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”

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]

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.

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.

"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.

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!

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

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”

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”

"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