Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: Jay R. Yablon: "Lepton mass predictions, including neutrino"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- In reply to: SDR: "The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Next in thread: SDR: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Reply: SDR: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:27:27 GMT
"SDR" <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:58087ec7.0502022016.705955d6@posting.google.com...
> >From: robert j. kolker (nowhere@nowhere.net)
> >Subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
> >Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
> >alt.astronomy, alt.sci.physics
> >Date: 2005-02-02 08:48:24 PST
> >SDR wrote:
> >>
> >> General relativity describes perfectly the way "universal gravitation"
> >> shapes the universe... GR simply does not explain exactly what
> >> "gravity" is (and that's where I come in).
>
> >And neither has anything else. Gravitation is an observable fact. Its
> >explanations and causes are hypothetical. What counts are the
> >predictions made from those hypothetical causes and laws. If the
> >predictions are good, all is well. If not, not.
>
> Dear Bob, not everybody is like you--Perhaps you're an architect
> and your only interest is in a few lines & curves, and how well
> they work in making rabbit hutches. But most scientists get into
> their life's quest because they want to know the reasons for things.
Of course you will be the judge if something is a valid reason and let the
rest of us know wont you? Scientists usually rely on experiment for that -
but I suspect you have transcended such mundane limitations and risen to a
higher plane.
> It was a startling departure when physics first began to abandon
> its duty to explain why it is that things are the way they are, and
> became, as you state so impertinently, content to describe things
> as they appear (and where that leads things). But I can assure you
> that IF physics could explain the reason why things are they way
> they are... it would.
See what I worte above.
>
> There is no end to theoreticians' attempts to do this.
>
There is no end to the junk written by cranks as well.
> But they are
> hampered (tied) by having to begin from a fundamentally erroneous
> assumption (that the universe is filled with fundamental/absolute
> objects which are expanding in an absolute way).
They are hampered by having to make predictions that conform to experiment -
a requirement that you obviously do not like - hence the absence of such in
your writings.
> But I give them
> gobs of Brownie points for their brave attempts nonetheless [there
> is out there, as we speak, a new theory that inertia is caused by
> real particles crashing against virtual particles (and naturally the
> faster real particles move the more virtual particles they crash
> against increasing mass, etc.), truly amazingly clever/inventive
> stuff, although just as amazingly pathetically silly... don't they
> have to account for the inertia of the virtual particles, or is this
> another solution where the laws of physics (Newton) cease to
> work for the benefit of making the theory elegant?]. Same thing
> with all those dimensions/branes which sustain ours (why hasn't
> this proposal shifted the question of where our dimension came
> from to where/how all those other dimensions/branes came from
> --if you're asking where it all came from and your answer is "God"
> hasn't the onus shifted to where does God come from?...
What a pathetic load of pointless rubbish.
>
> >You have no more valid idea of the basic causes of gravitation than the
> >smartest physicists who have ever lived. Bob Kolker
>
> Trust me for a little while (how long can it take to read a mere
> 10,000 words), and learn the real solution once & for all. Go thou:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> Look, a basic postulate of the theory of General Relativity is that "a
> uniform gravitational field (like that near the Earth) is equivalent to
> a uniform acceleration." Well my text, for the first time ever explains
> how/why/what/where the acceleration (that "is" gravity) comes from, what
> it is. And why it is an inevitable result of our reality. Read & learn.
I did - it was sickening junk based of a total lack of knowledge of the most
basic of modern physical principles such as Noethers theorem.
Bill
>
> I shall be glad to answer any question you have. I know a lot
> of stuff, you know... what women really want... you name it. Just
> hurry: I'm only for a while.
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://ar.sdrodrian.com
> http://music.sdrodrian.com
- Next message: Jay R. Yablon: "Lepton mass predictions, including neutrino"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- In reply to: SDR: "The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Next in thread: SDR: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Reply: SDR: "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
