|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote: The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. * How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective * domains. * Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad. * *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * *etc... IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'... I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak louder than words... You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get unified. If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several million highly compensated individuals have left to do? That is a we'bit'of a conflict of interest, isn't it There is another more serious issue however, that is, abuse of process. If someone 'did' figure it all out AND it could lead to 'very bad things' do ya'think the the goverment(s) would want it in the public domain? Hypothetically speaking, of course. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote: On Sep 10, 2:07Â*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote: The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. Â* How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Â* QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, Â* etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective Â* domains. Â* Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad. Â* Â*Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Â* Â*QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, Â* Â*etc... IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'... I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak louder than words... You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get unified. If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several million highly compensated individuals have left to do? Of course, it couldn't possibly be that scientists haven't figured everything out because figuring everything out is a lot harder than posting insane, retarded horse**** on Usenet. Nope, if a poor little delusional, semi-literate Guthball can't understand it, it must be a conspiracy. -- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank] |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 10, 3:10*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote: On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote: The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. * How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective * domains. * Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad. * *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * *etc... IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'... I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak louder than words... You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get unified. If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several million highly compensated individuals have left to do? That is a we'bit'of a conflict of interest, isn't it There is another more serious issue however, that is, abuse of process. If someone 'did' figure it all out AND it could lead to 'very bad things' do ya'think the the goverment(s) would want it in the public domain? Hypothetically speaking, of course. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hawking says its all going to be figured out in another 20 years! I say it will take hundreds of millions! Although someone could get there he would simply be judged on it. It becomes a matter of accepting that science isn't willing to do. People judge the truth especially the absolute kind because they are not it. For instance distance is curved. Even Einstein was not willing to go there but it is the absolute truth. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 10, 7:58*pm, "
wrote: On Sep 10, 3:10*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote: On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote: The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. * How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective * domains. * Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad. * *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * *etc... IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'.... I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak louder than words... You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get unified. If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several million highly compensated individuals have left to do? That is a we'bit'of a conflict of interest, isn't it There is another more serious issue however, that is, abuse of process. If someone 'did' figure it all out AND it could lead to 'very bad things' do ya'think the the goverment(s) would want it in the public domain? Hypothetically speaking, of course. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hawking says its all going to be figured out in another 20 years! I say it will take hundreds of millions! Nobody is really waiting for jerks who only understand GTR to figure out dark energy, since it's given that dark energy will just be a modified lorentz tranform of a black hole. Although someone could get there he would simply be judged on it. It becomes a matter of accepting that science isn't willing to do. People judge the truth especially the absolute kind because they are not it. For instance distance is curved. Even Einstein was not willing to go there but it is the absolute truth. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
... So what is the relevance of it fool? The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply an example of Doppler effect It's all constant. It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense. You dagos need to get some new tricks. All the deflection and reputation attacks are pathetic. No deflection. And you have no reputation, other than as a moron .. and I'm not attacking that. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 10, 9:46 am, PD wrote: On 9/9/2011 11:42 AM, GSS wrote: ... Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established, (like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not remain synchronized. Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on earth with a high redshift z, is at rest. Sure? Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on earth with a high redshift z, is at rest. If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no longer synchronized to UTC? Or perhaps you would like to put some fictitious observer in the K' frame to observe and declare that the two clocks are not synchronized to UTC. Similarly, will that fictitious observer in K' frame also declare that all network system clocks on Internet which were synchronized to UTC through NTP procedure, are no longer synchronized to UTC reference clocks? In your opinion, what does all this really imply, physically? (a) Whenever the clocks C1, C2 and UTC reference clocks find that they are being observed by the fictitious observer in K' frame, these clocks will immediately change their pace and time to get 'out of synchronization'. (b) The clocks will keep ticking at their usual pace and retain their synchronization to UTC, but will only 'appear' to be out of synchronization to UTC when observed by the fictitious observer in K' frame, due to the relative motion between UTC frame and the K' frame. 2. If you do measure physical processes in a reference frame in which the origin of the UTC system is moving and yet use time driven by UTC clocks, you will discover that none of the laws of physics are the same as they are on Earth. This is considered generally A Bad Thing. This is utter bull****! Laws of physics cannot be influenced by the man-made reference frames. For example, all particle interactions within the solar system will be completely 'immune' to whatever reference frames you create to represent the relevant parameters of such interacting particles. That's simply not true. Do you know how, for example, the laws of physics change in a rotation reference frame? Is this all new to you? Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations, force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or groups of particles. Whereas the laws of Nature remain independent of the reference frames, the form of mathematical equation representing any law of physics may change with change in reference frame. We need to distinguish between the *laws of Nature* which cannot be influenced by the man-made constructs of reference frames and the *form of mathematical equations* that represent such laws in the selected reference frame. The only specialty of the so called *Inertial* Reference Frames is that the mathematical equations representing laws of physics will contain identical inertial or acceleration terms when expressed in different IRF in relative motion. When a large group of mutually interacting matter particles can be considered 'far removed' or isolated from other such groups, the motion and interactions of such particles can be properly studied by referring their positions and velocities to a 'Center of Mass' (CoM) reference frame. Whether such particles experience linear, oscillatory or rotational motion in their CoM reference frame, Newtons laws of motion will always remain valid and applicable. When such a large group of particles is undergoing rotational motion, Newtons Laws of motion will remain valid and applicable whether we refer it to a fixed reference frame or a rotating reference frame. Only the form of mathematical equations representing these laws will undergo change with the change in reference frame. However, if we use a rotating reference frame to study the motion of a group of particles which are not rotating with it, we will encounter an 'apparent' motion of such particles; just as we observe an apparent motion of the sun, moon and the stars in the sky from the rotating frame of earth. Such an apparent or relative motion is fictitious which cannot be used in any law of motion. Similarly, all observations made from fictitious IRF in relative motion with respect to an appropriate CoM reference frame, will be fictitious in respect of those groups of particles which are not moving with that IRF. I'm fairly convinced you don't even know what the issues raised by relativity are. In my opinion, the only issue concerning Relativity is its INVALIDITY due to the wrong founding postulates, assumptions and arbitrary definitions. However, you are welcome to raise any other issue concerning Relativity if you consider that important as well. GSS You are proposing using a set of clocks tied to the earth's reference system. Why? Because clocks cannot be influenced by man-made constructs of reference frames. But they most certainly are. A clock can be 'simultaneously' referred to or viewed from or can be located in infinitely many hypothetical inertial reference frames. But the clock is 'sensible' enough not to bother about any of those man- made constructs and keeps 'ticking' at its usual rate! |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics), .... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs, erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many intellectuals? Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue. .... The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands. Those who operate these accelerators verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they observe better than any competing theory. Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth of SR. There are many others. Do not deny the existence of elephants without visiting Africa! Uncle Ben |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 10, 3:10*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote: On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote: The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. * How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective * domains. * Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad. * *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * *etc... IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'... I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak louder than words... You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get unified. If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several million highly compensated individuals have left to do? That is a we'bit'of a conflict of interest, isn't it There is another more serious issue however, that is, abuse of process. If someone 'did' figure it all out AND it could lead to 'very bad things' do ya'think the the goverment(s) would want it in the public domain? Hypothetically speaking, of course. The quite spendy NIF (aka fusion bomb) R&D thing that was hyped as fusion energy research, is a perfectly good example of their not allowing our public funded research out the front door, or out from any doors (not even to our best allies). Problem is, William Mook has documented and published a for real fusion option that has already been demonstrated to work, and it's really not even all that spendy or technically insurmountable on the smaller scale for use as a fusion powered rocket or clean energy alternative to nuclear reactors. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Sep 10, 3:19*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote: On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote: The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. * How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective * domains. * Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad. * *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, * *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, * *etc... IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'... I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak louder than words... You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get unified. If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several million highly compensated individuals have left to do? Of course, it couldn't possibly be that scientists haven't figured everything out because figuring everything out is a lot harder than posting insane, retarded horse**** on Usenet. *Nope, if a poor little delusional, semi-literate Guthball can't understand it, it must be a conspiracy. -- Bill Snyder *[This space unintentionally left blank] Your ZNR redneck FUD-master mindset of preventing or withholding technology advancements, allowing global wealth disparity to flourish, plus depopulation and WW3 to happen, is noted. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"Uncle Ben" wrote in message ... | On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other | theories in physics), | ... | However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs, | erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, | uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts | of many intellectuals? | | Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue. | | ... | | The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown | to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, Bwhahahahahaha! Erroneous Babbling Bonehead doesn't even know what "confirmed" means! http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What the Scientific Establishment DOESN'T want you to knowof theSCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 2nd 08 01:54 PM |
Vested-Interest Secrets of the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT (The Truth ItDoesn't Want You to Know) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 2nd 08 01:47 PM |
Corrupt Scientific Establishment Still Blackballing Ed Conrad's Incredible Discoveries -- Evolution vs. Intelligent Design | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 21st 06 11:42 AM |
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment - | John Zinni | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 27th 06 08:41 PM |
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment.. | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 30th 06 06:31 AM |