A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[only_human]

This seems to be a nice paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044

The Meaning of Einstein's Equation

John C. Baez, Emory F. Bunn
(Submitted on 13 Mar 2001 (v1), last revised 5 Jan 2006 (this version, v5))
This is a brief introduction to general relativity, designed for both students and teachers of the subject. While there are many excellent expositions of general relativity, few adequately explain the geometrical meaning of the basic equation of the theory: Einstein's equation. Here we give a simple formulation of this equation in terms of the motion of freely falling test particles. We also sketch some of its consequences, and explain how the formulation given here is equivalent to the usual one in terms of tensors. Finally, we include an annotated bibliography of books, articles and websites suitable for the student of relativity.

John Baez recently dusted off an old post of his that calculates that all the vigorous physical handwaving of all the physicists of all time (well, 10,000 guys waving their hands for a thousand years) has not emitted a single graviton:
https://plus.google.com/117663015413...ts/aaguQLUsT5e

[Fusion_power]

Since by conservation of mass-energy this quantity never changes, and is finite,

Maybe

and since the spatial three-dimensional volume of the universe is fixed and finite,

Probably incorrect. You can't ignore the effect of time.

the ratio, i.e. the density, is finite and fixed over time.

provably incorrect, you would have to account for Hawking radiation at a minimum which has not been done.

[cheesehead]

davar55,

Earlier, in the other subforum, I patiently tried to lead you through some parts of mainstream physics for which your monograph showed little understanding. Repeatedly, you failed to respond when such response might have enlightened you about mainstream physics.

Now, your responses have taken on a more insulting tone, so I've you've lost the patience I had earlier.

Originally Posted by davar55

I can't cherry-pick the manuscript for anyone.

A request for factual supporting data is not a request for cherry-picking ... unless the author is trying to devise ways to avoid answering straightforward requests.

Why do you need me to tell you where to look in the manuscript,

... because your manuscript doesn't plainly lay out the supporting factual data.

when you could just read the whole thing in a half hour?

Again, the arrogance (and ignorance). Your reader is supposed to laboriously (and perhaps erroneously!) ferret out stuff that a properly-humble author proposing such a revolutionary theory should be glad to clearly and plainly display in order to convince the reader that the "half-hour" is not an utter waste of time on (yet another of a myriad) crackpot physics theory.

If _you_ were to plainly and clearly set out, separated from your speculations and arguments, the objective evidence that supports your radical view, you'd not only avoid pissing off readers, but also (and this would be a direct benefit to YOU) avoid the possibilities that the ferreting reader might miss or misconstrue one or more pieces of supporting evidence.

Then judge for yourself what scientific evidence supports my POV

As far as I can tell: none. I am aware of no scientific evidence (whether cited in your monograph or not) that supports your theory insofar as it differs from current mainstream physics.

If you disagree, then cite one, just one, single shred of scientific evidence that supports any part of your theory where it differs from current mainstream physics. (Citing evidence that is completely in accord with current mainstream physics does nothing to support your theory!!)

If you respond with only another insult, but no citation of evidence, that will just show how determined you are to avoid giving straight answers that will indicate that your theory does not belong in the crackpot category.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If you respond with only another insult, but no citation of evidence, that will just show how determined you are to avoid giving straight answers that will indicate that your theory does not belong in the crackpot category.

BTW, John Baez that I quoted just above is the source of The Crackpot Index. Another interesting thing, is if one follows the cute handwaving graviton post link posted above, in the commentary, there is an explanation from the senior engineer on the Google Plus team unofficially explaining why G+ does not (and probably will not) support Tex.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If you disagree, then cite one, just one, single shred of scientific evidence that supports any part of your theory where it differs from current mainstream physics. (Citing evidence that is completely in accord with current mainstream physics does nothing to support your theory!!)

Ok.

The Hubble Red Shift data supports another interpretation,
namely the existence and nature of the skin.
See the monograph, section INTERPOLATION.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

...
How about this: where, in your monograph, do you present factual data that supports your arguments? (Do you understand "factual data" better than you understand "evidence"?)

OK, fine. WHich of my arguments do you wish supporting factual
data for?

[kladner]

Sheesh!

[chappy]

Originally Posted by kladner

Sheesh!

agreed, find your own playground to sully! (or the other at least 2 threads to play in!)

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by kladner

Sheesh!

Thank you for calling this to our attention.

I've started a new thread for discussion of davar55's monograph here: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18487

[davar55]

The thread hijacking detour occurred because I
inadvertently claaimed the universe has always
existed. Since Creationism and Big BAng agree
that this is not true, I stand contradicted by
both the religious and scientific viewpoints.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

...I stand contradicted by
both the religious and scientific viewpoints.

Get used to it....