Re: my gravity theory - Web Link

From: SeanSinjin (delphiconsultingguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: 21 Dec 2004 15:53:12 -0800

Hi Bill, thanks for your feedback,

>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.

Your definition of science seems to preclude hypothesizing. I will
however state that the observations of gravity and magnetism tend to
support the existence of my ether model. My evidence is all around us,
I'm simply binding the observations together in a model that is
consistent with all of them, something that hasn't yet been done. If
you have truly read my article, you would understand that my proposal
for ether is quite adapted to fit current observations. This is both
convenient, in the sense that everything fits, and yet precise, in that
I've tried to keep the ether model as simple as possible. You may have
a point that my ether may be more of a metaphysical construct rather
than a true substance, but I think we'll find eventually that there is
a point in reality where the physical becomes metaphysical, pure
mathematics, and that is my version of ether.

> 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.

So I'm to assume that your disregard for my theory is based upon the
first few lines? No disrespect, but wouldn't the very scientific
method you purport to be so necessary, be violated by the act of
judging something without getting all the facts?

> 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/.

Very interesting. I don't subscribe to his concepts but I'll make a
better attempt to get inside his thoughts. However, I fail to see how
my ether theory fails to convey information in a satisfactory way,
regardless of its lack of similarity to your above example. My
approach was to be conceptual and visual. It still ultimately contains
the same information that the math would, however, I feel more
comfortable and expressive working with diagrams that more or less
'virtualize' the mathematics that are so difficult to digest. I think
you'd understand better if you actually read my work prior to rejecting
it.

kind regards,
Sean

Relevant Pages

  • Re: my gravity theory - Web Link
    ... Our version of ether claims it to be the only substance ... in existence, and also claims that it is not composed of smaller particles'. ... The evidence I have seen says otherwise. ... aether wind would break the POR) and coulombs law leads to Maxwell's ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Science and Faith (Serious)
    ... Both are based entirely on faith with one claiming superiority over the other on the basis of so called science. ... There is nothing whatsoever that either can claim as real evidence other than snippets extrapolated into a belief system. ... No evidence exists corroborating the existence of God, the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge, or the talking snake thingy. ... What science does not do is nail up a "this is how it is" story and then burn people at the stake for daring to deny it. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> established by science. ... even though you might never be able to show evidence supporting ... to handle many verifiably real aspects of our existence. ... science can't handle God either. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the beginning?
    ... evidence that God exists or you have to show us evidence that other ... Can you prove the existence of the "God" particle? ... You can't prove the existence of God; science can't ... You would like to think that you define reality, ...
    (talk.origins)