check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).


....
am I banned?








"Albert Einstein" a écrit dans le message de
...
Could be there something before big bang?
No space, no time. But what?

Is this kind of subject, something that concern cosmology or philosophy or
both of them?


bye
Albert

Greg Gerardin wrote:
check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).

You might want to look at this page...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.


...
am I banned?

It would be news to me that one can get banned from sci.physics
(or do you mean sci.physics.relativity?).


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...
Greg Gerardin wrote:
check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).

You might want to look at this page...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.

hello Bjoern!
I know that page, and I know a lot about the whole "affair". To be sincere,
I came here (sci.physics / sci.physics.research) because the Bogdanov talk
about this newsgroup in their book (Baez being a moderator of .research).

I've read their book (Avant le Big Band... i don't know if it has been
translated in english) 2 weeks ago. I was *so excited* about their theory
that I wanted to know more about it and about the controversy. So I read
most of the discussion between Baez and the Bogdanov, and I read a lot of
other discussions on other forums. I've also read some articles on the
subject (on the theory and on the controversy). And I made my own point of
view. I know nothing about physics, right, but I have a good intuition and
mostly I have managed to get a clear view of what went on, who said what,
who backs them, etc... And what came out of this is quite different than
what Baez says on his website.

The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists . They do indeed
understand topology other theories very well, etc. The problem is : type
"Bogdanov" in google. First entry : Baez's website.

.....
That's sad. But that's how the world goes: misunderstanding, envy, lies...
:-/

am I banned?

It would be news to me that one can get banned from sci.physics
(or do you mean sci.physics.relativity?).

I was joking!

See you,
Greg

Greg Gerardin wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

Greg Gerardin wrote:

check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).

You might want to look at this page...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.


hello Bjoern!
I know that page, and I know a lot about the whole "affair". To be sincere,
I came here (sci.physics / sci.physics.research) because the Bogdanov talk
about this newsgroup in their book (Baez being a moderator of .research).

I've read their book (Avant le Big Band... i don't know if it has been
translated in english) 2 weeks ago. I was *so excited* about their theory
that I wanted to know more about it and about the controversy. So I read
most of the discussion between Baez and the Bogdanov, and I read a lot of
other discussions on other forums. I've also read some articles on the
subject (on the theory and on the controversy). And I made my own point of
view. I know nothing about physics, right, but I have a good intuition and
mostly I have managed to get a clear view of what went on, who said what,
who backs them, etc... And what came out of this is quite different than
what Baez says on his website.

The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists .

By whom?


They do indeed
understand topology other theories very well, etc. The problem is : type
"Bogdanov" in google. First entry : Baez's website.

....
That's sad. But that's how the world goes: misunderstanding, envy, lies...
:-/

As I said: judging from what I know about those topics, Baez' comments
are right on the mark. Even if they indeed understand these topics,
they are obviously not able to explain them in a way understandable by
(most) other scientists.



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Greg Gerardin wrote:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

Greg Gerardin wrote:

check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).

You might want to look at this page...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
I am not as knowledgeable in topology, differential geometry etc.
as Baez, but judging from the things I *do* understand about the
discussion, Baez is right: the Bogdanovs do indeed speak gibberish.


hello Bjoern!
I know that page, and I know a lot about the whole "affair". To be sincere,
I came here (sci.physics / sci.physics.research) because the Bogdanov talk
about this newsgroup in their book (Baez being a moderator of .research).

Dale Trynor wrote:
The mechanism for space time creation has been posted here for over a
year and its simplistic and easily understood.
Its subject to empirical tests and the gedanken I use to illustrate how
and why has been constantly ignored and you know who you are.

Could say more and it will be important when one wants to study human
behavior especially when it comes to objectivity and the acceptance of
new ideas. It reminds me of children putting their fingers in their ears
and going la la la. What they cant refute they ignore.

Basically what the theory examine is the idea that gravity or rather the
time dilation or rather slower relative time thats caused by it, will
contract matter and that includes anything one can measure either
distances or volume with. The theory later on hypothesizes that this is
actually is more space and not simply a shorter measure of the same space.

What this results in is a way of showing how not only neutron stars but
black holes must expand the space around them and it goes to extreme
with black holes.

Well if one can show how black holes become expanded in space in such a
way that they must become universe like and one even gets the same
predictions as given for inflation theory when a black hole was created
isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that our universe was created
differently and that we are a special very special creation.

If your mind is not fossilized I will repost the basic gedanken that
allows mathematical testing as well as some of my more recent proposed
experiments that could also be used to support this theory.

