Re: Simple answers to so called great mysteries
- From: "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:12:26 GMT
<xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125539306.650723.231140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "Arthur Knight" <ak738983@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:c%pRe.18311$FA3.4121@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > (1)The origin of life (2) Michelson and Morley's experiment
>> > misinterpreted
>> > and false extrapolations as a result (3) The origin of the universe and
>> > its basic nature (4) Relativity (5) Gravity (6)Format's last theorem
>> > (7)
>> > Mass, Energy, Matter, kafuffle (8) Speed of light (9) A base to measure
>> > or
>> > extrapolate all from. etc I see many of your contributors have also
>> > solved
>> > or almost solved most of the above and many others I am pleased to
>> > learn
>> > because it gives me some hope for the future. (not that the
>> > establishment
>> > agrees with them or me) They are saying much of what I suspected long
>> > ago.
>> > People are starting to wake up to the smoke and mirror and gobble de
>> > gook
>> > of the establishment, in short their B S.
>>
>> All your new age slogan riddled posts that criticize physics but actually
>> say nothing does is express a vague unease (probably caused by not being
>> able to understand what you are criticizing). Now the experimental
>> evidence
>> against any currently accepted theory is? Not new age touchy feely stuff
>> but hard experimental fact. The basis of science is correspondence with
>> experiment - not the kind of dislike you express. Rest of rubbish
>> snipped.
>>
>> Bill
>
> xxein: Why SHOULD he be able to understand what he is criticizing? It
> wasn't logical wrt physics to begin with.
It is self evident if you do not understand what you are critisizing then
your concussions are highly dubious at best.
>
> What good would it be to try and tell you something other than what you
> believe? You won't consider it anyway.
>
I always consider reasoned argument - not new age sloganism such as 'The
academics often lick each other backsides and knowing little more than each
other giving each other degrees and awards for absolute dangerous rubbish
which the sheep haven't a clue about and get away with it.' not baked up by
a shred of evidence.
>
> Do you believe in all your kids lies.
>
If I had children I would believe what they said on the basis of evidence -
not my gut feeling. I do in fact have two nieces I live with. One is
constantly claiming the other is always bullying her. On numerous occasions
I have caught her complaining of it when her sister was doing nothing - that
is evidence.
> Of course not. You can see
> right through some of them. That is what a true physicist is supposed
> to do (should be able to do). Would you respect one that didn't?
I believe in reason - not statements backed up by nothing - just like I do
not believe in my nieces complaints until I see it for myself.
>
> Don't you think that some people see a universal physic beyond a
> belief? If not, then we are back into the dark-age where tradition
> rules and a physicist has to comply with current belief.
I think some people base their objections on a gut reaction not founded in
fact - Arthur's and your post being a cases in point.
>
> This is your choice and you seem to want to stay in the dark with old
> theory.
You are rambling as incoherently as Arthur does.
Rest snipped.
Bill
.
- References:
- Simple answers to so called great mysteries
- From: Arthur Knight
- Re: Simple answers to so called great mysteries
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Simple answers to so called great mysteries
- From: xxein
- Simple answers to so called great mysteries
- Prev by Date: Re: why lorentz transformation?
- Next by Date: Re: Energy in gravity field?
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple answers to so called great mysteries
- Next by thread: Energy in gravity field?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
