Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 02/05/05 

Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:19:33 GMT

"SDR" <sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:58087ec7.0502040241.5d9b52c8@posting.google.com...
> >From: Bill Hobba (bhobba@rubbish.net.au)
> >Subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
> >Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag, sci.physics.particle,
> sci.physics.relativity, sci.logic
> >Date: 2005-02-03 18:34:10 PST
> >> >> "Space" refers to "nothing."
> >> >Tell that to a surveyor.
> >> I'm sorry, I thought that was you. You seem so much more
> >> interested in measuring things than in understanding... anything.
> >
> >You seem to be much more interested in espousing you own
> >senseless semantic waffle such as 'Existence cannot be created or
> >destroyed (exactly the same as with "energy" since that's exactly
> >what it is).' rather than the analyzing the generally accepted
> >definitions used in physics. For energy that is the conserved
> > Noether current related to time symmetry.
>
> I like it put better the way I said it. It makes perfect sense
> and if you look it up in any publication intended for human
> beings--Presto!--they always put it how I put it (namely:
> "energy cannot be created/destroyed, only conserved" or some
> "senseless semantic waffle" like that).

Then acquaint yourself with what energy truly is. Saying that energy can
not be created or destroyed is a tautological statement because it is
defined as the conserved Noether current associated with time symmetry.
This means if the Lagrangeian does not depend on time then it is conserved -
if not then it may not be. For example view a free particle from an
accelerated frame and you will find its energy is not constant.(see page
126 - Landau - Mechanics). This was all sorted out by Emily Noether in 1915
whose theorem is one of the cornerstones of modern physics -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html It also means energy is a very
difficult concept to define in GR - see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html . What I
have just supplied is an argument based on cited references - you might like
to consider the same technique. However as Tom Roberts says cranks rarely
if ever are able to cite standard literature. My observation is on the rare
occasions they can it is invariably popularizations.

> But, Bill: The thrust
> of my original post IS that "existence" (the entire universe) is
> "energy," and why that's the case. Read & learn, Bill! It's all
> very simple and straightforward stuff:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com

I have - it is junk of the first order. For example you have your own idea
of what energy is (and that idea is basically a semantic wank) then propose
a whole heap of other semantic crap built around it and offer it as physical
insight. Such is a typical crank ploy - and inevitably results in worthless
junk - which is precicely what you have created.

>
> >... It has nothing to do with incoherent ramblings that
> >merely demonstrate your ignorance.
>
> Then I advise you to consider what you type BEFORE you
> type it, Bill. Perhaps you're all hopped up on caffeine...
> Try relaxing more, play some sssoothing music, try
> Diet Coke without the caffeine instead.

I did consider it. A read of the first few lines was enough to show it is
typical crank spew. For example my quote showed your idea of energy has
nothing to do with how it is conceived of in physics.

>
> >> >> "Time" refers to every moment; & "everything = nothing."
> >> >Time is what a clock reads.
> >>
> >> Well, if your clock isn't telling you "every moment"
> >> you might need a new clock.
>
> >No clock tells you every moment because every clock
> >has some limitation on its accuracy.
>
> Life is always an approximation, Bill. Except, of course,
> with some girls... (Everybody's a perfectionist at something.)

So why make stupid statements of no inherent value like 'Well, if your clock
isn't telling you "every moment" you might need a new clock.' then respond
with a vague statements of acknowledgment. I have seen this type of
behavior before - it is very common in cranks. It is a technique of
misdirection so they can not be pinned down (1).

>
> > Physicists accept such in due course - cranks see it as
> > some kind of problem when of course it is not - which is
> > one reason they are cranks.
>
> You seem to be very big on pigeonholing folk, Bill. You're
> not a New Jersey State Trooper, by any chance, are you, Bill?
> Didn't they order you guys to cease/desist profiling people?

See the statement marked (1) above.

>
> >> >> And if "nothing" is bending (curvature)...
> >> >> what are you talking about? Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
> >> >Which is one reason space-time is not nothing.
> >>
> >> Yes: Nothing is also not nothing, and so on (since, if you can
> >> talk about nothing... you're obviously talking about something):
> >> Are you a member of the junior philosophers league, Bill?
>
> >Nothing is also not nothing?
>
> Well, Bill, you seem to be talking a lot about Nothing.
> I just figured you'd appreciate it if I thought it was...
> something. "Nothing is Something." There, now be happy.

See the statement marked (1) above.

>
> > Increase you meds - you obviously need them.
>
> So you're NOT a New Jersey State Trooper, Bill. You're a
> common pusher! Well, sir, I'll have you know I already take
> too many meds. They've already pinched me for shoplifting
> a dozen times. But I just tell'em: "I'm an old man. I thought
> I'd paid for them! Jerry, you ratted me out!" Oddtimes it works.
>
> >Rest of junk snipped. Bill
>
> "Hello...?"
>

That's right - I will not be drawn into you semantic quagmire of irrelevant
issues. When your ideas make contact with standard ideas of physics and not
you own private delusions then sci.physics.relativity may be the proper
place to discuss them.

Bill

Quantcast