Re: Why does light do what it does?

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 02:47:04 GMT

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2krnrnF5csvfU1@uni-berlin.de...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:np1Gc.78678$sj4.72948@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> |
> | "Bill664" <bill664@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:1b6ebc64.0407040840.6df5186@posting.google.com...
> | > Bilge:
> | >
> | > Many, many thanks for the very full and very helpful post below which
> | > was spot on for me in terms of the level it was pitched at.
> | >
> | > The main thing I got from it was that SR stands on its own,
> | > independent from theories of light and the nuclear forces. [And
> | > thanks to Bill Hobba for pointing me to a derivation of the Lorentz
> | > transformations from the POR alone.]
> |
> | And this is a point most if not all the cranks that post around here
fail
> to
> | grasp. You now understand its true nature. The next thing to do is
think
> | carefully about the derivation I linked you to - it is in fact more
> complex
> | than it needs to be due to the level it is pitched at eg the proof
> linearity
> | can be considerably simplified. But don't worry about it too much - as
> your
> | knowledge and understanding of math and physics grows things will become
> | clearer and clearer until you reach the point where you understand the
> true
> | basis of SR - symmetry - and will recognize how ugly ideas like the
aether
> | really are.
>
> Oh brother! How ugly is it that the fact that matter exists to the
> principle of symmetry? You definitely need to think more fundamental.
> Relativity is very nearly correct for its domain of applicability but it
> does not rule out the quantum vacuum. Please read Volovik and become more
> enlightened.

Freddi - many have reached the same conclusion I have. I have read your
paper and it PROVES nothing - it simply is another theretical proposal. We
have tons of those eg Ilja GLET - time will tell how well it pans out just
like time will tell how well the ideas of supestring thery or any other
theory pans out.

>
> The geometry of spacetime has to have an explanation.
>

There is nothing a-priori that requires that.

> Do you really think
> that real matter being only 4 percent of the total Universe can explain
the
> geometry of spacetime? What the heck is the other 96 percent?
>

So? The possible existence of dark matter can be explained in many ways.
In STM, one of my favorite theories (a non aether theory BTW) it is
explanted as solitons in 5d. Does that make STM correct - nope. Does it
show its explanation does not a-priori require an aether - yep.

>
> My advice to Bill664 is to learn all the standard stuff but keep in your
> mind that there is much more. A particular geometry exists for a reason.
> It is not "just because".

My advice to Bill664 is to understand the foundation of science is test,
hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over. All hypothesis contain
assumptions - it is purely a matter of personnell preference what
assumptions you like or dislike. As the paper I linked to proved the key
assumption of SR is the POR - light really has very little to do with it.
You were able to reach that conclusion yourself. My bias towards symmetry
is my and many others opinion, but others have a different biases such as
Freddi - in science such is not really important - correspondence with
experiment is. However I believe the more acquainted you become with the
ideas of physics the more you will realize symmetry is the correct
foundation just like the correct foundation for SR is the POR (a symmetry
principle BTW) and not light. But do not take my word for it, do not take
Freddi's word for it, commence the journey yourself and form you own
opinion.

Thanks
Bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does light do what it does?
    ... > investigations) with symmetry principles is much different than what you ... Dark energy is the hypothesized source of the mystery of why the unversed ... > | hypothesize, test, hypothesize over and over. ... > all the quantum objects in it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: For the programming geeks - weather models software coding here
    ... theory and the debate will really be over. ... Or, for all practical means, the better explanation collapses ... Rather than being an attractive force between masses, we have a closer approximation to the truth that claims it's a time-space warping force - the appearance of attraction between masses is an indirect/secondary effect of that warping. ... Besides, I was making a point to Con - not matter how firmly entrenched a theory, no matter how well-confirmed by the data - it is never proven as true. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Why does light do what it does?
    ... How ugly is it that the fact that matter exists to the ... |> does not rule out the quantum vacuum. ... investigations) with symmetry principles is much different than what you ... FrediFizzx ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... unshaven scarecrow would predispose towards the "mad" explanation. ... [I claimed that people matter. ... tell me what the rigorous conclusions of atheism are, ... Christian to use mobile phones.) ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Careful!
    ... As a matter of fact, ... north of the border, but can you provide a short explanation? ... Oh Peter, your sojourn in Ulster makes you very literal. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)