# Favorite quotes

#### russ_watters

Mentor
shintashi said:
chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as

"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.

A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein....
Speaking of ignorance, Einstein was a relatively successful physicist before he was a patent clerk.

Yes, the mind is like a sponge. For some reason, some people in their teens choose to fill that sponge with crap and thats how crackpots are born. urtalkinstupid and beatrix kiddo may just be getting their rocks off here, but they're doing a good job making it look like they are on their way.

#### shintashi

actually russ, I've only been keeping tabs of the last couple of phrases. I recall something vaguely like an argument, so I posted then, then I saw someone taking social pop shots.

My point is, whatever it was you people were talking about (LOL) a person should not be judged based upon their circumstances or official background, but upon the merits of their efforts, and the quality of their discourse - which is not always within the system.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
shintasi,

- Warren

#### Chronos

Gold Member
Cold and blunt, chroot. I understand frustration. I come here to get my daily dose. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. That is the essence of science. There is nothing wrong with asking dumb questions. That is the essence of education. But, it gets tiresome answering the same misguided questions time, after time, after time when the 'students' refuse to do any homework. If you want to buck the 'system', show the math. Logic is not the language of science, math is. It works really well, too, if you give it a chance.

Last edited:

#### Chronos

Gold Member
shintashi said:
chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as

"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.
shintashi said:
Congratulations, Chroot. No good deed goes unpunished. You try to rescue a few bright minds from the pit of ignorance [political or otherwise] and you get what you deserve.

shintashi said:
A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein, and George W. Bush... oh wait.. he DID have an Ivy league education ... didn't he...
shintashi said:
Education is like a vaccination. It does not cure ignorance, it only helps prevent it.

shintashi said:
Meanwhile, not to be one sided...
- a person really should do a lot of studying before they go about rewriting the laws of physics. Newton was spending a lot of time at the college in Europe, most good inventors and theorists spent thousands of hours in direct conversation with the brightest minds in the world. Who was it who said " Thy mind, oh man ?"
shintashi said:
Can't argue with that. I like that 'study before theorizing' concept.

[QUOTE=shintashi]While the reality of 95% of the first 5 years of physics in college is nothing more than regurgitation and math homework - something anyone with an excessive amount of spare time and motivation could do, there comes a point in time when you have to approach the masters/ph.d level of material, which is where you generally want to be, when composing theories.
You can't learn from the mistakes of others before you have walked a mile in their mocassins. Interestingly enough, however, I remember more of the math and science I 'reguritated' than the pizza and beer in between.

shintashi said:
This level requires something called "research" and research is not cheap, it is not easy. In research a person wants to stay up on current events, but they will also want to explore their whacky ideas. Take the keely dynasphere for instance. It apparently hasn't worked since Keely was alive. But hey, the people who believe in it, still build their prototypes. They still travel the country and attend the conventions. They still know how to spell (I hope), and do math.
shintashi said:
And we have them to thank for the underpinnings of modern physics.

What I'm getting at, is if you're going to rewrite the laws of physics, make sure you find out what you are rewriting. A good peice of advice, is studying the origin of any existing theory, before finding out what their conclusions were. This has been a big help to me. Several times, I've found that the holes in a theory begin with its foundation, and more than once, their is someone who worked on the original theory who not only disagreed with the final result, but would probably agree with (insert your theories here).
Bookies make a living off of people who buck the odds.

shintashi said:
We as theorists, have a duty to keep an open mind, not an empty mind. Do not trust everything you read that is published in science magazines and on the news. It changes like the wind. Search it out. Find out for yourself, and never trust anything your teacher tells you, until you have worked it out for yourself.
shintashi said:
Conspiracy theory is alive and well. Teachers are the root of all evil... mindless servants of the overlords of mainstream science.

Believe it or not, some of us would just like to know the truth and share that knowledge with those who care and are willing to put enough effort into it to understand the truth.

