Implications of Finding a Higgs Boson

"Ben" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message
...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General
Relativity
chalks up another on with the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in
before
serious cracks start appearing in its
foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/

================================

That goobledegook has no equations, no empirical data
and
says nothing, you stupid bigot.



--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles,
Zeroth
Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot
present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

I understand that. I would really like to see the data, you pompous fop.
=============================
Why are you presenting it here? Hoping it would impress
someone with journalistic hyperbole, the only support GR
ever had?
Too bad, I know what dog **** is when I see it and refuse to
step in it.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Mar 15, 6:05*am, Davoud wrote:
Ben:

I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible as Wheeler
posited in his book on Black Holes.

Alrighty, then. We who are not qualified to devise these theories
ourselves tend to choose the theories of others that satisfy our
peculiar prejudices.

Listen to yourself,mathematicians have convinced the wider population
that they are privy to some insight into the celestial arena denied
the wider population, something which happens to be a form of
exploitation,so although their empirical voodoo may have convinced
you and those who know no better the truth is that they have ruined
astronomy for more than a few centuries.

The most dispiriting period was knowing that when confronted with the
actual reasoning behind absolute/relative time,space and motion
definitions as they apply to the idiosyncratic framework on which the
vicious form of 'predictive' empiricism relies for its authority,what
passes for an authority today wants none of it - they like the
contrived language that conceals rather than reveals anything but
couldn't give a damn that Newton was actually trying to make
predictive astronomy fit with interpretative astronomy which is always
going to result in failure,something they argued about at the crucial
historical juncture of Church and science history.

http://www.sflorg.com/spacenews/imag...2307_01_02.jpg

With spectacular 21st century imaging begging proper interpretation
and requiring guys who can send this information in all productive and
creative directions,who knows where the spark of insight will come
from but one place it won't will be those who consider themselves not
'qualified' to handle data because that demonstrate a lack of
confidence,competence and comfortableness with astronomy,something
which is alien to those who are curious and courageous about the
celestial arena and all that happens in it

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:57:49 PM UTC-4, oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:05*am, Davoud wrote:

Ben:



I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible as Wheeler

posited in his book on Black Holes.



Alrighty, then. We who are not qualified to devise these theories

ourselves tend to choose the theories of others that satisfy our

peculiar prejudices.



Listen to yourself,mathematicians have convinced the wider population

that they are privy to some insight into the celestial arena denied

the wider population, something which happens to be a form of

exploitation,so although their empirical voodoo may have convinced

you and those who know no better the truth is that they have ruined

astronomy for more than a few centuries.



The most dispiriting period was knowing that when confronted with the

actual reasoning behind absolute/relative time,space and motion

definitions as they apply to the idiosyncratic framework on which the

vicious form of 'predictive' empiricism relies for its authority,what

passes for an authority today wants none of it - they like the

contrived language that conceals rather than reveals anything but

couldn't give a damn that Newton was actually trying to make

predictive astronomy fit with interpretative astronomy which is always

going to result in failure,something they argued about at the crucial

historical juncture of Church and science history.



http://www.sflorg.com/spacenews/imag...2307_01_02.jpg



With spectacular 21st century imaging begging proper interpretation

and requiring guys who can send this information in all productive and

creative directions,who knows where the spark of insight will come

from but one place it won't will be those who consider themselves not

'qualified' to handle data because that demonstrate a lack of

confidence,competence and comfortableness with astronomy,something

which is alien to those who are curious and courageous about the

celestial arena and all that happens in it

Whatever it is that you are saying, Gerald know that I haven't read any of your posts in a couple of years. I don't intend to start now.

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message
...



On
Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General
Relativity
chalks up
another on with the ESO.* I wonder how much it has left in

before
serious cracks start appearing in its

foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/



================================

That goobledegook has no
equations, no empirical data
and
says nothing, you stupid
bigot.

*

--
This message is
brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles,

Zeroth
Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson
and
Van de faggot
present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from
usenet.

I understand that.* I would really like to see the data,
you
pompous fop.

