Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: 3 Jun 2004 23:44:22 -0700

mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0406022154.f8855f6@posting.google.com>...
> fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0406021821.e118539@posting.google.com>...
>
> > You have no justification for your idea. In other words, you pulled
> > something out your ass and expect it to pass.
> >
> > How do you reconcile what you say vs GR? The gravitational radius of
> > anything with mass [star] or mass-equivlant [geon] is nonzero. If
> > there was no space between two opposite points of the horizon, the
> > black hole would have a radius of 0.
> >
> > Go to a library and check out a non-lay book on GR that covers black
> > holes.
> >
> > > Am I right? Experiment will tell us.
> >
> > No, you are wrong. Experiment isn't needed for now. What you say is in
> > direct conflict with GR. Space exists inside the horizon, its just
> > timelike.
>
> 1. The prediction of GR in question has not been experimentally
> verified

For now, to my satisfaction, Black Holes Officially Exist unless you
have another explanation for the observed extra-massive compact
objects located.

The dark partner of the Cygnus system comes to mind, along with
Saggitarius A*.

> 2. You are correct. My prediction is in conflict with the predictions
> of GR.

Not only is it it on conflict with GR, it is in conflict with logic
because you have not explained how you obtain your ideas from your
conjecture.

> 3. If my prediction was *not* in contadiction with GR, then it
> wouldn't say anything new, would it?
> 4. There are two competeing unconfirmed predictions regarding the
> event horizon of a black hole. You *cannot* use one theory to disprove
> another theory when *neither* has been experimentally verified. Only
> experiment may say.

Your ideas are not a theory. They have no experimental basis, nor have
they any basis in theory. They are just presented 'as-is' and are
protected from destruction by the fact that anything within the event
horizon unable to be communicated to the outside world.

>
> This is why experiment in science is useful. The process you've
> elected to take removes experimentation from the process. Leaving us
> with something other than science.

Random bull***? Im sorry, thats what you want to leave us with.

>
> You said your elitist hostility towards me was well deserved. I think
> you should make more a critical examination of my methods versus your
> methods before making such insulting remarks.

If I were more critical I would ignore you or tell you to *** off.
 
>
> > I can't read your stories all the way through because I realize that
> > they are expected to be serious and not satire.
>
> Satire... well, the stories are meant be simply stated!

Explain them with math, its a lot less painful than your stories
because math makes sense at least internally.

>
> Here, is an interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle that an 8-year
> old understand. I challenge you to read the story all the way to the
> end and if you don't think this describes HUP then explain *exactly*
> how the story fails to live up to its claim.
>
> We start with an angel named Steve.

*cringe*

>
> Being that Steve is an angel we know that he is not made of the matter
> we observe. Also, he does not exist in the time or space we observe.
> This is cool because that means Steve does not abide to the laws of
> physics we know of and we are free to invent new laws of physics for
> him. Here:

Except...Angles DO NOT EXIST...

[snip puke]

Yes I did read it and I think its ***. It does not convey an actual
physical meaning because 1) ANGELS DO NOT EXIST, and 2) By your own
admission they do not follow our laws of physics and thus, as said
before, any conclusion you draw from them is trash.

Let me restate your multiple paragraphs of easily mutated crap into
something tangible, and useful.

/_\E/_\t >= ~ hbar
/_\x/_\p >= ~ hbar

The term 'conjugate variables' speaks an order of magnitude more
information than your story about angels throwing balls.

> I propose that the universe works in the following manner:
>
> 1. There is a set of actors and events that we do not experience or
> observe.
> 2. The information produced by these actors and events is our reality,
> a subset of the universe which I call nature.

So...

Where the hell do you pull black holes out from this? Black holes are
a consequence of GR and not your conjecture yet you feel free to use
them as if they are a given.

How do you obtain the uncertainty principle from your theory? No
'angel' *** either.

Remember, you can't use current theory to prove your theory!

All you can go on is experimental evidence, of which there is plenty.
 
> The information I speak of is not the angels and baseballs, but rather
> a set of information arising from the network of angels and baseballs.

ANGLES DO NOT EXIST.

Are you so ignorant of physics that instead of using 'particle
exchange force', the concept of 'Angels' made sense?

> Everything that is real to us exists in this information; this
> information is what our environment and ourselves are composed of. The
> complexity observed in our reality, in this information called nature,
> is the result of yet another unseen complexity in the universe.

As I have said before, your words are easily mutated to mean whatever
you want them to mean. The real test comes when you try to apply your
ideas to reality.

Lets see you pull something from your theory that is unexplained by
current science. If you are unable to logically infer an idea from
your theory, it is pulled out of your ass and will be treated as such
- as it is being treated now.

Quantcast