Last edited:

#### beatrix kiddo

push theory

hey russ! it's good to talk to u again!
For some reason, some people in their teens choose to fill that sponge with crap and thats how crackpots are born. urtalkinstupid and beatrix kiddo may just be getting their rocks off here, but they're doing a good job making it look like they are on their way.
aww.. that's not nice. i am here for a good reason. and it's not to get my "rocks" off the forums. instead it's to introduce a new theory of gravity. what's so bad about that?? :tongue2:

But, it gets tiresome answering the same misguided questions time, after time, after time when the 'students' refuse to do any homework. If you want to buck the 'system', show the math. Logic is not the language of science, math is. It works really well, too, if you give it a chance.
chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. i've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now. (that includes the current model of gravity) so if u're going to assume that i'm just some dumb kid trying to overthrow the system, u're sadly mistaken. and math can be manipulated into whatever it is u want. einstein did. einstein came up with his theories and manipulated the math, even if it was wrong (OMG THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT!!! ) even he admitted that he was wrong afterwards. but, he used the math from the CC to prove his false assumptions (the universe was static) correct. don't base ur hopes upon math, chronos...

Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories?
what?!!!! he may have only had 1 yr of academic physics, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't researched and studied the current theories well enough to make his own decisions. i agree with shin. that was a biased thing to say, chroot. i've only had a year of academic physics, but i've done my own studying, independent of school. are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do? i'm not saying that teachers aren't useful and that don't help or encourage well education, but it's not just about that. i think the best research is done when u are interested and curious enough about a subject. teacher's can threaten u and tell u what they want u to study, but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe, i.e., GRAVITY!!!

so.. now that i'm up to speed, allow me to, once again , introduce the push theory of gravity. gravity is caused by neutrinos from the sun, and other sources in the universe, exerting a pressure on our bodies, pushing us down on the planet. i am now awaiting ur comments, questions, and scientific "facts" to "prove" me wrong because i have already encountered, and responded, to just about anything u've got to say, and i don't mind doing it again.. (russ knows :rofl: )

#### Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
beatrix kiddo said:
so.. now that i'm up to speed, allow me to, once again , introduce the push theory of gravity. gravity is caused by neutrinos from the sun, and other sources in the universe, exerting a pressure on our bodies, pushing us down on the planet. i am now awaiting ur comments, questions, and scientific "facts" to "prove" me wrong because i have already encountered, and responded, to just about anything u've got to say, and i don't mind doing it again..
Hi Beatrix, I have a question:
If the above is true, wouldn't an object on Mercury weigh more than the same object on Earth. The "push" should be more intense near the Sun, correct?

#### russ_watters

Mentor
beatrix kiddo said:
i am here for a good reason. and it's not to get my "rocks" off the forums. instead it's to introduce a new theory of gravity. what's so bad about that??
What's so bad is that you don't even understand the existing theory, so how can you possibly be able to propose something new with any credibility? (hint: you can't)
chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now.
Gee, is that all it takes? And to think even Einsein wasted 8 years of his life on a pHd!
...are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do?
No, the point is that you haven't done any research. Research isn't reading "A Brief History of Time," research is performing experiments in a lab.
but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe
The two of you have demonstrated quite clearly that you haven't gone beyond basic physics knowledge because you don't have any basic physics knowledge.

#### beatrix kiddo

no math, it wouldn't. neutrinos are emitted by the sun (and other sources) and absorbed by bodies in the universe. just because mercury is closer to the sun, it doesn't mean that it absorbs more neutrinos than the earth.

russ, i really don't have to do any experiments, because slowly science is proving me right. neutrinos are now known to oscillate meaning that they have some gravitational affects in the universe. (i'll site if u want me to) it's only a matter of time before what u know is totally debunked. however, if u are looking for immediate results, u and i can get together, build a neutrino detector, and conduct experiments as necessary to prove my theory!

#### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Sun is a strong source of neutrinos, beatrix. Since Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth, it will intercept more of those neutrinos. (Just like a flashlight seems much brighter when you hold it right at your eye than it does when it's a mile away.)

As a result, objects on Mercury would be pushed harder into Mercury than they would be on Earth.

Futhermore, it would mean that you'd weigh more during the daytime (when the Sun's neutrinos push on you directly) than at night (when some of the neutrinos get absorbed in going through the Earth). In fact, if your model of gravity depends on neutrinos pushing you, then you'd actually be pushed off the ground at night.