=============================

Why are you presenting it here? Hoping it would
impress


someone with journalistic hyperbole, the only support
GR


ever had?

Too bad, I know what dog **** is when I see it and
refuse
to

step in it.
Noted. Don't look in any mirrors.
--

On Apr 25, 10:06*pm, Ben wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:57:49 PM UTC-4, oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:05*am, Davoud wrote:

Ben:

I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible as Wheeler

posited in his book on Black Holes.

Alrighty, then. We who are not qualified to devise these theories

ourselves tend to choose the theories of others that satisfy our

peculiar prejudices.

Listen to yourself,mathematicians have convinced the wider population

that they are privy to some insight into the celestial arena denied

the wider population, something which happens to be a form of

exploitation,so although their empirical voodoo may have convinced

you *and those who know no better the truth is that they have ruined

astronomy for more than a few centuries.

The most dispiriting period was knowing that when confronted with the

actual reasoning behind absolute/relative time,space and motion

definitions as they apply to the idiosyncratic framework on which the

vicious form of 'predictive' empiricism relies for its authority,what

passes for an authority today wants none of it - they like the

contrived language that conceals rather than reveals anything but

couldn't give a damn that Newton was actually trying to make

predictive astronomy fit with interpretative astronomy which is always

going to result in failure,something they argued about at the crucial

historical juncture of Church and science history.

http://www.sflorg.com/spacenews/imag...2307_01_02.jpg

With spectacular 21st century imaging begging proper interpretation

and requiring guys who can send this information in all productive and

creative directions,who knows where the spark of insight will come

from but one place it won't will be those who consider themselves not

'qualified' to handle data because that demonstrate a lack of

confidence,competence and comfortableness with astronomy,something

which is alien to those who are curious and courageous about the

celestial arena and all that happens in it

Whatever it is that you are saying, Gerald know that I haven't read any of your posts in a couple of years. *I don't intend to start now.

Describe what a 'black hole' is in geometrical terms as a physical
entity.

All this imaginative entity represents is empirical voodoo that exists
only in the heads of mathematicians and obstructs genuine
astronomy,nothing more or less .It may earn reputations and salaries
for a small group and their followers who will imitate the voodoo
chanting but effectively there is nothing there.

"Ben" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message
...



On
Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General
Relativity
chalks up
another on with the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in

before
serious cracks start appearing in its

foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/



================================

That goobledegook has no
equations, no empirical data
and
says nothing, you stupid
bigot.



--
This message is
brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles,

Zeroth
Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson
and
Van de faggot
present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from
usenet.

I understand that. I would really like to see the data,
you
pompous fop.

=============================

Why are you presenting it here? Hoping it would
impress


someone with journalistic hyperbole, the only support
GR


ever had?

Too bad, I know what dog **** is when I see it and
refuse
to

step in it.
Noted. Don't look in any mirrors.
--

===============================
Attacking me won’t make your precious religion and its tin god correct,
bigot.
You didn’t answer my question. Why are you presenting your hype here?
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:13:46 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message
...



On
Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...





On
Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Lord
Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben"
wrote in message


...




Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General

Relativity
chalks up
another on with the ESO.* I
wonder how much it has left in

before

serious
cracks start appearing in its

foundations.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/




================================


That
goobledegook has no
equations, no empirical data

and
says nothing, you stupid
bigot.



*

--
This message
is

brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles,


Zeroth
Earl of Medway.
When the
fools
chicken farmer Wilson
and
Van de faggot

present an
argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from
usenet.


I
understand that.* I would really like to see the data,

you

pompous fop.

=============================


Why
are you presenting it here? Hoping it would
impress




someone with journalistic hyperbole, the only support

GR


ever had?

Too bad, I know what
dog
**** is when I see it and
refuse
to

step
in
it.
Noted.* Don't look in any mirrors.
--


===============================

Attacking me won’t make your precious religion and its
tin
god correct, bigot.

You didn’t answer my question. *Why are you presenting your hype
here?

