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

Fyxe wrote: We are going in circles. You ask for evidence and I give evidence and you say that's not evidence and I say yes it is.

This is no longer productive (if it ever was) anymore. Just saying it's not evidence is not showing anyone why it's not evidence.

Correct. That is why I do not "just say" it is not evidence. Instead, I explained before you made any attempts to present it what would qualify as evidence, and then after you presented things that did not I explained exactly which criteria they failed and in what way. I agree this is not productive. You are either being unattentive or deliberately ignoring any attempts at openness or reasonableness I throw at you, only to then go on lying about how it all went down.

You have presented no counter theories or arguments to refute my claims.

Case in point.

In fact all you do really do is turn into bugs bunny and go off chasing carrots of illusion on your widdle wabbit twails!

Cute how you can be condescending or insulting all week, but the instant I dare point out how you are being blatantly dishonest as every reader of this thread can verify, you whine about how rude I'm being and how very very dare I in adorable little shouty-caps.

If dark matter is not the ethereal universe interacting with the real world then please tell me what it is oh mighty smiter of "demonstration" of the facts of my theory?

I never said that it wasn't. It's your model, not mine. Until it makes any sort of testable claim there is literally nothing there for me to dispute. I'm only objecting to calling it a theory before it makes any.
You'll claim victory if I say I don't know what dark matter is. I know this, because you have done so before. But if someone were to do in kind, you'd immediately see the flaw in that reasoning. If I were to say that regular matter was Santa-Clause essence to ballance the excessive Christmas-energy it takes to warp time enough to reach the homes of all well-behaved children one December night, and then challenge you to explain to me what else matter could be, if not that, you'd rightly think I'm being silly, and arguing poorly. Yet, this is no different than what you are doing. Just because I don't know the number of marbles in a jar, doesn't mean that you get to be correct claiming that it is an even one without any evidence that indeed it is.
I think if your model generated testable predictions, you wouldn't be weazeling around the issue and gotten on with naming one already. Instead you are trying to get philosophical or personal with me and to an extent I play along. But at the end of the day, you only do this because you have nothing better to offer in this discussion.
To stick with the marbles example, what you are doing is this. You say that a theory of marble packing was revealed to you by mystical means, and if pressed for a prediction you say your theory "predicts" that marble jars exist at all. "Well", I respond, "but any number of models are consistent with marble jars existing. How do I test your theory of marble packing?" And this is where things diverge between a reasonable reply and your own.
Someone with an appreciation for rational discourse and critical thinking would concede that yes, indeed, that "prediction" was not a testable one. They would say that the theory also predicts for a given set of jar and marble properties, the number would be expected within a certain range in no less than some specified fraction of all tests. They would say that not only can we just idly name a likely number based on the theory, but rather there exists a test we can perform - pouring the marbles out and counting them, for instance - to find out whether or not the theory is useful in the sense that it makes accurate predictions.
You on the other hand went the completely opposite direction. Your "theory" is beyond reproach. It is not just a capital-T Theory, it is also the one and only capital-T True Theory that is supported by all of the "evidence" not in that it comprises of facts indicative of your idea, but because of there being any facts to speak of in the first place. By the attitude you might as well be presenting a neo-presuppositional argument for the existence of God. And upon a query for the testable predictions you offer something that is neither testable nor a prediction, and then demand that I offer a theory of my own that is as capital-T perfect as yours, completely forgetting how you opened the thread "to answer questions for Gisteron".
At this point, I think if you had anything, if there was any "there" there to speak of, you would have long gotten on with it and not weazeled around it with dishonesty, evasions, whining, and lies. The only reason you keep wasting my time and your own is that you are far too prideful to concede any point made from an interlocuting position and save yourself a sliver of dignity. Honesty is not a part of honour in your view. The admission of a flaw or a mistake you see as a far greater disgrace than would be a deliberate mischaracterization of any person, idea, or event that transpired for all to see. That's why there is no getting through to you on anything, no matter how mild the attempt, and that is why you can't stop lying about everything and everyone, possibly hard enough even to believe it yourself.
Good night.

forceuser wrote: I get it and I understand why you would think in your mind everybody else is making things up are living in a fantasy world.

Just a heads up one of these years you're going to be shown The books you have learned and memorized did not have all the information
And some more straight out lies just to mislead you.

Who are you talking to? Who said anything like that or expressed any belief like that? Who is learning or memorizing books? What are you talking about?

