|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"bobd" wrote in message ... On Mar 17, 3:38 pm, doug wrote: You did reply to the links I gave you and yet you claim there are no paradoxs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies Have a look then tell me there are no paradoxs. ********************** OK, I have had a look, and there are no paradoxes. |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
Define "aether".
Then tell me if it defines a particular priveleged inertial reference frame. |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Mar 18, 4:15*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
bobd wrote: On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do you study in your spare time? * *Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any * *aether. None is needed and none is detected. Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't either. * *I though you knew about Maxwell's equations and work? Were you just * *pretending to understand Maxwell? Yes it gives the equations for it's effect but states nothing about what it actually is! You have dug yourself into a hole and I think you know it. You are just arguing now because you don't like to loose. Go here http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may...rthrow-physics Read the paragraph "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator." What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? * *What proof is there that invisible pink flying elephant toasters don't * *exist? *Proofs are for mathematicians, not physicists. Once again you realise that you are incorrect. Do you think it's logical that a beam of light will travel at exactly the same speed through nothing when it is emitted by a candle or the sun?? This is just like saying particles of sound (lets call them soundions) will travel through empty space and arrive at the reciever, traveling at set speed limit. That the michelson- morley experiement didn't detect it???? * *The Michelson–Morley experiment gave the correct result. That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of space time. * *You should do yourself a favor and look up frame dragging! I bet i know a lot more about it than you have proved |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Mar 18, 1:33*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: Define "aether". Then tell me if it defines a particular priveleged inertial reference frame. The aether or electric fluid is an all pervading medium that exists everywhere in space. It is electricity and magnetism. It is responsible for inertia and gravity. Ponderable matter is but whirls and swirls in the aether kept in almost perpetual motion by something I'm not prepared to discuss yet but mainstream science has verified it's existence. The modification or slowing down of these swirls is what is seen as atomic decay. I came to these conclusions are after researching the experiments that supposedly discovered and measured the electron, proton and neutron, particularly the Millikan oil drop experiment. After doing this one can see that they are not necessarily particles at all. The aether has to be dragged around the earth because if it were not charged objects on earth would exhibit a magnetic field, even when stationary. As a magnetic field is asserted when an electric charge(or current) moves relative to the aether. Einstein was a great mathematician but his theories to the outcomes of his equations (bent space time) is meta-physics. |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Mar 18, 4:41*pm, doug wrote:
bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:15 am, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do you study in your spare time? * Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any * aether. None is needed and none is detected. Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't either. * I though you knew about Maxwell's equations and work? Were you just * pretending to understand Maxwell? Yes it gives the equations for it's effect but states nothing about what it actually is! You have dug yourself into a hole and I think you know it. You are just arguing now because you don't like to loose. Lets see, the equations describe what happens and make accurate predictions. Sounds good to me. You want philosophy not physics. So now you admit that science does not know what it is? Go herehttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overth... Read the paragraph "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator." We saw this before and then so what? What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? * What proof is there that invisible pink flying elephant toasters don't * exist? *Proofs are for mathematicians, not physicists. Once again you realise that you are incorrect. Do you think it's logical that a beam of light will travel at exactly the same speed through nothing when it is emitted by a candle or the sun?? This is just like saying particles of sound (lets call them soundions) will travel through empty space and arrive at the reciever, traveling at set speed limit. If you bothered to look at the last century of physics, you would understand this. I can see that you are too lazy to do so. Ahhh hahahaha you give me complicated, maths garbled answer, I give you a simple one. That the michelson- morley experiement didn't detect it???? * The Michelson–Morley experiment gave the correct result. That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of space time. * You should do yourself a favor and look up frame dragging! I bet i know a lot more about it than you have proved Well you have been hiding it pretty well if you do. |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Mar 18, 5:05*pm, doug wrote:
bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:41 pm, doug wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:15 am, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do you study in your spare time? *Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any *aether. None is needed and none is detected. Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't either. *I though you knew about Maxwell's equations and work? Were you just *pretending to understand Maxwell? Yes it gives the equations for it's effect but states nothing about what it actually is! You have dug yourself into a hole and I think you know it. You are just arguing now because you don't like to loose. Lets see, the equations describe what happens and make accurate predictions. Sounds good to me. You want philosophy not physics. So now you admit that science does not know what it is? You keep wanting to put in your prejudices into science. The equations describe it quite well. If you want something else, go do philosophy where you can bend words all you want. Go herehttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overth... Read the paragraph "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator." We saw this before and then so what? What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? *What proof is there that invisible pink flying elephant toasters don't *exist? *Proofs are for mathematicians, not physicists. Once again you realise that you are incorrect. Do you think it's logical that a beam of light will travel at exactly the same speed through nothing when it is emitted by a candle or the sun?? This is just like saying particles of sound (lets call them soundions) will travel through empty space and arrive at the reciever, traveling at set speed limit. If you bothered to look at the last century of physics, you would understand this. I can see that you are too lazy to do so. Ahhh hahahaha you give me complicated, maths garbled answer, I give you a simple one. The math is the description. Your delusions have no effect on the world. That the michelson- morley experiement didn't detect it???? *The Michelson–Morley experiment gave the correct result. That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of space time. *You should do yourself a favor and look up frame dragging! I bet i know a lot more about it than you have proved Well you have been hiding it pretty well if you do. So A: Science doesn't know what magnetism is and B you think it's ok to know the equations for something but not what it is. Fair enough if you think that's what science is I can't argue with you any longer. I do not agree. It sounds like maths to me. |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:15 am, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do you study in your spare time? Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any aether. None is needed and none is detected. Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't either. I though you knew about Maxwell's equations and work? Were you just pretending to understand Maxwell? Yes it gives the equations for it's effect but states nothing about what it actually is! You have dug yourself into a hole and I think you know it. You are just arguing now because you don't like to loose. Lets see, the equations describe what happens and make accurate predictions. Sounds good to me. You want philosophy not physics. Go here http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may...rthrow-physics Read the paragraph "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator." We saw this before and then so what? What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? What proof is there that invisible pink flying elephant toasters don't exist? Proofs are for mathematicians, not physicists. Once again you realise that you are incorrect. Do you think it's logical that a beam of light will travel at exactly the same speed through nothing when it is emitted by a candle or the sun?? This is just like saying particles of sound (lets call them soundions) will travel through empty space and arrive at the reciever, traveling at set speed limit. If you bothered to look at the last century of physics, you would understand this. I can see that you are too lazy to do so. That the michelson- morley experiement didn't detect it???? The Michelson–Morley experiment gave the correct result. That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of space time. You should do yourself a favor and look up frame dragging! I bet i know a lot more about it than you have proved Well you have been hiding it pretty well if you do. |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:41 pm, doug wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:15 am, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do you study in your spare time? Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any aether. None is needed and none is detected. Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't either. I though you knew about Maxwell's equations and work? Were you just pretending to understand Maxwell? Yes it gives the equations for it's effect but states nothing about what it actually is! You have dug yourself into a hole and I think you know it. You are just arguing now because you don't like to loose. Lets see, the equations describe what happens and make accurate predictions. Sounds good to me. You want philosophy not physics. So now you admit that science does not know what it is? You keep wanting to put in your prejudices into science. The equations describe it quite well. If you want something else, go do philosophy where you can bend words all you want. Go herehttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overth... Read the paragraph "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator." We saw this before and then so what? What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? What proof is there that invisible pink flying elephant toasters don't exist? Proofs are for mathematicians, not physicists. Once again you realise that you are incorrect. Do you think it's logical that a beam of light will travel at exactly the same speed through nothing when it is emitted by a candle or the sun?? This is just like saying particles of sound (lets call them soundions) will travel through empty space and arrive at the reciever, traveling at set speed limit. If you bothered to look at the last century of physics, you would understand this. I can see that you are too lazy to do so. Ahhh hahahaha you give me complicated, maths garbled answer, I give you a simple one. The math is the description. Your delusions have no effect on the world. That the michelson- morley experiement didn't detect it???? The Michelson–Morley experiment gave the correct result. That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of space time. You should do yourself a favor and look up frame dragging! I bet i know a lot more about it than you have proved Well you have been hiding it pretty well if you do. |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 5:05 pm, doug wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:41 pm, doug wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 18, 4:15 am, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: On Mar 17, 4:12 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: bobd wrote: Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do you study in your spare time? Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any aether. None is needed and none is detected. Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't either. I though you knew about Maxwell's equations and work? Were you just pretending to understand Maxwell? Yes it gives the equations for it's effect but states nothing about what it actually is! You have dug yourself into a hole and I think you know it. You are just arguing now because you don't like to loose. Lets see, the equations describe what happens and make accurate predictions. Sounds good to me. You want philosophy not physics. So now you admit that science does not know what it is? You keep wanting to put in your prejudices into science. The equations describe it quite well. If you want something else, go do philosophy where you can bend words all you want. Go herehttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overth... Read the paragraph "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force, admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket to the door of a refrigerator." We saw this before and then so what? What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? What proof is there that invisible pink flying elephant toasters don't exist? Proofs are for mathematicians, not physicists. Once again you realise that you are incorrect. Do you think it's logical that a beam of light will travel at exactly the same speed through nothing when it is emitted by a candle or the sun?? This is just like saying particles of sound (lets call them soundions) will travel through empty space and arrive at the reciever, traveling at set speed limit. If you bothered to look at the last century of physics, you would understand this. I can see that you are too lazy to do so. Ahhh hahahaha you give me complicated, maths garbled answer, I give you a simple one. The math is the description. Your delusions have no effect on the world. That the michelson- morley experiement didn't detect it???? The Michelson–Morley experiment gave the correct result. That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of space time. You should do yourself a favor and look up frame dragging! I bet i know a lot more about it than you have proved Well you have been hiding it pretty well if you do. So A: Science doesn't know what magnetism is and B you think it's ok to know the equations for something but not what it is. Fair enough if you think that's what science is I can't argue with you any longer. I do not agree. It sounds like maths to me. The point of science is to describe things and make predicitons. You want something else. Sorry but that is not science. You want philosophy so go do philosophy. It has no effect on reality and it is a lot easier than science. |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 09:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 09:00 PM |
Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature ofMatter and Fields" | GSS | Astronomy Misc | 74 | July 12th 08 04:34 PM |
[WWW] Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of | GSS | Research | 0 | May 21st 08 10:09 AM |
Is the universe infinite or finite? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 21 | December 17th 05 09:38 AM |