I'm not going to answer your question either. Figure it out.

Ben:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on with the ESO.
I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks start appearing
in its foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/

Cracks in the foundation presage disintegration and collapse. If that's
what you meant, then for GR, the answer is almost certainly "never."
Like Newtonian mechanics, GR will remain valid in its realm. It will be
supplemented, improved, and what-not, but if those values that are now
held to be universal constants really are constants and not subject to
change over cosmological time, then GR is quite safe.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

"Ben" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:13:46 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message
...



On
Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...





On
Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Lord
Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben"
wrote in message


...




Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General

Relativity
chalks up
another on with the ESO. I
wonder how much it has left in

before

serious
cracks start appearing in its

foundations.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/




================================


That
goobledegook has no
equations, no empirical data

and
says nothing, you stupid
bigot.





--
This message
is

brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles,


Zeroth
Earl of Medway.
When the
fools
chicken farmer Wilson
and
Van de faggot

present an
argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from
usenet.


I
understand that. I would really like to see the data,

you

pompous fop.

=============================


Why
are you presenting it here? Hoping it would
impress




someone with journalistic hyperbole, the only support

GR


ever had?

Too bad, I know what
dog
**** is when I see it and
refuse
to

step
in
it.
Noted. Don't look in any mirrors.
--


===============================

Attacking me won’t make your precious religion and its
tin
god correct, bigot.

You didn’t answer my question. Why are you presenting your hype
here?

I'm not going to answer your question either. Figure it out.
================================================== ========
I already did figure it out.
All that glitters is not a neutron star orbited by a white dwarf.
Whoopee, GR works because Bonehead Therell says so.
Clearly you are a stupid bigot preaching a religion
and cherry-picking unsubstantiated drivel to support it.
You present your hype here hoping to be seen as someone
knowledgeable in GR when it is obvious to all that you
are ignorant of mathematics and physics.
You are a bull****ter like thousands of others. Be a good
little boy and quit wasting my time. **** off.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Apr 26, 5:33*am, Davoud wrote:
Ben:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on with the ESO.
I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks start appearing
in its foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/

Cracks in the foundation presage disintegration and collapse. If that's
what you meant, then for GR, the answer is almost certainly "never."
Like Newtonian mechanics, GR will remain valid in its realm. It will be
supplemented, improved, and what-not, but if those values that are now
held to be universal constants really are constants and not subject to
change over cosmological time, then GR is quite safe.



There is a saying that a lie will go where the truth will not so that
any reader and I mean any reader here can clearly recognize that the
major astronomical insight that is the resolution of retrogrades does
not require a hypothetical observer on the Sun to make the apparent
retrograde motions disappear (the big lie) but rather the orbital
motion of the Earth as it overtakes the outer planets accounts for
their apparent motion while the inner planets of Venus and Mercury are
a separate case -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

The Earth is seen overtaking the outer planets in the time lapse
footage which is partitioned from the inner planets and their apparent
retrograde motion which results from their 'swerving' around the Sun
as seen in the sequential imaging of Venus -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/S...age%20flat.jpg

The ability to appreciate this retrograde partitioning between the
inner and outer planets would have been close to impossible without
the benefit of contemporary imaging as the planets are observed to
move from the Earth which itself is moving so somebody must take great
satisfaction from seeing the subtle differences whereas before no
explanation existed other than the false notion that a hypothetical
observer on the Sun accounts for all retrogrades -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

The fact is that Illig and his colleagues are determined to cling to
their convictions that Newton's clockwork solar system is the end
product of thousands of years of astronomical investigations by the
most brilliant minds ever to set foot on the planet and people from
whom I draw inspiration,not just the ones who are renowned but
especially the ones who are not including that great man who noticed
that Sirius does not appear from behind the glare of the Sun
constantly after consecutive 365 days but takes an extra day after 4
years and then use it to keep days aligned to the annual orbital
points of the solstices and equinoxes.

There is no foundation to have cracks in,there is a facade where the
cracks appear and that is entirely different.








--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm