Re: Magnetic field and relative motion

From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: 28 Jun 2004 20:12:51 -0700

"Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message news:<20040626132715.668$ox@news.newsreader.com>...
> xxein wrote:
> > "Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message
> > news:<20040624002246.521$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.
> >
>
> What published material do you mean? I don't know of anything anyone
> ever did that is like what you describe.
>
xxein: I am referring to the fact that 'published' thoughts/theories
were not of (my then) knowledge when I put logic to "popular theory"
that I knew as published.

> > 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').
>
> I did that search and looked at a few of the posts and all I found was
> the same sort of vague things you say here. You said you had a
> LET-type theory that incorporates gravity and agrees with all
> experiments. But all you seem to have is your "ugly duck" which seems
> to duck being a theory. :-)

After 19 years (since '85 for ref) of study (15 being gravity, from
'89), I was eager to tell my thoughts somewhere. I discovered this ng
in about '99 and was slow to discover the set belief system HERE.
Despite that slowness, I was still hesitant to come 'clean'. I don't
regret.

I continually pose hints and try to expose problems to this mindset.
But it is a rock of a mindset. I try to chip away at this and try to
impose a logic that is objective in the face of accepted subjectivity.

But this ng and all of the proponents of SR-GR cannot seem to realize
their subjectivity. The originator of their belief or theory
(Einstein) was never satisfied that his work was a complete theory,
yet his proponents/followers seem to believe that it is.

Do you profess that all is known from SR-GR? I don't, and I'm even
talking about quantum (Q) and cosmological (U) considerations FROM
SR-GR. But I do take it ALL into consideration (SR-GR with separate
Q's and U's).

The secret to this is suspension of belief (but I have succumbed
occasionally and think that I have escaped). What have we learned
from the difference of 12th century thought to the present? We are
human and there are little differences in behavior, but science has
outstripped our minds completely. We are into making conjecture after
conjecture (called theory) day after day and century after century.
Did we ever guess it right at the time?

Archimedes (bathtub ring) was found just recently to have
discovered/invented the rudiments of present-day calculus. That's
about 20 centuries of another belief system taking hold (to ignore
it).

When will we realize that we cannot ignore things that are not of our
belief?

Quantcast