Are you … taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn’t seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That’s why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like “this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers”—because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.
I haven’t read the paper you linked here, but the titular “ECE”—“Einstein Cartan Evans”—returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.
I intend no insult to you in my disagreement (and I apologize for missing your ironic intent, if that is what I did). Our experience and intuition differ, and I have been explaining how mine lead me to different conclusions in this matter.
(Also, what you are complaining of is abuse, not ad hominem—it’s an important distinction.)
(Edit: To summarize the link, “ad hominem” goes, “you’re an irrational person, therefore you are wrong”, whereas we are saying, “your argument is wrong, therefore you are not rational”. We refuse to accept your claim that ECE is a theory-of-everything because you have not supported it, not because we think you’re stupid—in fact, I don’t think you’re stupid, just mistaken.)
Ok. Well, I just don’t think its possible on this site.to go through 800+ papers, 130+ in the last few years, which lead to this theory. I don’t have the time, and there is no indication that anyone here is open to it. Plus, I see no equation editor.
I’ll repeat. I responded to a Higgs Boson thread, saying I believe it does not exist, I referred to the theory supporting my belief, and I get trashed. Thats arrogant and close minded. And if I feel I have been ad hominemed, then I have.
If someone is as dissatisfied as I am with the output of Standard Model and string theories, they will seek out an alternative. And learn the math. I just pointed to what, after a four year analysis, I believe to be an extremely credible alternative.
I am losing my touch...only 68? See below
Are you … taking pride in sounding like a crackpot? That doesn’t seem like a very good plan for figuring out what is really going on in the world. That’s why we denounce crackpottish proclamations like “this theory is largely rejected/ignored by both the particle and string mainstream [because it is] very very threatening to their funding and careers”—because these sorts of statements are easy arguments to wield against people with the temerity to dispute your favored idea.
I haven’t read the paper you linked here, but the titular “ECE”—“Einstein Cartan Evans”—returns no hits in a quick Scitation search. If you ask me, it seems premature to treat the results with anything like the confidence you attribute to it.
Not at all. I will be glad to move on to a more open minded forum which doesn’t engage in ad hominem attacks.
I intend no insult to you in my disagreement (and I apologize for missing your ironic intent, if that is what I did). Our experience and intuition differ, and I have been explaining how mine lead me to different conclusions in this matter.
(Also, what you are complaining of is abuse, not ad hominem—it’s an important distinction.)
(Edit: To summarize the link, “ad hominem” goes, “you’re an irrational person, therefore you are wrong”, whereas we are saying, “your argument is wrong, therefore you are not rational”. We refuse to accept your claim that ECE is a theory-of-everything because you have not supported it, not because we think you’re stupid—in fact, I don’t think you’re stupid, just mistaken.)
Ok. Well, I just don’t think its possible on this site.to go through 800+ papers, 130+ in the last few years, which lead to this theory. I don’t have the time, and there is no indication that anyone here is open to it. Plus, I see no equation editor.
I’ll repeat. I responded to a Higgs Boson thread, saying I believe it does not exist, I referred to the theory supporting my belief, and I get trashed. Thats arrogant and close minded. And if I feel I have been ad hominemed, then I have.
If someone is as dissatisfied as I am with the output of Standard Model and string theories, they will seek out an alternative. And learn the math. I just pointed to what, after a four year analysis, I believe to be an extremely credible alternative.
So thanks for the consideration.
And not one review article?
Thanks for your input—I’m sorry we could not be more helpful. Be well.