One last thing you always find what you're looking for. So just be real careful what you're looking for.

Eh. Sometimes I find what I'm looking for. Most times I am not. The latter are the exciting times. The times when I'm wrong, the times when I can get to learn something I did not before. The times I find what I was looking for feel kind of dull, if I'm honest. Sometimes they even feel troubling, because they feel like maybe there was a bias I did not control for, a carefulness I failed to exact properly. But yea, sometimes things turn out just as expected. The most thrilling times, though, are the ones I get to learn something noone did before, but those are even more rare than the positive expectations. But yea, good point. One should never be too sure of oneself, lest one see the everything one way and overlook all others.

Wow impressive how many times you called me a weasel in your reply gist. You know what, your right. I'm a weasel. Eep eep, is what a weasel says but I have written much more than just this. So I guess your wrong again.

You assume so much dont you! I have never claimed I'm logical or critical or a fancy scientist or even human either I suppose. You have ferreted me out gist, lol I'm a weasel! Get it?

My theory is here plain to see for all weasel kind that are travelers and philosophers of the meta physics of 10 dimensions. You must must be a what? A fox? An eagle? Natural predator of my weasley kind? Which one?

Do you think just because you fancy yourself a predator of my kind it makes you better than us? Superior in some way because you get to fly around this board unchecked and preying on the poor weasels that wander in here thinking it might be a place of safety and refuge? Only to find your claws around their throat?

Proud of yourself are ya? Hanging out in a place of philosophical pursuit and instead of engaging in a discussion of such things you delight in ripping throats and rendering others free of their guts with your sharp beak.

Feel good to be an ____ on a board you have no interest in other than to tear others apart gist?

This is MY theory and you asked for details, I gave them and you tell me how stupid it is and how weaselly I am. Are you really interested in the force or the questions about why we are here or are you just an abusive troll?

Be nice Fyxe.

You certainly don't have to agree with, much less like Gist (or anyone else here), but this is a friendly enough community, and whilst I can't say I have the interest in reading every post in every thread, I'd say most folk have treated you fairly and equitably.

It's unbecoming to play the victim, or point fingers to nominate someone as a villain....


If I were a more cynical sort of man, I would say you created this thread so you could have a fight and then cry foul....Gisteron has been frustratingly level and measured in response, wouldn't you say?

No fingers and no victim. I didnt call any one a liar or a weasel.

I started this not to start a fight but because gist wanted me to.

Not sure why he wanted me to, hes never presented even one idea. Just keeps telling me my idea is not capable of being true or real at all.

He wont tell me why, just that my idea is that and then he wont replace any ideas with his own.

I started this thread to discuss ideas of the force and how its structured and wanted gist to do the same, talk about his ideas of the force and how they differ from mine and what might be better ideas. All he can do though is asked me all this weird stuff about making things false and all that. Why would I ever make a idea to make it false?

Gist doesn't necessarily need to pose a counter-idea to test yours. In fact that could be dangerous, since it works on the supposition that one of the competing ideas must be "right" when it is highly likely that any two (or three or three hundred) proposed ideas on any given subject are wrong.

I didnt call any one a liar or a weasel.

The search function determined that that is incorrect. In all caps too

Fyxe wrote: This is MY theory and you asked for details, I gave them and you tell me how stupid it is...

Aaand here we go with yet more lies. The first two questions I posed in this thread were:

1. Seeing as only some string theories and only string theories speak of ten-dimensional spaces, and remembering that string theories make up no significant portion of the academic study of physics and have absolutely zero industrial application, in what sense is it correct to say as you did in post #345705 that "a lot of physics has theory of 10 dimensions"?
2. Which points of intersubjectively verifiable data that were positively indicative of your "theory" (i.e. evidence in the only sense of the word that can possibly matter in the context of physics) were you referring to when you said that there was "much evidence for this structure in physics" in post #345705?

All other questions were followups or queries for clarification of what ever you responded to after I asked these in post #348643 on page 2 of this thread. Notice how neither of them are an inquiry into "details" about the contents of your "theory". You presented it in all of the detail I could wish for. My questions were what evidence you were speaking of when you said that your "theory" was supported by any and what "a lot of" significance you said it has to the study of nature.
I also never called either your "theory", or its "details" stupid. Not in this thread, and not in others. If you don't want to be called a liar, quit lying. If you want to keep lying, get used to being called out for it. It's not rocket science.

