Re: Magnetic field and relative motion

From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 06/26/04 

Date: 25 Jun 2004 18:42:49 -0700

"Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message news:<20040624002246.521$HZ@news.newsreader.com>...
> xxein wrote:
> > I developed a theory based on (what turns out to be) a LET-type.
> > It has a gravity that is functionally simple and agrees with all
> > observation.
>
> I assume by "LET-type" you mean a Lorentzian ether type of theory. I
> also assume by "theory" you mean a theory you developed on first
> principles from your Lorentzian-type ether rather than just fiddling
> with the existing theory. If so, and if you claim agreement with "all
> observation" then that is a remarkable achievement. Where does one
> find this remarkable theory?

xxein: There is hardly anything there that has not been thought of
and 'published' before. That's the mystery. I started from scratch
so that not even a photon's 'intrinsic frequency' (there goes
Einstein's Nobel) is inviolate. But I didn't learn of the 'published'
material until later.

When I say 'from scratch', I mean that I took measurement by
observation (raw measurement) without a pre-supplied interpretation.

Look. This becomes boring, even to me, to have to repeat this. ---
(you can google 'xxein + ugly duck'). In essense and with knowledge
of quantum observations in mind, I tried to understand what Einstein
had put together. The physicality didn't seem to work. Hardly
anything seemed to fit even a near-TOE.

I literally started from scratch to make a physical sense of this
universe based on ALL observation from cosmological to quantum (with
Einstein's interpretation (SRT) quickly being recognized as a theory
of observation that unites inertial CS's into an 'observational law'
wrt non-quantum and non-cosmos. Even GR failed to pull it out of that
boot. It only required a belief).

I had to recognize the the type of equipment used to record
'observation and measurement' and study its limitations. I am sure I
left a stone or two unturned, but to the unbiased and uninfluenced
mind (I mean THAT --- I took nothing for granted (again)), I got lucky
and found some deeper sense to what is supposed to be called Physics.
NO, - no 'higher power' is considered.

I was smart, back then, but also stupid. I had only considered
SR/SRT-types and had neglected gravity. I went through three
drownings and was able to let myself admit to failure (but with
respect to a fine exercise). Bored yet?

If not, --- somehow, I put the right questions (and observations) into
a perspective to get the feeling of what was happening in this
universe. I didn't believe it could work as a 'theory', though. Was
I ever wrong!

It was a stupid idea out of the blue, but it passed every test thrown
at it. It was later that I learned that the PARTS of the whole had
been considered and published. But they had been mismatched to other
popular (partial) theories.

In the near-end, I am able to see through why these previous theories
had gained belief and why those beliefs have continued. No one has
managed to pull ALL of the stuff together. I can't do it either, but
I have gone far deeper, with success and understanding that makes SR a
kids toy. GR has been decimated in its concept like black and white
to color.

I can't write the book of the universe here, but if you ask the right
questions and get the right answers, you can figure it out for
yourself. Dispel previous belief.

I wish you the best understanding.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Magnetic field and relative motion
    ... > xxein wrote: ... The physicality didn't seem to work. ... universe based on ALL observation from cosmological to quantum (with ... SR/SRT-types and had neglected gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lorentz Ether Theory and FTL Paradoxes
    ... >>You have failed to describe this universe. ... Flat means no gravity which is one ... xxein: Look, Bilge, I can supply a mathematic that completely ... Think instead of continually spouting your limited and suspect ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a programm
    ... try to tweak it to modify it toward what we observe? ... Its an algorith about an adiabatic system (our universe assumned to be ... Lets start with a few cells. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a programm
    ... as a 'classical' device in your supposedly 'non-classical' automata. ... physics' of it, it only means that it has a predictive behavior. ... I didn't worry much about gravity, because in microlevels its not expected and on big scale I have GR to deal with it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: wrong claims
    ... >>> web site first. ... >>But the physic of this universe is singular and uncompromising. ... This is in direct contrast with interaction that I had with xxein a while ... experimental style considerations into his answer (considerations that he ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast