Any idiot with a computer can come up with a theory based on tensors.
Now let's contrast our styles. If I were like you, I'd have a personal attack as a comeback like "Gee, seeing as how you are over-qualified, I'm surprised you haven't crafted your own tensor theory." But rather what I would point out to you is that by knowing how tensor mathematics works, this allows one to determine the validity of any cobbled-together tensor theory by being able to work the math out for oneself. If you understood how tensor formulations describe the details of physics (that might not necessarily "make sense" to the uninitiated mind), then you might have a different opinion.
Okay, let's address this wind power.
Wow, I can't wait to hear this explanation from you about how you think this quote from me backs your idea on wind power. No doubt you will try to twist the words and claim that when I am talking about tapping hurricane strength winds that it somehow relates to, or validates, your idea for wind power in nominal winds. Of course, where we differ is that I provided valid engineering calculations to validate the hurricane theory and invalidate your theory. I'm listening.
>So are you telling me that because it is "old news" that it is no longer valid?<Yes! Science is provisional, not falsifiable. Science is based on facts, not conjecture.
Agree with second sentence. Only agree with half of first sentence. Any "appropriate" scientific theory must be formulated in a manner where it can be falsified (usually by experiment). Again, that is why Titor's story has no "theory" in it...there is always something that prevents it from being falsified (his lame "worldline divergence" is a big coverall). But what does this have to do with my question about "old math" not being viable? Has someone (you?) shown that tensor mathematics is incorrect? I'm listening.
I will not be able to understand them because it's needless, over-complicated psychobabble.
You do realize, I hope, that this is the same attitude the Catholic Church took towards Galileo? They did not wish to take the time to understand his scientific models (and the evidence that supported them). Instead, they branded him a heretic (essentially, the same as your branding my maths as "psychobabble"). Once again, I feel sorry for your narrow-minded approach to things you don't comprehend.
Guess that rules you out as a "Titor candidate" then.
Ahhh yes, another "sly" personal attack. I am so deeply hurt by this....maybe I'd better go have an ice cream to cheer me up.
Okay, lemmie try. TV = msnbc - cbs X abc (-HBO). It can also work if you substitute HBO with Cinemax.
You see, your "formula" goes like this:1) Throw out some Titor stuff and theories with no scientific basis.2) Get vehemently angry when someone challenges your science.
3) Ignore valid questions and challenges intended to allow you to exhibit whatever scientific understanding you do have, and finally,
4) Make fun of scientific theory that you do not understand, nor wish to even attempt to form an understanding of.
So tell me: Is this wonderful equation of yours in any way related to your "fantastic" ruminations about pi? Now THOSE were some really scientific thoughts! I was almost hoping you'd write a book on pi! (See, I can do it too!)
Happy Thanksgiving, jmpet. I must say I am thankful for folks like you as you keep life interesting.
RMT