Fyxe wrote: I started this not to start a fight but because gist wanted me to.

Not sure why he wanted me to, hes never presented even one idea. Just keeps telling me my idea is not capable of being true or real at all.

Good grief, will you post a single message without a lie anymore? I never said I wanted you to start this thread, I didn't ask you to do it, and I didn't push you to do it. I made that suggestion months ago because you mentioned that physics was compatible with, even provided evidence of your idea and I felt that it would have been unfair to derail another thread for this purpose. You agreed, and all I did now was remind you of that ambition you had back in November.
I also never said that your idea was not capable of being true or real. Not in this thread, and not in others. If you don't want to be called a liar, quit lying. If you want to keep lying, get used to being called out for it. It's not rocket science.

He wont tell me why, just that my idea is that and then he wont replace any ideas with his own.

I explained every objection I voiced, I even explained every thought process that went into every question I raised. I did not tell you why your idea was not capable of being true or real, because I never said that it was not capable of being true or real. I did, however, explain clearly and in multiple ways just about everything I said in response to you.

I started this thread to discuss ideas of the force and how its structured and wanted gist to do the same, talk about his ideas of the force and how they differ from mine and what might be better ideas. All he can do though is asked me all this weird stuff about making things false and all that. Why would I ever make a idea to make it false?

Interesting. I was under the impression that this was your multidimensional physics thread that you created just to answer questions for me. That this was my big chance. That I could ask away and that you would read and answer my questions. It's almost like this is exactly what you said in post #348619, the OP of this thread:

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. Anyone else can participate as well I guess...

But maybe I was mistaken. Maybe this was not about physics just because you said it would be. And maybe I should not have been asking questions after you invited me to do so.

Also, matters of falsifiability are not "weird stuff about making things false and all that". It's not about disproving anything. It's about making scientifically meaningful statements. It's why maths isn't science. If a model is unfalsifiable, then every observation can be reinterpreted to match it, thus rendering it useless as a means to predict future observations. It's not that a model must be "made false", it's that there must be some conceivable scenario in which it would fail, even if such an observation never actually occurs. If all a model "predicts" is some vague tautology like "you may or may not observe something", then we are no better off with it than we'd be without. We already know that everything is either a potato or not a potato. That's not evidence of anything. How you can think you understand physics, but at the same time understand what makes an idea scientific so profoundly poorly that you think Popper's falsifiability criterion is some "weird stuff about making things false" is - to put it in milder terms than one might - astounding!

JamesSand wrote:

I didnt call any one a liar or a weasel.

The search function determined that that is incorrect. In all caps too

Actually, no, unless you're talking of another thread, that was him emphasizing passages from a quote of my post...

Actually, no, unless you're talking of another thread, that was him emphasizing passages from a quote of my post...

I believe it was in another thread, yes. I figured, as it was a defence of behaviour in general, rather than the outcome of a particular debate or topic, that it would be tolerable evidence...

Hmm wow the truly innocent do get caught every time dont they. It's like I'm on the playground and every day a kid walks up to me and hits me but everyone ignores it. Then one day the kid hits me and I finally hit back and everyone points their finger and says that I hit someone and I'm the one to get in trouble.

So yea I cant answer your questions gist until you clarify. Exactly what is "a lot" to you and why have you decided that this "alot" number is not arbitrary enough to be a good term when I say a lot of physics? Same question goes for "much" what exactly is much to you and how have you determined that my evidence is insufficient to be called "much"?

Are these terms a lot and much technical science terms I'm unaware of?

And if your stalking me from thread to thread claiming I'm off topic and that I had promised to do something to you that I hadn't done and you were wondering why is not asking me to start a thread about this I dont know what it is.

It's ok gist you can keep calling me a weasel and a liar all you want. It doesnt seem to matter here that you regularly violate the terms of service here with your personal attacks over and over. Discussing people not subjects it seems is allowed after all.

This is my thread and gist doesnt want to be civil it seems so I'm modifying the paramaters of the discussion for any that might be interested. It's now the multi dimensional metaphysics thread. There are no strict science standards that need to be followed here and no exact secret science terms like a lot and much need to be defined. We shall take them as layman terms just like everything else here and we shall discuss theories of the structure of the force from philosophical terms and ideas of experience of the person talking. What I presented is my idea. Does anyone have any comment?