Re: my gravity theory - Web Link

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

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:58:00 GMT

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:q52yd.83533$K7.7418@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "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

Had a couple of minutes to spare and read more of the junk. The author
wrote: 'One endearing new quality we'll introduce is homogeneity, or a lack
of particles.'. The aether of the 19th century was not considered to be
composed of particles - it was considered as a space filling elastic medium
exactly of the type the author is advocating (Conceptual Development of 20th
Century Field Theories - Tian Yu Cao - page 30-40). Why can't cranks at
least get history correct? Of course that assumes they understand enough
actual physics to be aware of the requirement; which is itself doubtful.

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
> >
>
>