Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
From: Lester Solnin (Lsolnin_at_nyc.rr.com)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Peter J Ross: "Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, January 2005"
- Previous message: A N Niel: "Re: Subset of Reals"
- In reply to: SDR: "The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Next in thread: westa: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:25:33 GMT
Mr. Rodrian-
I downloaded your article from www.physics. Will read it veryyyy slowly.
Thanks
Lester Solnin
"SDR" <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:58087ec7.0501312359.e912eae@posting.google.com...
> >From: robert j. kolker (nowhere@nowhere.net)
> >Subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
> >Newsgroups: sci.misc, uk.sci.astronomy, sci.edu, sci.math,
alt.astronomy.solar
> >Date: 2005-01-31 08:51:18 PST
> >SDR wrote:
> >> And your nonsense usefully demonstrates it, as I was saying.
> >> Internet technology is good technology, good science indeed.
> >>
> >> Are you perhaps suggesting that the technology upon which
> >> the internet is based is a mystery?
>
> >No it is sound physics and engineering, the most important part of which
> >is quantum electrodynamics firmly founded on both quantum theory and
> >special relativity as applied to fields. It is highly mathematical,
> >highly abstract. Most importantly it produces good predictions and has
> >never once been falsfied empirically. Bob Kolker
>
> Again: I do not quite get your point. Perhaps you believe
> that I have some grievance against quantum theory, whereas
> I have in a number of posts stated that it's the greatest tool
> in modern physics. Let me nevertheless restate myself for your
> benefit: QED is highly concrete, not highly abstract (unless you
> mean academic), as you yourself state in your last sentence above!
>
> Also: Statistical analysis is essential where it is the only means of
> approximating absolute knowledge. Quantum theory can produce highly
> accurate insights (without having to "see" into the matter at all).
> QED and The Standard Model are impeccably tested/proven facts. My
> contention is that gravity is NOT a particle-mediated force, and
> as such... this explains the inability/impossibility of ever EVER
> making (QM) EM and general relativity agree (that there can ever be
> such a thing as the mythical unified field theory). This obviously
> does not mean that I question any aspect of The Standard Model...
> since I explain the origin of the universe from (or, at the origin of
> the universe, it being), from a single/singular principle (of
> thermodynamics) obviously where there does not yet exist the vast
> complexity of The Standard Model).
>
> Imagine "the void" as a gauzy tablecloth which you begin to pull
> from one edge of the table it's draped over--you have started a
> thermodynamic current... and it will cause the gauzy cloth to tear.
> Well, that tear (a place in which there is now no/little cloth) is
> the "cosmic hollow" (of lesser density) into which the surrounding
> "greater density" pours, creating our universe. Simple as that.
> The rest of my text merely shows what follow logically from this
> principle, and how all of that is better at explaining the universe
> we observe than nonsense such as "dark matter" & "dark energy."
> If one does not depart from this model of an universe in implosion
> one cannot then explain its inevitable consequences (such as
> the constancy of the speed of light or even such a basic effect
> as inertia, et al).
>
> I have just as often said that Einstein's relativity theories with
> respect to the effects of gravity are not wrong--that I am merely
> explaining why the universe behaves as it is observed behaving (not
> that it behaves differently somehow). [Why it is that Einstein's
> "grids" work better than Newton's "forces."] I even tell you why
> it is that the early 20th Century theorists inevitably got it wrong.
>
> I do have a pet peeve with a lot of nonsense in pure mathematics
> (such as string theory), and with misunderstandings of quantum
> theory which have lead some theorists to speculate that magic is
> possible in the world... and they begin to put the laws of physics
> in doubt (arrogantly believing as they do that just because THEY
> cannot follow the connection between every effect and its cause...
> there are uncaused effects). [That the origin of their Big Bang is
> that at some point the so-called point of infinite density was
> "contemplating" its possibilities, and since at that point ALL
> possibilities were available to it, there was therefore nothing to
> prevent it from creating the universe (obviously that as one
> possibility)... and other insanities, such as time-travel as if "the
> past" and "the future" had some separate existence from "our
> existence" (when Abe Lincoln is still sleeping over in Illinois).
> Sorry: At the point where there is a disconnect between the trick
> and how the trick is pulled off .... there you have the magician
> telling us that there is magic in the world, and you will never get
> me to believe that. Better the would-be magician confess he does
> not know, and at that point he will regain a pinch of respect from me.
>
> The scientist is forever in a quest to understand, and once he
> understands... either he explains what he understands, or he is
> no better than the would-be magician in anybody's opinion.
> [Hope this helps.] Is this really so difficult to grasp?
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://ar.sdrodrian.com
> http://music.sdrodrian.com
- Next message: Peter J Ross: "Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, January 2005"
- Previous message: A N Niel: "Re: Subset of Reals"
- In reply to: SDR: "The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Next in thread: westa: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
