Re: my gravity theory - Web Link

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:12:22 GMT

"SeanSinjin" <delphiconsultingguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103668846.530215.234430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Other than the fact that there is no math, the postulates are
> >unsupported and the results differ with empirical reality.... well....
>
>
> The reason the postulates are unsupported probably stems from the fact
> that this is a very unique and new version of 'ether' theory, and it
> will take some time to wrap your mind around it.

The reason is exactly as Varney said - it is crap unsupported by one shred
of evidence eg you wrote 'For a moment let's take a seeming tangent and talk
about space, referring to outer space, ether (also spelled, "Aether"), that
big emptiness just past the end of the upper atmosphere.'. It is not
science to assume, without evidence, and as if it is truth beyond question,
the existence of something no one has ever been able to detect. Such is the
way of the crank and crackpot. You need go no further than this to know it
is rubbish of the first order. A genuine scientist would give reasons for
supposing it or deduce it from more fundamental postulates. For a genuine
aether theory, and an example of what science is about, see
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/.

Bill

The results do not
> differ with empirical reality, since objects in my reality are brought
> together in precisely the same manner as we observe in GR. Is there
> something specific you could identify where my model fails to
> accommodate observed reality?
>
> >yes; The writing is shoddy, the web design sucks, as does the grammar.
>
> >The ideas presented are pathetic.
>
> I will confess to not being the best writer in the world, but my
> message is not meant to be enthralling and entertaining as it is to
> demonstrate my model. I think you'll find my work no more
> heart-stopping than a host of other informationally oriented papers.
> The Web page also falls under the category of utilitarian rather than
> an eye-grabber. I'm simply trying to transmit information.
>
> As for the ideas being pathetic, again, I ask for more meaningful
> information to justify this. You seem very passionate and insulted by
> even the suggestion of my theory and seeing that I am intending no
> harm, I am curious to discover how someone could possibly manifest this
> powerful of a reaction to so innocent a theory?
>
> > Yes. How can you spew such crap with a straight face?
>
> You're obviously very disturbed at what I wrote and for that I'm sorry;
> I didn't mean to offend you and I can tell that I've really gotten
> inside your head and pressed your sensitivity buttons. If you can tell
> me exactly how my gravity theory can cause you so much pain, I'd be
> glad to re-word it into a non-offensive manner. If you would be
> willing to perhaps give it another look over and try to see that I'm
> really not trying to hurt anyone, and that all that is contained in my
> theory is specifically a model that explains gravity and no more, you
> may come to understand that my model really does accommodate all
> observations.
>
> >That is the main definition of "crap".
> Thanks again for your feedback
>
> Sean
>

Loading