Do you think the evidence available to you supports or refutes this model, beatrix?

- Warren

#### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
beatrix kiddo said:
chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. i've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now.
Show us your reading list. We can determine exactly what you know (and don't know) by examining your bibliography.
and math can be manipulated into whatever it is u want.
Mathematics is a closed system. You cannot make math say "whatever you want."
he used the math from the CC to prove his false assumptions (the universe was static) correct.
No, he didn't prove anything. You don't prove anything with mathematics, and indeed you don't prove anything in science at all. (It sounds to me like you have a poor grasp of the scientific method.) He tried to make his model fit the empirical evidence available to him at the time, which indicated that the universe was static. Every scientist does this. Sometimes it works out (relativity, for example), and sometimes it doesn't (your neutrino-push model of gravitation). You're doing exactly what you fault Einstein for doing -- trying to make his model fit the empirical evidence available to him.
what?!!!! he may have only had 1 yr of academic physics, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't researched and studied the current theories well enough to make his own decisions.
Ohhhhhhh yes indeed it does. Part of growing up is realizing how little you really know about the world. Part of education is realizing the limits of that education. You really seem to have no idea what a real graduate degree in physics entails. You really seem to have never seen an actual graduate level physics textbook. You are basing your conclusions about physics education from what you've seen in high school and what you've read on the internet and in popular books.

Frankly, both you and urtalkinstupid remind me of an obstinate little fourth grade boy I tutored for a year when I myself was in high school. This little boy told me over and over how stupid school was and how he didn't need it. He was convinced that he already knew all there was to know about math, since he had recently learned his multiplication tables. "What more is there?" he said knowingly.
i agree with shin. that was a biased thing to say, chroot. i've only had a year of academic physics, but i've done my own studying, independent of school.
I applaud your enthusiasm and motivation to read outside of school. Really, you're making a wonderful effort and I want you to realize how impressed I am that you've taken the initiative. Such self-discipline will take you far in life.

On the other hand, you must recognize how little you know. Go to your local college bookstore and browse through some textbooks on general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or conformal field theory, or anything else you'd like. Realize that your education has only just begun.
are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do?
As russ said, you're misusing the term 'research.' You have been reading, not researching.
i'm not saying that teachers aren't useful and that don't help or encourage well education, but it's not just about that. i think the best research is done when u are interested and curious enough about a subject. teacher's can threaten u and tell u what they want u to study, but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe, i.e., GRAVITY!!!
You have not gone beyond it. Going beyond something would involve first getting to that something, and you're not there yet. Here's a pop quiz, let's see how you do:

Can you explain to me what the Einstein equation is in your own words?

- Warren

Last edited:

#### beatrix kiddo

E=mc2

hmmm... did i actually say that i knew all there is to know about physics?? i am sorry if u got that impression. i said i know enough to make my own decisions about what i want to believe. i will continue studying the current model, but i will also keep believing my own theory.

Frankly, both you and urtalkinstupid remind me of an obstinate little fourth grade boy I tutored for a year when I myself was in high school.
i AM a 4th grade boy.. :rofl:

I applaud your enthusiasm and motivation to read outside of school. Really, you're making a wonderful effort and I want you to realize how impressed I am that you've taken the initiative. Such self-discipline will take you far in life.
thanks

On the other hand, you must recognize how little you know. Go to your local college bookstore and browse through some textbooks on general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or conformal field theory, or anything else you'd like. Realize that your education has only just begun.
i know, i know. i probably know less physics than u, that i'll admit, but i do have enough understanding of the way things work in the current theory. but, like i said, i'll continue studying it...

Here's a pop quiz, let's see how you do:

Can you explain to me what the Einstein equation is in your own words?
i love quizzes!
ok. i assume u mean e=mc2, cause that's what put einstein on the map. it shows us how much energy mass equals if the mass itself was energy.

i am really trying not to repeat what einstein said, what with energy being mass and vice-versa, so i put it "in my own words"...

#### beatrix kiddo

chroot said:
The Sun is a strong source of neutrinos, beatrix. Since Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth, it will intercept more of those neutrinos. (Just like a flashlight seems much brighter when you hold it right at your eye than it does when it's a mile away.)

