The matter? What might that be?

The fact that not a single person has even attempted to respond to my questions about the virtual half-silvered mirror experiment?

The fact that not a single person has been able to defend or support the article or refute my criticisms?

Or the fact that instead, folks have resorted to the childish thumbing down, deletions, and asking me not to post in an attempt to censor me.

EDIT: removed offensive statement

Well, DO THE MATH! If that is what is important to you.

Stop nodding like a bobblehead when some 'credible authority' or fellow LW poster says something! Geesh, Desrtopa, I thot you had more sense than that! THINK FOR YOURSELF!

" The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science." - Schwinger [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger#Life_and_career]

What? Why?

Please ignore, if you're as closed as the rest. This is a forum open to all. If not, the mods can ban me. I'll not just go away because you are uncomfortable for some reason.

I wish EY would come straighten you guys out!

Firstly the crank dot net site and the not the crackpot files are full of it! John Biaz' scientific paper "Quantum Gravity and the Algebra of Tangles" fails by his own criteria.

Here's a breakdown from a friend of mine that took the effort to grade his paper:

(1) A -5 point starting credit.

(10) 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

(11) 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

" Leonard Susskind: Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics, Stanford University" [6] [7] " Career History: B.S., 1962, City College of New York..." [8]

(8) 5 points for each mention of 'Einstein,' 'Hawkins' [sic] or 'Feynman' " Many, if not all, of the most distinguished theoretical physicists in the world -- Steven Weinberg, Edward Witten, John Schwarz, Joseph Polchinski, Nathan Seiberg, Juan Maldacena, David Gross, Savas Dimopoulos, Andrei Linde, Renata Kallosh... Einstein's four dimensional elastic space-time"

(19) 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a 'paradigm shift'.

(23) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. " Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics"

(24) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

" John Horgan, the man who famously declared The End of Science shortly & before the two greatest cosmological discoveries since the Big Bang, has now come forth to tell us that the world's leading physicists and cognitive scientists are wasting their time. Why? Because they are substituting difficult-to-understand and often shockingly unintuitive concepts for 'everyman' common sense. Whose common sense? John Horgan's (admittedly a non-scientist) I presume."

(26) 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. " the infinite dimensional Hilbert space of quantum mechanics; the difficult mathematics of string theory; and, if necessary, multiple universes. When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be created."

(33) 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

" It was used against Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg, and even today is being used against Darwin by the right wing agents of 'intelligent design' "

(36) 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.

(30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

And Rennie of not the crackpot files is a joke too! Don't even get me started on those guys.

Myself and another person had a very detailed debate (actually discussion) with a government scientist who designs the GPS sats and the atomic clocks they use. We soundly defeated his puny GR arguments. If you would like to continue the discussion there, I can link you to it.

KOM, don't take my word for it ...do the math yourself instead of relying on "credible authorities."

"When you reply to one of my comments, the letterbox under my username lights up in red, and it won't go away until I click on it, which links directly to the comment."

Well, click and then close your eyes!

"Trying to hold a discussion with you has so far proven to be fruitless as well as frustrating"

Well, I've got something out of it and others have as well. What I have learned is that intelligent people can be close minded. Academic type folks, especially. Anyone that has different ideas is shunned, ridiculed and censored (Not just in this forum with thumbs and deletions either).

I have also learned that philosophers and mathematicians like to start things like Amps & Configs, but can't handle any discussions involving real physics. So it hasn't been fruitless at all.

All in all, the reactions here have been very similar to the way religionists react. And yes, I agree it is frustrating when smart or educated persons can't back up anything they say, or think that they don't need to, so they end up resorting to censorship.

BTW, you're not as smart or educated as you think you are! Anyways, good luck with that denial thing you got going on there!

I can't start my own thread, because I have been unable to accumulate enough points or whatever...

"Please stop trying to continue this conversation."

Please resist the urge to respond. No one makes you read it, or respond. When you see my name, don't click. Simple as that.

Meanwhile, if you want to define the terms used in configs and amps, we can actually get down to testing the hypothesis.

Nah, the GPS argument came up several times in the course of our conversation, not just in reference to Mathis. The reality is that satellites don't crash to earth. This doesn't mean GR is correct if there are better explanations.

...

"the model Miles Mathis is claiming which issues completely different predictions."

... 1) Miles refutes SR, GR and most of QM and QED using the math. ...

2) I do this conceptually, logically and consistently w/o any math.

Take your pick.

Besides, anyone following the thread will clearly see that Richards link was soundly defeated by another mathematician!

For fairness to Miles. Here is a 3rd party website offering objective discussion (unlike EX Falso IMO):

“I may or may not be a crackpot, but you will not be able to decide that question based on my confidence or the fact that I think I know something. If I am factually wrong about everything, I am a crackpot, no matter how confident I am or am not. If I am factually right about some important things, I am not a crackpot, no matter how little you like my style. To put it another way, the truth is not up for a vote. It is not a personality contest. The majority has nothing to say about it, since the majority knows nothing about the question at hand.”

(Miles being quoted, along with a rebuff of EX Falso here:) [http://sagacityssentinel.wordpress.com/tag/miles-mathis/]

Destropa: ...snip... to point out a single instance of failure, GPS satellites, rather than being geosynchronous, would crash into the earth. "

Of course, I think there are better explanations for why GPS works than what GR is offering, but since this keeps coming up, I thot I'd give you this for your consideration:

"Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all! "

[http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm]

Hilarious! You even give spam thumbs down!

ADDED: There you go...I'm a real target!