A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism: Review Request



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #511  
Old March 17th 09, 01:17 PM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old March 17th 09, 01:33 PM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

Define "aether".

Then tell me if it defines a particular priveleged inertial reference frame.




  #513  
Old March 18th 09, 03:34 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 18th 09, 03:52 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 18th 09, 03:58 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 18th 09, 04:10 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 18th 09, 04:41 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old March 18th 09, 05:05 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old March 18th 09, 05:22 AM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old September 25th 12, 12:26 AM
josh colton josh colton is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Sep 2012
Posts: 1
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug

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.
Doug is definitely correct here. It's important to keep the distinction between science and philosophy in mind. Science is only concerned with describing "how" the universe works, not "why" it works. www.oxlaashyex.com/science has a good explanation of the basics about science.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:54 AM
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 4 January 26th 09 10:00 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 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.