multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

Alright, time for a fully personal post, I guess.


There is nothing I said that was inappropriate, in my opinion. You have been insulting, mocking and condescending, uncharitable, and dishonest since the beginning and I owe you neither kindness nor apologies, even for my tone.


For instance, I did counter several of your arguments in my post #348677. You elected to call it verbose, showed no sign of aknowledgement of those points, and proceeded to twist your initial ones so as to evade the responses I gave.
In my most recent post, too, I have been responding to almost every part of your last one, and yet you have now elected to overlook all of that and whine on about how mean-worded you feel I am becoming.


Another lie is that you presented data. You did not. You presented testimony of personal revelation well after I had already specified clearly what would count as evidence. But just as I predicted you would, you pretend now like I'm the one with the unreasonable demands and dismissive attitude towards attempts at meeting them.


And on the subject of cheating, that is what you did after there was no honest way to salvage your claim that something vaguely similar in at least terminology was a part of "a lot of" physics because I pointed out that it is, by the looks of it, part of a few versions of one area that happens to have zero experimental research to back it up and zero technological applications exploiting it. So once that was disposed with, you resorted to reframe it into some kind of "true from a certain point of view" if one were to reinterpret every effort as being "ultimately" what ever you claimed.


Yes, that's dishonest, and sleazy, and I have no qualms about calling you out on it. Whether I'm a bad person is for others to decide, but I am a generous one, and a patient one as all can attest looking just at the interactions between the two of us. And as you do your best to stretch it and to spark my ire, I daresay I am keeping composure and treating you with more decency than I have seen come back to me. Meanwhile, your blood is figuritively boiling, by the looks of it, what with the capitalization and excessive punctuation, and for no reason whatsoever. If memory serves, you said in the original post

Fyxe wrote: This is my multidimensional physics thread that I created just to answer questions for Gisteron.

Well my friend, this is your big chance!! Ask away and I shall read and answer your questions.

And yet here we are, listening to your dodging questions and crying about being called out for failing to keep your own announcement.


If you wish to discontinue this, by all means, do. I was under no illusions that this is how this was going to go, because as it did has been your MO pretty much the entire time anyway. It all comes down to ego, I reckon. I have a lot of it, I can admit as much, and a good chunk of it is probably unearned. I'd be a hypocrite, too, were I to try and lecture people about the virtues of restraint or humility. Thus I try not to.

This entire thread seems pointless since people aren't agreeing on how evidence works, what is science, and basic fundamentals which underly the entire discussion.
I know gist made a nice post/thread about logical distinctions between not and negation, so if it's a matter of ignorance, check it out. Fyxe you can't disagree with the rules which everyone professionally involved in logic (or really any sort of truth related field) uses and expect us to psychically understand your process and accept the ludicrous fact patterns which you offer up without any substantiative proof (you need more sources and methodology than "trust me bro")

Well here we are. I have exactly layed out my theory and I have given evidence to support its possible existence. All I have gotten back is garbage, bad language, insults and rabbit trails.

I think case closed? Thank you Gist for proving my every claim of you.

Here are just a few. Any of these areas could be a lifetime of study. and I devote myself to studying as much of them as I can but my knowledge will never be complete so I keep going. Unlike my opponent turned troll Gist who would rather call me a liar and insult me.

String Theory of 10 dimensions
dark energy
dark matter
NDE (near death experiences)
Past life recall (including actual provable events and places and details)
Ethereal travel that includes physical evidence by observation of other places

My most personal one:
Meeting my spirit guide and ascended master in the flesh in Alaska. After he left this plane I have kept in touch with him and we speak often. He teaches me about the structure of reality among many other things.

You know just so you have another perspective I would recommend researching the mind, how memories are made up, how the mind is influenced, especially when looking at past life recall and near death experiences.
It can be fascinating work and can help you see a different side.

Not saying your wrong just the science of the mind is useful too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(esotericism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_plane

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology#Esoteric_cosmology

Fyxe wrote: I have exactly layed out my theory...

It's not a theory (in the appropriate sense given the thread's title and central topic) if it doesn't make testable (and successful) predictions.

... and I have given evidence to support its possible existence.

Nobody disputes the existence of your "theory". Nobody asked for evidence of its existence. The only evidence you were asked to present was evidence supporting the claims themselves. You did not provide any evidence (in the appropriate sense given the thread's title and central topic), ever. You did make, by my counting, four offerings. However, by the criteria for evidence within this discussion I introduced implicitly in post #348643 and listed explicitly in post #348677, the items you submitted fail to qualify as evidence in the following manner:

item	fails criterion	reason
your personal revelation from a "spirit guide" you have special, personal access to	2	Nobody beside you has genuine access to your personal experience. Even if you were to record them, shy of trusting your claim nobody has the means to confirm that your record or report of the revelation corresponds to any external state of affairs or event.
a lie about our capacity to assess dark matter and dark energy mathematically	2	Even a superficial review of relevant scientific literature or even popular science sources, including the ones you linked, reveals that both dark matter and dark energy can and have been quantified in their impact with some precision. Not only would someone fail at verifying the point you submitted, anyone with a passing interest in the topic would find a blunt disconfirmation of your claim the instant they bothered looking into it in any depth.
a distraction from physics towards the ontology of dark matter and dark energy	1	What things "are" is not a scientific question. It is not within the goals or capacity of physical research to end up with answers to questions of ontology. We know as well what regular matter "is" as we do what dark matter "is": Namely, not at all. We can complain about this all night, but it is not any sort of data point recorded and thus unfit to be submitted as scientific evidence.
the observation that the total mass of so far detectable massive objects in galaxies are insufficient to warrant their cohesion under classical models of gravitation	4	No part of your spheres of existence is indicated by the limitations of the standard model of particle physics or of GTR, nor does your model predict galactic cohesion. To say that "it is because the Force holds things together" is in no way technically distinguishable from saying that "it is because dark matter holds things together". All your model does is replace the label, but not the content. So while this is a genuine observation that can be verified as such, and one that is unaccounted for by existing theories, it is not evidence of your model because it fails to indicate your model any stronger than it does competing ones.

