Re: Why Relativity must be wrong...
- From: dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:22:56 GMT
robert j. kolker:
>
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> As opposed to theories about the laws of nature that don't
>> refer to measurement? Here in physics land, we don't consider theories
>> that don't refer to measurements to be physical theories, because
>> such theories can't tell us how to measure anything that would
>> test them. ``The moon is made of green cheese'' is a theory that
>> doesn't refer to measurement, since green cheese isn't well-defined
>> by the theory. Green cheese is whatever the moon happens to be so
>> astronauts would have no way of determining if that theory were true
>> by putting a moon rock on a cracker and tasting it.
>
>Cheese is organic, by definition,
The ether is a medium, by definition, too, but that doesn't stop
the kook contigent from trying to work the word ``vacuum'' into
their spiel to try and mitigate the distinction between the vacuum
and a physical medium.
>regardless of its color, being
>clotted rotted mammalian milk curd. So the proposition "The Moon is
>made of green cheese" can be tested. If the rocks brought back by the
>U.S. astronauts are typical of the Moon's makeup we can conclude that
>the Moon is NOT made of green cheese or any other kind of cheese for
>that matter.
>
>If the Moon were made of green cheese it would require milk from the cow
>that jumped over the Moon or the goat that jumped over the Moon. The
>Islamic Crescent portion of the Moon would be made from camel milk of
>the mother camel that jumped over the Moon.
But that would be a ``physical process'' that explains the moon,
It eliminates all of the abstract ``principle theories'' that are
just ``math theories.'' Since, like lesage gravity, it's a ``physical
theory,'' there is no need to do anything but assert that it works.
As a ``physical theory,'' it's automatically exempt from any scientific
criteria applied to ``math theories.'' Just don't introduce virtual
cows.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is all motion relative?
- Next by Date: Re: "Inertial Forces" violate Newton's Third Law
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Relativity must be wrong...
- Next by thread: Re: Why Relativity must be wrong...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|