well name their salary. Unless it's insane or fraudulent, then no one wants to touch it. ~ Subsound ~ 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys sound like talking about a different plnet. I solved the problem of cosmological redshift in Einstein's universe in February 1985 before I even heard about Zwicky and understood Einstains general relativity and all the problems of expanding universe. Then I read Feynman's rant and found experimentaly that he was right about gravity physicists. So asking a cosmologist even to read this one page paper of mine is like asking the Pope to read a one page proof that there is no God. He "knows" that it must be wrong (and even if it's not then it better be since his livelihood depends on it). It is also a matter of faith.

The head of "Gravitation and Cosmology" in my university, when I asked him, "what will you say if it turns out that the geometry of spacetime is non Riemanian" answered "that all what I taught all my life wasn't true". You want me to do it to all old general relativity professors in the world and to all gravity physicists starting just promissing career in cosmology provided they stick to the Big Bang, since there is a chance of a sfowflake in hell for geometry of spacetime being Riemanian and the Big Bang being real and energy being made from nothing as all those people still believe is a fact and you think that all those professionals take it lightly and start leaner diet?

There might have been a biger problem than you might have thought. And possibly it is a reason why this professor promisses me already for several years that he will read my paper as soon as he has time and show me my errors. So far he is still too busy and scientific journals reject my paper without sending to referees. I call it "the Pope syndrome". How do you imagine all those people giving up their careers and change their world views only because some stupid sculptor wrote a one page paper about Einstein universe? Aren't you gyus living in a dream world? Changing worldview takes centuries. Recall how long it took before people started believing that the Earth rotates. Or that aimals evolve. And still not all are convinced it all is true. I can do whatever you advise me so you will see for yourself how it works. JimJast (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right Jim, we do live on a different planet. We live in reality, and you live in crazy town. No professor would ignore their own student, who pays them to teach them (from educational stipends, grunt work, etc)...if they did that money from their pocket book would go away. Let alone other professors (friends of yours to help theirs, others to get an ignored scoop), department chairs (it would make them look bad) and deans (it's their job).
I can see people ignoring your one page raving after reading it the first time, as it contains un-sourced assertions and barely started formulas. A real paper detailing even a small topic needs much more information, a larger topic with math and figures I have written usually hit between 35-50 pages, two friends who just completed their doctorates submitted papers over 1,000 pages plus data on disk. It is more likely if you are actually a student (I find it laughable) that people want you to present more information, but it's rather hard to do so when some one doesn't know what the hell they are talking about in the first place to expound on bullshit. ~ Subsound ~ 13:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Coop[edit]

