Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better...
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 08/12/04
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Sagnac and ballistic emission"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better..."
- Next in thread: shuba: "Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better..."
- Reply: shuba: "Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Aug 2004 04:21:42 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<HnESc.53025$K53.645@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "Andr? Michaud" <srp@microtec.net> wrote in message
> news:562f286c.0408110853.2b88cecd@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<VrlSc.49597$K53.26552@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
[snip]
> > >
> > > Are you blind, mentally deficient, or what?
> >
> > May I remind you that courtesy is sign of maturity.
>
> Not in the face of blatant irrationality
Irrationality is when individuals grow pimples when others
air opinions contrary to theirs.
Rational people don't insult others who have differing opinions.
> >
> > How old are you exactly?
> >
>
> Old enough to tell those who show a semblance of reason and
> those who do not.
Not old enough apparently to behave civily in public.
> >
> > > I gave you a link to a Kaluza-Klein based explanation (which is
> > > perfectly consistent with GR) as well as an analysis that showed
> > > it was consistent with a gas leak.
> > > And you infer no GR based theory can explain the case.
> >
> > I didn't infer it. The very quote you gave me from a very recent
> > peer reviewed and community rubber stamped paper not only infered
> > it, but asserted it.
>
> One paper stated it was in accord with gas leaks, the other claimed
> it was explainable in terms of 5D GR. Only a person who has
> abandoned reason could infer 'In plain English, if you need a
> refresh, it simply means that no GR based theory can explain the
> case.'.
What means in plain English that no GR based theory can explain
the case is the quote you gave from that paper:
'Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause
of this effect is an unknown systematic."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0104/0104064.pdf.
This is from a paper that tentatively proposed an avenue of
research based on GR.
This other quote that I gave you
"So far it seems that no satisfactory explanation based on well-
known physics exists."
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910054
is from another paper that proposes a possible avenue of research
based on GR.
All paper peer reviewed papers that propose avenues of research on
this problem are based on GR or offshoots of GR and even the most
recent air the opinion that current physics can't solve the problem.
That's all there is to it. The community admitted repeatedly even
very recently that it can't solve the problem with current most
advanced physics which is based solely on GR and SR.
Since no peer review board will let through any paper not based
on GR or offshoot of GR, then there is a crisis in fundamental
physics that will not be solved by the orthodox community.
Again, that's all there is to it.
> If face of such I have no recourse but to say I have stated my
> case, you have stated yours.
Definitely.
> It is now for others to judge.
You are delusional if you think that others really care. Each
has his own opinion like you and me and none will budge from
their position.
André Michaud
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Sagnac and ballistic emission"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better..."
- Next in thread: shuba: "Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better..."
- Reply: shuba: "Re: Any critic of modern Physics, it has to be better..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