As a result, objects on Mercury would be pushed harder into Mercury than they would be on Earth.

Futhermore, it would mean that you'd weigh more during the daytime (when the Sun's neutrinos push on you directly) than at night (when some of the neutrinos get absorbed in going through the Earth). In fact, if your model of gravity depends on neutrinos pushing you, then you'd actually be pushed off the ground at night.

Do you think the evidence available to you supports or refutes this model, beatrix?

- Warren
mercury doesn't block out all the neutrinos to the other planets. and not all the neutrinos hitting mercury get absorbed. some of them are just going straight through. (evidence proves the latter portion, it will eventually prove the first part). and the sun isn't the only source of neutrinos. all bodies in the solar system produce them. all bodies in the solar system are pushing against each other. the earth is, if u can imagine, almost evenly "coated" with neutrinos every second. even at night. i will do a very sensitive test to see whether a person weighs less at night or not. i am imagining so, by a very small amount, but i will do it. (this is the part of my theory where i don't need a neutrino detector)

now it's my turn for a question!!!

do u think einstein adequately explained mercury's off-centered orbit? if so, tell us in ur own words what u think about it..

#### Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
beatrix kiddo said:
i AM a 4th grade boy
How old does that make you, around nine or ten?

beatrix kiddo said:
chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. i've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now. (that includes the current model of gravity)
You've been "researching" since you were about five or six years old then?

#### beatrix kiddo

come on dude.. i was kidding.. i'm 15 going into the 11th grade...

#### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
beatrix kiddo said:
hmmm... did i actually say that i knew all there is to know about physics?? i am sorry if u got that impression. i said i know enough to make my own decisions about what i want to believe. i will continue studying the current model, but i will also keep believing my own theory.
One day you'll realize that you honestly do not know enough to make those decisions. Hopefully you'll continue studying.

Are you really in 4th grade? I got the impression you had taken a year of physics in high school.
i know, i know. i probably know less physics than u, that i'll admit, but i do have enough understanding of the way things work in the current theory. but, like i said, i'll continue studying it...
You do? Demonstrate your knowledge by giving me some examples of invariant quantities in relativity.
i love quizzes!
ok. i assume u mean e=mc2, cause that's what put einstein on the map. it shows us how much energy mass equals if the mass itself was energy.
Wrong. The Einstein equation is a four-dimensional tensor equation that relates mass and energy (...) to the curvature of space.

$$R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu}$$

Where $R_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor, $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric, R is the scalar curvature, and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the stress-energy tensor. This equation is the central edifice in the general theory of relativity.

If you did not understand every word of that description, then you do not have any right to say you understand anything about general relativity other than perhaps the concept that mass warps spacetime. That concept alone does not provide you with a deep enough understanding to discuss the theory.

- Warren

#### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
beatrix kiddo said:
mercury doesn't block out all the neutrinos to the other planets.
I never said it did. I said the total amount of neutrinos a planet intercepts is a function of its distance from the sun. A closer planet will get hit with more of them.
and not all the neutrinos hitting mercury get absorbed. some of them are just going straight through. (evidence proves the latter portion, it will eventually prove the first part).
In fact, neutrinos virtually never interact with ordinary matter. In reality, they interact so rarely that they could never account for any realistically observable force like that of gravity. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean "some particle" rather than the neutrino specifically. The arguments against a pushing theory of gravity are the same regardless of the particle(s) doing the pushing.
and the sun isn't the only source of neutrinos. all bodies in the solar system produce them.
How do the other bodies in the solar system produce them? If that's true, then shouldn't you weigh more during those times when, say, Mars is closer to the Earth as it was last August? Wouldn't that mean that a nearby comet would make you weigh more, too?
all bodies in the solar system are pushing against each other.
Then what's keeping them together? Why aren't they just flying apart?
i will do a very sensitive test to see whether a person weighs less at night or not. i am imagining so, by a very small amount, but i will do it. (this is the part of my theory where i don't need a neutrino detector)
I look forward to hearing your conclusions.
do u think einstein adequately explained mercury's off-centered orbit? if so, tell us in ur own words what u think about it..
It's not "off-center." It has a perhelion advance of 43" per century that is not explainable by Newtonian gravitation. You don't really have to take anyone's opinion on the matter, you can do the math yourself. Relativity predicts the correct value. That doesn't mean the theory is absolutely correct, but it certainly supports it.