Hi Jim. The people have spoken. Please do not restore articles that have been deleted by consensus. If you do so again, you will be lose your sysop status. Thanks. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 00:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is already the first axample of the above. People have spoken and they don't want any changes in their world views. JimJast (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not interested. Just don't fucking do it again, okay? Thanks. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So we know that P-Foster is not interested. Who is still interested in reading Jim's paper and understanding it, or at least asking intelligent questions to find out what it is about? Its English is perfect since it was fixed by my friend, a physics PhD who thought the same as you all that after fixing my English everybody and his brother will jump on the band wagon and make illiterate Jim a famous discoverer of Einstein's universe, which follows from a simple math, who should be easily understood by any high school student. Even unnecessarily made too detailed by silly Jim so we cut out a half of the paper. The appendix eksplaining step by step derivation of equation (1) for grandmothers whose math might be little rusted but who still understand the high school calculus. But the appendix is still avalable for folks not as bright as general relativity professors who don't have time for reading appendixes. And acks. Available is even the way of eliminating Einstein's cosmological constant from Einstein's field equation ("the biggest blunder of Einstein's life"). It is available for folks who understand tensor calculus. All available just for asking. So where is the problem now? Wy am I kept in the chicken coop rather than making press conferencess all over the globe? JimJast (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake." -- Nx / talk 07:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nx, How to prove something that no one is interested in? I can prove it to myself, show you the proof, or alleged proof (if you find an error) and then we both know but no one else since no one else is interested in it enough to look at it (and try to understand it). Don't you know how science works? I work in this business for over 25 years ...
Just on Friday (last week) I asked the head of Gravitation and Cosmology "Have you read already my paper? He knows which one since I ask him about it every time I see him, which is at least once a week and he keeps this one page paper already for several years promising me that he'll find an error in it. And his answer was as usual: "No, but I will as soon as I have time". And he is the highest authority in this matter in Poland. Wherever I go with this paper they ask me "has X. seen it". I say "yes, but didn't have time to read it yet". "So we'll read it, just live it here". So by now every physicist in my school (except those honest enough to tell me up front "no time", has one copy and if not s/he could download it from the Internet (if s/he were interested, which obviously is not the case). You may read it from the talk page of my Essay:Gravitation demystified, where Mar asked mi for it (the only guy interested in it here). Any other suggestions? JimJast (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is any amount of Evidence for the Big Bang which you need to refute and have not refuted. Here we want to deal with silly religious ideas, pseudoscience etc and we aren’t interested in your stuff. Your stuff may justify a PhD but is clearly out on a limb. We aren’t physicists in the main and we don’t deal with that type of stuff. You can start your own wiki here and you won’t have to pay anything. Alternatively look for other wiki farms. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Proxima Centauri, Thanks for the info about wiki. As for the necessity of refuting evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis, the most serious problem with this evidence is that it is based on assumption that the universe is expanding. While it is not. To abolish a hypothesis it is enough to point to only one real error in its assumptions, which I did proving that the universe is not expanding. The assumption of it being stationary produces the same Hubble constant, ~70km/s/Mpc (BTW, never officially calculated, which demonstrates the quality of work done to establish the Big Bang as a "theory"). If you may point to any calculation of intrinsic redshift of our universe (dynamical friction of photons) I'll be happy. I didn't find any. I found instead half a dozen other errors in the Big Bang hypothesis, the most serious is non conservation of energy. But one, even small error is enough. Don't agree? JimJast (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
While Proxima Centauri is pondering her answer to my last question (slightly grammatically challenged, so she might decide that answering people who don't know their grammar isn't smart) I'd like to address Subsound's item from 13:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC), which reads "We live in reality, and you live in crazy town. No professor would ignore their own student, who pays them to teach them ..."
Hi Sub, You might be right about the world outside Poland. But as someone noticed before, about the action of his play "... it is in Poland, which means nowhere". So I really live nowhere. This country don't know yet the invention of check book and to pay your bills you have to stand for hours in line at the post office to pay in cash (post offices and cash they already know, the hours come from the post office clerk having to type in your bills into the computer, so even the technical progress makes things worse in Poland). That's why two Polish planes filled up with Polish officials, one with President of Poland and 95 other guys, the other with ones returning from a conference about flight safety, crashed despite being equipped with Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS). Reportedly only two crashes worldwide out of all plains with TAWS. So maybe it is also only like this with Polish professors. That our university has no single Nobel Prize winner in physics ever, may give one a hint. I tried to interest our Rector with my project suggesting a possible NP but she is too busy with attending the inaugurations, as I was told by her secretaries, to see me, and she is a physicist but I'm waiting for date with her already third year. I'll be notified as soon as she has time to talk about NP for our university. I tried already with the Rector of Warsaw Politechnic (school I graduated from in electronics) but he needs an opinion of the present head of Gravitation and Cosmology from the university, who (as you may know) is t busy to read my one page paper explaining why the Big Bang is a fake. I tried Ned Wright too, being very careful not to offend him, asking him to criticise my paper, but for some reason it didn't work neither. No response. The only guy who responded (several times) was Halton Arp who said that they (him and Narlikar) know the same thing as I know so for them it is no big deal :) JimJast (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There are thousand of physicists all over the world. You speak English. Send emails. This may be unkind of me when it comes to the mental health of many innocent physicists, but if it will get you off our backs it's worth it.--ADtalkModerator 11:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
AD, I don't do it, and not to bother you. I just switch to CP where they look like really interested in who is cheating them. For the time being they think it is Atheists but you know it is not true and for them to know it too they have to understand the issues and so they may listen to the Voice of Reason more likely than RW readers who already think that they know that the universe has been created and don't care about the details. To understand, you have to care about the details. As my derivation from the talk page of Essay:Gravitation demystified demonstrates experimentally that you can't use approximations in math (even if you can in science, and its one of the reasons why math is not science).
Since I'm not likely to edit anything here, using (partly) your advice, I might though read possible answers to my question to Proxima Cantauri and some notes by Subsound, one of few guys here interested in details I wanted to share with you my remarks on Nobel Prize, which I think Halton Arp is the guy who should get it in physics since he is the one who first noticed that the universe is not expanding (or at least that there are problems with the cosmological redshift). Then Narlikar joined in and found out that spacetime must be flat and so there are no theoretical reasons for expansion of the universe. But this is already known since Emmy Noether's theorem (for 200 years?) and so the universe has to be stationary. Therefore eternal. Known for 10,000 years?) Einsteins knew it. That's how I know that Mileva Marić must have done all the work and Albert just used her work and left her possibly not wanting to bother with kids. She might have promised him not to tell it to anybody, and that's might be why he gave her his NP. Since NP was sure then, though apparently NP commitee didn't realize how deep the discovery of relativity is and so Albert's NP was for something else, which mightn't make any diff to Mileva. Would it to anybody? So I think it is very likely story and now we might start addressing relativity as Mileva Marić Einstein's theory.
As for my share in it I only showed with Newtonian derivation (not knowing any other at the time), why it has to be so, not knowing yet tensor calculus. If I knew, as Narlikar must have known, it would be obvious from the beginning. That's why it took me 25 years to put all the pieces together. That's why tensor calculus should be taught in high schools. I was clever enough to understand it then (I was still under 19). And there is plenty of other kids who could learn as I could. So I hope the RW will at least participate in educating the public by showing why this public shouldn't believe in creationist story about the universe. Unfortunately in Poland they removed the math from high schools for several years until they dismissed the idiot Catholic Minister of Education there. So Poland is probably lost for NPs at least in exact sciences. But it doesn't matter since asap NP should go to Arp when he's still alive. That's about all I wanted to say before switching the receiving mode on. JimJast (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)