Re: Why does light do what it does?
From: FrediFizzx (fredifizzx_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/05/04
- Next message: Peter K.: "UNIFIED FIELD THEORY HOLY GRAIL DISCOVERED BY ME"
- Previous message: MorituriMax: "Re: Non singular Begining"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Why does light do what it does?"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Why does light do what it does?"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Why does light do what it does?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:44:24 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:Ii3Gc.78778$sj4.61047@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2krnrnF5csvfU1@uni-berlin.de...
| > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
| > news:np1Gc.78678$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.
You read *my* paper or Volovik's? Did you read any of "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" yet? His correlations of superfluids (from experimental
investigations) with symmetry principles is much different than what you
propose. The hammer is dropping, and you will miss the "new physics".
| >
| > The geometry of spacetime has to have an explanation.
| >
|
| There is nothing a-priori that requires that.
Hmmm... geometry comes from "nothingness" I suppose. ;-)
| > 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.
What about dark energy?
| >
| > 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.
Yes, that is best advice. Learn it all and decide which "interpretations"
you like best. Just remember this; the Universe is necessarily defined by
all the quantum objects in it. Especially the quantum objects that comprise
the quantum vacuum. For in the quantum vacuum lies the other 96 percent of
the Universe's total energy. And it is what "powers" the so-called
self-energy of quantum objects that make real matter.
FrediFizzx
- Next message: Peter K.: "UNIFIED FIELD THEORY HOLY GRAIL DISCOVERED BY ME"
- Previous message: MorituriMax: "Re: Non singular Begining"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Why does light do what it does?"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Why does light do what it does?"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Why does light do what it does?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