All I have gotten back is garbage, bad language, insults and rabbit trails.

Bad language? Really? When? From whom?

Gisteron, I suggest you stop learning all those languages and instead try concentrating on your comprehension of just one, english, this is in your best interest because it might help you to stop misunderstanding EVERYTHING I have said!

In addressing your points.

It is a theory, my theory of the nature of the hidden reality of the universe.

All the evidence I submitted was in support of the theory not a proof the theory exists.
(not even sure what this is about exepct deflection again on your part)

My Spirit Guide is a traveller, His name is Vesper and he spends time on this plane as well from time to time. If you want to meet him you can. I have met him a few times in flesh and others have met him as well.

I have NEVER said your maths has nothing to prove dark matter. In fact I used YOUR very maths to prove to you that dark matter does exist and that beyond some scribbles on a paper (maths) you have no idea what it is. just some "stuff" flaoting out there to make your pet theories work like gravity and stuff. Im not even saying you are wrong, just that you dont know what it is and I think I do.

Let me know when string theory becomes a part of physics. By your cliam its apparently not so...
Oh wait... IT IS A PART OF PHYSICS!!!! oh my goodness, how embarrassing for you Gist!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

a place where.. wait for it... partical physics cant apply!! OMG, why are you telling me i violated particle physics when all of quantum mechanics also does the same thing!

Try again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Fyxe wrote: Gisteron, I suggest you stop learning all those languages and instead try concentrating on your comprehension of just one, english, this is in your best interest because it might help you to stop misunderstanding EVERYTHING I have said!

Except of course I quote what you say, so everyone can check if I'm understanding it correctly, while you keep lying about what both of us have said... Also funny how you say I'm oh so insulting towards you, yet here you are, condescending again. Also, I spend no time learning "all those" languages, if you must know. From time to time I ask to give me a break because English just happens to be my third. What's your excuse, though?

In addressing your points.

It is a theory, my theory of the nature of the hidden reality of the universe.

An idea, perhaps, a guess. But this thread is about physics, the discipline of studying nature, not about wild guesses and esotericism. A theory is a model the predictions of which match observations to within the likewise predicted margins of error. Your... construction, for lack of a better term, doesn't even make any predictions, by the looks of it. It is not a theory, then, by definition.

All the evidence I submitted was in support of the theory not a proof the theory exists.
(not even sure what this is about exepct deflection again on your part)

To clarify, since it seems you have trouble reading me quoting you, you said that you "have exactly layed out my theory and I have given evidence to support its possible existence" (post #348713). But please, carry on lecturing me about the virtues of mastering the English language.

I have NEVER said your maths has nothing to prove dark matter. In fact I used YOUR very maths to prove to you that dark matter does exist and that beyond some scribbles on a paper (maths) you have no idea what it is. just some "stuff" flaoting out there to make your pet theories work like gravity and stuff.

I have no idea what anything is "beyond some scribbles on a paper". What's your point?

Im not even saying you are wrong, just that you dont know what it is and I think I do.

Well, congratulations. This thread is about physics. "What it is" is completely irrelevant. The only form of "knowledge" that has any weight in this discussion is the sort that has practical application, i.e. the sort that makes testable predictions that match observations to within predicted margins of error. Take all the pride you wish from your special knowledge, but if this is a discussion about physics, bringing up ontology and boasting solutions to it is nothing but a distraction from the topic. And we have frankly well enough of those without that, too.

Let me know when string theory becomes a part of physics. By your cliam its apparently not so...

By which specific claim of mine do you reckon that? I do not recall anything that would even imply so. The most you could point to, if I'm being generous, is that the way I defined "theory" would entail that some or all of string theory is not a scientific theory, at least by that definition. But this is not a statement about the value or importance of string theory, it is a matter of terminology and classification. By that definition it is in fact not a theory, with no value judgement at this point. This is not a new, or an outdated, or an obscure or unfair criticism either. A lack of practically testable predictions is the single most purely scientific criticism any idea competing for relevance in science can face, and it is one of the central weak points of string theory, even referenced by the Wikipedia article you went on to link after the quoted passage. But no, I never said or implied that it wasn't part of physics, and that's why you cannot quote me saying anything of the sort. There is nothing here to embarass me.

a place where.. wait for it... partical physics cant apply!! OMG, why are you telling me i violated particle physics...

I didn't.

... when all of quantum mechanics also does the same thing!

It doesn't. Why do you keep saying such nonsense? How come I with barely any clue of my own am left to think that you have none at all? Did you spend one second actually learning any QM or particle physics before you started lecturing people on the internet about it?

Try again.

Well, at least one of us is trying...


I mean, there you are, linking to a Wikipedia article about what a dimension is, and the first thing it says is exactly one of the usages for the term I referenced in my post #345126 but of course nothing like the sort of magical "parallel universe" type thing your "theory" proposes in such multitude. The only other place those are found are wooster preachings and science fiction and fantasy novels.