Live data from Hacker News

Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

quantamagazine.org

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#71
post #69
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ, I'm not your professor. Do your own research. You have the skills to read about this stuff. Why do you need me? I'm not trying to convince you to believe in anything. I just wanted to have a conversation about how anti-gravity can or can't be possible, but you're just refusing the conversation altogether. That's just so lazy...

You are either trolling or unwilling or unable to follow simple arguments, choose whatever seems appropriate.

Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..?

Is this how "scientists" treat new theories? Unless they're bundled into a nice package the theory is completely untouchable?

Please don't tell me that's true because that would mean "science" is a joke. It literally means the community can't think for themselves: they need a leader to prove their understanding.

Pathetic. Call me a troll all you want, but I will never be that pathetic.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#72
post #67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?

I am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.

You're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION.

Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone.

No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#73
post #72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.

You're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION. Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone. No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.

Please be civil on HN. There's never a reason to insult and attack a user regardless of the discussion.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#74
post #70
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another form of crazy: trying to force Relativity into a unified field for over a hundred years and getting nowhere. Yeah, you'll "probably" get it one day... What did Einstein use to say? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." BTW, if you can't argue logically, -- which is essentially all I'm getting from your comments: you can't talk about "science" outside of y…

No, I did not say that it needs more research. I said that it's meaningless drivel. And I said that I am capable of discerning that, and that it is easy to discern. You seem not to be able to discern that, and that's unfortunate. All I can do is show you how to do it, which I have attempted. The reason real physicists ignore this guy is because they do 'think like scientists', and they can tell -- easily -- that this…

What specifically makes the theory drivel? Exactly, what is scientifically not matching?

Take your time because I'm pretty sure you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You depend on a government or an academy to think for you because you're so cognitively incompetent.

Let's take a step back and count the number of comments you're arguing without scientific explanation. You might as well be preaching about a religious deity because you're conjuring more faith than logic.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#75
post #73
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION. Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone. No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.

Please be civil on HN. There's never a reason to insult and attack a user regardless of the discussion.

Eh, I don't think it's unfair: this person is openly attacking me for giving attention to a form of untested science -- declaring it "crockpottery".

I honestly feel proud of myself for how much I held back on this lazy person's pathetic logic: "doesn't line up with my beliefs? then it can't be true!"

I'll happily edit my statement that can defend the scientific need to dismiss information with complete prejudice, but I doubt any such logic exists. Why do I have such confidence? Because people that dismiss information without thinking are pathetic.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#76
post #74
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I did not say that it needs more research. I said that it's meaningless drivel. And I said that I am capable of discerning that, and that it is easy to discern. You seem not to be able to discern that, and that's unfortunate. All I can do is show you how to do it, which I have attempted. The reason real physicists ignore this guy is because they do 'think like scientists', and they can tell -- easily -- that this…

What specifically makes the theory drivel? Exactly, what is scientifically not matching? Take your time because I'm pretty sure you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You depend on a government or an academy to think for you because you're so cognitively incompetent. Let's take a step back and count the number of comments you're arguing without scientific explanation. You might as well be preaching…

It's drivel because the individual sentences of the 'theory' are just .. meaningless. Here's an absolutely trivial exercise to demonstrate it: let's find a paper he wrote and see if it makes any sense. (Turns out these are hard to find, because most of his work is apparently creating websites about how great he is.)

Take a random paper I found: http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0006v1.pdf

"It conceives subatomic particles to be Turing wave patterns that self-organize within a subquantum medium that functions as an open reaction-diffusion system."

This is meaningless. But maybe if I read on I'll find out that it's just extremely poorly written?

"Under the right conditions, the concentrations of the variable reactants of these reaction systems spontaneously self-organize into stationary reactiondiffusion wave patterns called Turing patterns, so named in recognition of Alan Turing who in 1952 was the first to point out their importance for biological morphogenesis. "

Also meaningless.

"In a three-dimensional volume we would expect that a supercritical Brusselator reaction-diffusion system would give rise to a periodic structure having a Gaussian central core surrounded by a pattern of concentric spherical shells of declining amplitude"

Gibberish.

"Etherons in this reaction system play a morphogenetic role similar to Turing's morphogens."

Gibberish

Etc.

This paper says nothing meaningful. It's not precise enough to be parsed into predictions about the universe. He'll tell you that it predicts stuff, but the words and equations don't. They don't say anything that can be unambiguously mapped to predictions, equations, or statements of any sort. I could throw all these words - etherons, Brusselators, Turing waves, etc into a random text generator, and the result would be as meaningful as his actual writing.

That or, it has content but it's so obfuscated under meaningless jargon with no meaningful explanations, no simple sentences, no ability to explain a single point lucidly, that it effectively says nothing.

Either way, there is no reason to take it seriously if it can't formulate meaningful and communicative English sentences.

Also, it's extremely weird to accuse me of depending on a government to think for me when I've generated like a dozen carefully argued rational thoughts here, including all sorts of scientific explanation. You're just.. ignoring them, and attacking me. You have to stop that.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#77
post #76
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically makes the theory drivel? Exactly, what is scientifically not matching? Take your time because I'm pretty sure you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You depend on a government or an academy to think for you because you're so cognitively incompetent. Let's take a step back and count the number of comments you're arguing without scientific explanation. You might as well be preaching…

It's drivel because the individual sentences of the 'theory' are just .. meaningless. Here's an absolutely trivial exercise to demonstrate it: let's find a paper he wrote and see if it makes any sense. (Turns out these are hard to find, because most of his work is apparently creating websites about how great he is.) Take a random paper I found: http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0006v1.pdf "It conceives subatomic particles to…

Complaining about linguistic specifications is not arguing rational thoughts; it's arguing laziness.

