Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:52:25 GMT
"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n8qjq195ml7uh7dkkfebuiv1t48jl8ivv5@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:11:27 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:vNdqf.75823$V7.63787@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:43a94b8b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [Snip...]
>
>>>> By means of magical equations?
>>>
>>> Equations describe nature - they do not, and in principle can not,
>>> answer all questions one can ask. You know as well as I do non
>>> aether theories meet the gold coin of science - ie are in accord
>>> with experiment. That and logical consistency is all that can be
>>> asked - and even logical consistency is sometimes swept under the
>>> rug. This implies they are valid - simple as that. It is you
>>> that wishes to resort to terms like 'magic' when describing
>>> aspects of equations you do not understand in terms of how you
>>> nature should work or think requires deeper explanation without
>>> first demonstrating such is required. Most simply accept them as
>>> part of theories and if truth be told change their views of how
>>> they think nature should work rather than clinging to ideas like
>>> an aether. That most do that is an observed fact - not a conjecture.
>>> Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe in the spirit of science they should
>>> hold onto all ideas. But the arrogant attitude of most aetherists
>>> that an aether must exist, if you don't believe in it you believe
>>> in magic or some such rubbish, does not appeal to those of a
>>> generally tolerant persuasion. I try to be tolerant and I know it
>>> does not appeal to me.
>>
>> Bill, I don't believe in magic:
>
> Neither do I... Nor do I buy it just does, or, such gobbly-goob as:
>
> "Motion implied by the equations of EM."
>
> As if the equation of EM can endow or induce something to physically
> move... Sheez! Ass-backwards...
And I suppse mass times accleration does not do it either.
>
> And,
>
> "Those are found by carrying out the variation on the EM
> lagrangian."
>
> Or,
>
> "That is another assumption one needs to make about the
> fields for them to produce force - they are derivable
> from the PLA."
>
> Which, of course, says NOTHING!!!
The PLA is a very well verified physical principle. In fact all our
fundamental theories are derivable from it (and other assumptions). Learn
the basics then repost. Wait a minute - you have been given that advice
many times and it has made no different so I suppose it is advice wasted.
Just like replying to your posts.
Bill
> about the physical aspects of the
> 'field' but does allow one to mathematically represent it. It is
> your simple elegant point that clearly shows the observational
> evidence of the physical medium... So, everytime someone spouts off
> writing there is no observational evidence or properties of the
> medium it makes one want to metaphorically throttle the Bozo for
> being so self blinded...
>
>> I don't believe in the power of equations, just as I don't believe
>> in the power of words as in Ali Baba.
>
> Hear, hear... Sadly however, your words fall upon the deliberately
> self blinded. It will have no meaning to him whatsoever.
>
>> And if you want to call virtual photons rubbish: I don't care. Anyway,
>> the phenomena that according to you are caused by math equations in
>> what you call "non aether" theories, are according to Newton, Maxwell
>> and Einstein caused by something unseen but physical; but it doesn't
>> matter for experimental physics -- we agree that the equations match
>> the measurements.
>
> Paul Stowe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Aetherist
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- References:
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Harry
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Harry
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Aetherist
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Prev by Date: Re: Experimental Detection of Universal Reference Frame
- Next by Date: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Previous by thread: hobba is a gay
- Next by thread: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|