Dale


I've read their book (Avant le Big Band... i don't know if it has been
translated in english) 2 weeks ago. I was *so excited* about their theory

[snip]

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

[snip]

The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists .

By whom?

I prefer not to enter that debate! I can't talk for them and as I can't
proove anything of what they say. I feel they have very good ideas in their
theory, and I that's fine with me. As I told you I gathered a lot of infos
and made my own point of view. You should do the same if you're interested.



They do indeed
understand topology other theories very well, etc. The problem is :
type
"Bogdanov" in google. First entry : Baez's website.

....
That's sad. But that's how the world goes: misunderstanding, envy,
lies...
:-/

As I said: judging from what I know about those topics, Baez' comments
are right on the mark. Even if they indeed understand these topics,
they are obviously not able to explain them in a way understandable by
(most) other scientists.

You're right, a lot a people have made that comment. They might have done
errors in their explainations. Someone (one of those physicists who back
them) said about their theory that it was like a very good book with a good
plot, but with a lot of orthography errors in it.

ciao,
Greg

Greg Gerardin wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

[snip]


The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists .

By whom?


I prefer not to enter that debate! I can't talk for them and as I can't
proove anything of what they say. I feel they have very good ideas in their
theory, and I that's fine with me. As I told you I gathered a lot of infos
and made my own point of view. You should do the same if you're interested.


And you don't think that by telling me the names of some of those "eminent
specialists", you could help me gathering this info?


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...
Greg Gerardin wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

[snip]


The Bogdanov are indeed backed by eminent specialists .

By whom?


I prefer not to enter that debate! I can't talk for them and as I can't
proove anything of what they say. I feel they have very good ideas in
their
theory, and I that's fine with me. As I told you I gathered a lot of
infos
and made my own point of view. You should do the same if you're
interested.


And you don't think that by telling me the names of some of those "eminent
specialists", you could help me gathering this info?

i'll bring the book tomorrow and i'll give you the names, you lazy boy!



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

[snip]

And you don't think that by telling me the names of some of those "eminent
specialists", you could help me gathering this info?

Bjoern,
I'm not saying that these peoples back the whole theory. And I *really*
don't wish to make them say things they didn't. For what I've read in the
Bogdanov book and in some forums on the web, these scientists consider the
Bogdanov's theory, or the contested parts of it, as serious and correct:

Shahn Majid (quantum group expert)

Daniel Sternheimer (founding fathers of deformation quantization)
Massimo Poratti (string theory and topology expert)
Roman Jackiw (MIT theoretical physicist)
Arkadiusz Jadczyk (theoretical physicist)
.... and others ...

I won't give you the quote for each scientist for it would be too long but
you can probably find them on the web.
As I understand it, there are two possibilities. Either there has been
misunderstanding between the bogdanov and some scientists and for some
reason, objections made by Baez and others spread out as "facts", but finaly
have been prooved wrong (so the bogdanov were right). Or Either the
bogdanov built a very large conspiracy for some obscur reasons.

Crosscheck and make your opinion!

See you around
Greg






[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Greg Gerardin wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" a écrit dans le
message de ...

[snip]


And you don't think that by telling me the names of some of those "eminent
specialists", you could help me gathering this info?


Bjoern,
I'm not saying that these peoples back the whole theory. And I *really*
don't wish to make them say things they didn't. For what I've read in the
Bogdanov book and in some forums on the web, these scientists consider the
Bogdanov's theory, or the contested parts of it, as serious and correct:

Shahn Majid (quantum group expert)

Daniel Sternheimer (founding fathers of deformation quantization)
Massimo Poratti (string theory and topology expert)
Roman Jackiw (MIT theoretical physicist)
Arkadiusz Jadczyk (theoretical physicist)
... and others ...

The only one I know of those people is Jackiw - but then, I am not an
expert in any of the relevant fields here.

Thanks for the names!


I won't give you the quote for each scientist for it would be too long but
you can probably find them on the web.
As I understand it, there are two possibilities. Either there has been
misunderstanding between the bogdanov and some scientists and for some
reason, objections made by Baez and others spread out as "facts", but finaly
have been prooved wrong (so the bogdanov were right). Or Either the
bogdanov built a very large conspiracy for some obscur reasons.

Why not "the Bogdanovs do really not understand what they talk about,
but nevertheless managed to convince some scientists"?



Crosscheck and make your opinion!

I'll see what I find. Thanks again!


Bye,
Bjoern