Seriously, concede that you don't understand the theory and therefore can't make certain judgements (because you arguably can't think for yourself), or STFU. Why is this is so complicated?

Do you have a unified field theory? No? Then by definition you literally don't understand how the universe works. Ironically, you should use that fact to accept why you might be wrong about Subquantum Kinetics.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#78
post #71
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are either trolling or unwilling or unable to follow simple arguments, choose whatever seems appropriate.

Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..? Is this how "scientists" treat new theories? Unless they're bundled into a nice package the theory is completely untouchable? Please don't tell me that's true because that would mean "science" is a joke. It literally means the community can't think for themse…

Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..?

I didn't call you a troll, I just considered the possibility because that would explain pretty well the way the discussion happened, but I may return to this later. And yes, I expect you to have answers. You are defending this theory, you say that this theory should be taken serious and you dismiss all the objections brought up, you better have reasons and answers to support this.

But let's back up, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not trolling and that you really can not see why this theory is nonsense. I will take the position of the author of the theory and I will try to put you in my position by making up the following scenario.

Imagine we meet for the first time and talk a bit about the internet. At some point I say that I want to explain to you how the internet works. You know, there are those trucks with wings. They are loaded with high-pitched blue bananas every time you press a key on your keyboard. Then that guy in China walks into the store for hexagonal green steel fish and...

You may never have studied computer science but you are now certainly questioning my sanity. You may yourself not exactly know how the internet works, but you are damn sure that it does not work the way I am trying to tell you. Even my sentences don't really make sense, high-pitched describes sounds and I am using it to describe a color. And blue bananas? Maybe genetic engineering, not totally impossible but as far as you know that is not a thing.

But I insist, yes, that is the way the internet works, at least consider the possibility. You may give it some more thought, maybe if we are living in a really messed up version of the matrix and the machines enjoy trolling humans, maybe in such a world the internet could work with trucks with wings. You would suggest to drive around SD cards or hard disks on those trucks, but maybe blue bananas are just fine in that world.

A fraction of a second later you are back with your thoughts in the real world, may explanation of the internet is obviously complete utter bullshit. You are not sure what makes me say what I said about the workings of internet. Am I trying to troll you? Am I insane? Am I just really dumb? Anyway, you tell me no, that is not how the internet works.

You don't provide any explanation because what I just said is so obviously wrong to everyone with the slightest knowledge about the internet, there is no point in providing an explanation. I complain, you can not just dismiss my theory of the workings of the internet without any justification.

You don't even know where to start, how do you argue against things like high-pitched blue that don't make sense to begin with? After some thought you ask me about the guy in China. What is his name? And what do I mean with China, obviously the borders of China changed throughout history? At least these are some bits of the theory one can sensibly talk about and maybe you can build from there and demonstrate to me that my theory is not self-consistent or consistent with reality.

My answer? What the heck, do your own research, why do I have to explain everything to you in detail? But about China, maybe it was a guy from Japan, I am not yet sure about that. You still don't know how I came up with this bullshit and why I am telling it to you, but you are certainly not going to stick around any longer wasting your time in a pointless discussion that leads nowhere.

That certainly is a bit exaggerated at times but really not that much. If this doesn't help you to understand why I responded in the way I did, then I don't know what will, and I kind of doubt anything will at all. And because I have to consider the possibility that you are trolling me, sitting behind your screen and having a good laugh about how you just wasted another hour of the time of some random guy on the internet, I will not continue this discussion much if any longer. I actually don't even know how to respond not knowing whether you are trolling or whether you are serious and I don't know which one would be worse.

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#79
post #72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.

You're pathetic. You're too lazy to think outside your echo chamber, so you completely disregard it BECAUSE YOU NEED GROUP THINK TO HAVE ANY OPINION. Again, I think you're the most pathetic type of person to exist: a person too lazy and afraid to think outside their own comfort zone. No? You're comfortable making scientific critiques with absolute no research? Then that is literally more pathetic.

As was pointed out, this comment is absolutely not up to the standards of civility that the guidelines ask for. They're actually independent of what you're replying to—we especially don't have permission to make bad threads worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem

#80
post #77
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's drivel because the individual sentences of the 'theory' are just .. meaningless. Here's an absolutely trivial exercise to demonstrate it: let's find a paper he wrote and see if it makes any sense. (Turns out these are hard to find, because most of his work is apparently creating websites about how great he is.) Take a random paper I found: http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0006v1.pdf "It conceives subatomic particles to…

Complaining about linguistic specifications is not arguing rational thoughts; it's arguing laziness. Seriously, concede that you don't understand the theory and therefore can't make certain judgements (because you arguably can't think for yourself), or STFU. Why is this is so complicated? Do you have a unified field theory? No? Then by definition you literally don't understand how the universe works. Ironically, you…

Nah. I am confident in my ability to identify a coherent theory if I see one, and I am sure that that ability would hold up under scrutiny (say, if a physicist prepared a test of some coherent and incoherent theories and tested me to see if I could tell them apart). So I'm concluding this theory is incoherent according to my fairly well-informed ability to analyze theories.

It's not that "I don't understand it". It's just that it's meaningless. If it's meaningless as English language, it's definitely meaningless as physics. And there is nothing "lazy" about that argument.

Also, clearly I am thinking for myself since I am writing all my thoughts out for you. So that's a pretty pointless attack.

There is absolutely no requirement for a person to have a UFT in order to be able to criticize other people's writing. This is obvious.

Post reply on HN