- Warren

#### beatrix kiddo

WHAT?! i'm not wrong. mass is energy and energy is mass. so what if i didn't go all into it like u did, but it's still correct. what i said is the samething as what einstein said, just worded differently. and yes i do understand what u were describing. ricci tensor- curvature in space-time, stress-energy tensor (or energy-momentum) describes what energy and momentum are doing at a certain pt. in space-time, scalar curvature: think planes and high dimension. i have studied that equation a couple of months ago but it looked like Rik- (gikR/2)+ V(upside down)gik=(8piG/c^4)Tik
the upside down V is the cosmological constant.. but scientists use it to explain some of their observations... hmm. maybe i'm not as clueless as u thought, chroot!!! (oh yeah G is the gravitational constant.. i believe!)

#### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
E=mc2 is not called "the Einstein equation," and is not the same as the Einstein equation. They're two totally unrelated equations, and not just "worded differently" at all. Your assertion that it's the same just shows your incredible ignorance.

I can use google, too, beatrix kiddo: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/e.eq.html [Broken]

If you don't even know what a lambda is, $\lambda$, the "upside down V," and have to resort to plagiarizing sites you found on google (and didn't even understand), how can you seriously expect me (or anyone else) to believe that you know your ass from a tensor? Ring, ring, beatrix kiddo -- it's the clue phone. You don't know anything about relativity, and you know you don't. Quit pretending, it just makes you look desperate and stupid.

- Warren

Last edited by a moderator:

#### chroot

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
And no, kiddo, the stress-energy tensor does not describe what "energy and momentum are doing at a certain point in spacetime." Since when is a tensor a dynamical equation? :rofl: Keep digging!

- Warren

#### beatrix kiddo

How Dare U!

i have never plagiarized in my entire life! i don't know latex so i said upside down V! OMG... u gotta be kidding me. i always give my sources. LOOK AT ALL OF MY POSTS!!! i got that equation from my old notebook. stop trying to scar my rep on this site u big meanie!!!

#### beatrix kiddo

and i have found a source that goes along with my old notes, chroot. describing stress-energy as energy and momemtum. the reason why i said upside down v was because i couldn't read my writing too well.. (scratchy) i can't believe u'd get all upset and accuse me of something i didn't do! http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/st/stress_energy_tensor.html [Broken] (stress energy)
geez... i always site my sources. look back at most of my posts...

Last edited by a moderator:

beatrix kiddo said:
stress-energy tensor (or energy-momentum) describes what energy and momentum are doing at a certain pt. in space-time
What they're "doing," huh. Just what exactly does that mean anyway? I could probably find a source saying that a guy named Energy and a guy named Momentum are flipping burgers at the local McDonalds on Thursday and it'd support "what they're doing at a certain point in spacetime"!

Okay, that's my foray into the TD forum for the week. Back to chroot's one-man show.

#### beatrix kiddo

whatever.. if u're going to falsely accuse me of plagiarism, (even though my history says other wise) warn me, not respond to my private message, then tell me that i know nothing about GR (even though i have been studying it for 2 years now), just forget it. u won't have to worry about me on this thread anymore and i'm shocked that an admin of the physics forums would sink so low... shutup cookiemonster, this doesn't involve u...

Eh, you're right. I should have made a more constructive post. So here's a link to a previous push gravity thread found using the wonderful search feature.

As for studying for 2 years, neither you nor I are even qualified to fairly say that we can study GR. We simply haven't established the necessary mathematical foundation to give it a proper treatment.

And, just for reference, you're not getting a very warm response because you haven't put in much workinto your idea to see if it's already been thought of, or even to try to prove it wrong yourself. You've shifted all the work from you to everybody else. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate a classmate giving you their homework to do for them, would you? Same concept.

Last edited:

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving