🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gani7s47km73bji63m299fvp4142q5knuq@4ax.com>,
  jdw27_42@SPAMONLY.xoommail.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> >In article <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>,
> >  jdw27_42@SPAMONLY.xoommail.com wrote:
> >> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >> >3) If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct
> >> >   and
> >> >   simple one, and the other one a very complex and indirect
> >> >   one...
> >> >   chances are the simple and most direct answer will also be
> >> >   the correct one.
> >>
> >> I think the history of science shows exactly the opposite: simpler
> >> theories being replaced by more complex ones.  In chemistry, the
> >> four
> >> elements of earth, air, water, and fire were replaced by over 100
> >> and
> >> counting.
> >
> >Apples & oranges: It's a far more complex affair to try to explain
> >the
> >world by the former than by knowing its true elements 100 or 1000.
>
> It's a far more complex affair to try to ACCURATELY explain the world
> by 4 elements than by knowing its true elements 100 or 1000, but for
> well over a millennium the former was sufficiently accurate for their
> purposes.

Well, accurately or inaccurately, it's still harder to explain
everything with four words than with a comprehensive vocabulary.
I am right--You are wrong. Ain't I a bitch!

> >> Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.
> >
> >I believe you'll find that Newtonian mechanics has not been replaced
> >after all. Relativity is only required to "explain" phenomena, many
> >of
> >which are more easily/correctly explained by other means, including
> >mine, by the way.
>
> The point is that as v/c approaches 0, the equations of special
> relativity become the equations of Newtonian mechanics.

I believe that's what I said in other words.

> >> Ptolemy's
> >> universe was much easier for the unaccustomed mind to understand
> >> than
> >> Copernicus's.
> >
> >Funny you should mention that, because there is in it an analogy with
> >the present situation here, being no different now than it was with
> >all those Einstein-like astronomers/mathematicians who, before
> >Copernicus, were absolutely certain that the Sun and all the other
> >planets orbited the earth:
> >
> >[snipped lengthy but otherwise fine explanation of development of
> >heliocentricism]

I, on the other hand, would never snip your best stuff.

> >Believe this if nothing else: It's as certain that the universe is an
> >imploding one as that the earth orbits the Sun. It's simply THAT
> >self-evident regardless what all the equations on earth today may
> >predict (incl. toast & coffee). [By the way, Copernicus himself had
> >so
> >little confidence in his own conclusions that he did not publish them
> >for 36 years. I only waited 10.]
>
> I've never been satisfied with the Big Bang Theory, and quite frankly
> have been leaning towards a universe imploding faster than the speed
> of light (so that the implosion is apparently running backwards in
> time, which then appears as an explosion running forward in time).

You've been on the right track, my friend. But you've been
sidetracked by injecting a fantasy into your calculations: Time
exists ONLY in the human mind. Period. Get rid of the superstition
and you might get somewhere.

You know, strength is not so much a matter of acquisition as
of ridding yourself ... of all those pesky human weaknesses and
superstitions.

> I
> believe that's what occurs inside the event horizon when a black hole
> is formed.

And I believe that galaxies "decay" to black holes... so that
even as we are now living in the age of galaxies, the universe
will eventually pass into its age of black holes. And then
black hole scientists of the black hole universe will collide
black holes to see what comes out... and, since their lifetimes
will be billions of years, the stars that are produced will
flare for what seems to them a few brief nanoseconds and
they will cheer... and collide all other sorts of things together
to see what comes out... cars... ":One baby, and a dog."

> But I'm gathering more evidence before springing it lose
> on the public.  I only mention here because I figure most people have
> already killed this thread.

Don't worry there: It can always be resurrected in the future
(resurrecting it in the past is only possible using those weird
multi-dimensional Star Trek New Age Mathematical dreams
today's physicists & mathematicians are currently working on).

> Also, there is the possibility that the
> universe we can observe is only a tiny fraction of the entire universe
> with waves of contraction and expansion running through it.  If the
> Hubble Space Telescope is able to "see the edge of the universe", then
> that possibility can be discounted.
>
> >[snipped verbiage about imploding universe]

Darn, that was some of my best verbiage!

> >> As the centuries passed
> >> after Ptolemy, more and more errors were observed, and complexity
> >> was
> >> added to the geocentric theory to explain them.
> >
> >I think you need not only a course on human nature but also
> >many a lesson in the history of astrology/astronomy/mathematics
> >before Copernicus (and into the analogous history of the last
> >century's physics/relativity/mathematics).
>
> I am amazed at your arrogance.

Me too. But, that's me all over. Whatcha gonna do?

> Just because I try to simplify my
> explanations as much as possible so that they can be understood by the
> widest possible audience (a skill which seems to completely elude
> you), does not mean I am uneducated.  I've taken courses in the
> history of mathematics, epistemology, metaphysics, quantum mechanics,
> special relativity and the philosophy of science.

Yes, but I was talking about being familiar with the historical
record up to and including Copernicus's life, not the whole
college experience (you left out football, you played any?).

> >TRUER: As the Ptolemic
> >system became less and less satisfactory what happened was
> >that the great mathematicians simply constructed wilder and wilder
> >Rube Goldberg equations to make it all work again (just as, today,
> >as Einstein's relativity raises more and more problems the "great"
> >mathematicians of today simply construct wilder and wilder Rube
> >Goldberg equations to try to make it all work again). It will fail:
> >[snip]
>
> I see no substantive difference between this and what I said, just
> more question-begging epithets.

In that case, might I beg you to go on to something else?

> >> It was this large
> >> body of accumulated errors which allowed Kepler and Copernicus to
> >> come
> >> up with a new theory.

> > Again, it was in spite of--read Copernicus' biography, do not guess.
>
> If no additional observations had been made from Ptolemy to
> Copernicus, he would have had no evidence to support his theory.  He
> might have come up with the theory, but it would have been dismissed.

He might have been dismissed, but eventually people would
have come around to seeing it's the earth orbits the Sun:
I have that much faith on people. (See my site.) But...
Then you acknowledge that somebody could have simply looked
at the world and seen it as it really is (instead of as mathematicians
worked it out to be). This is a beginning! Someday you might
even progress to the realization that mathematics can model ANY
universe/reality quite neatly... all the equations will balance and
all the math will be correct--with only the slight little problem that
the universe the equations modeled is a total fantasy, of course.

This is what the pre-Copernicus mathematicians did, this is what
the Einsteinian mathematicians have done, and this is what
good little mathematicians are doing even now all over the world:
If in order to make their equations come out perfect they need to
toss in two or three additional dimensions, why not?! (After all,
Einstein's equations were all sexually-intercoursed... until he
threw in a fouth dimension. Why not keep up a grand tradition?)

> >> Thus, Occam's razor is useful, not in deciding
> >> which theory is more correct, but rather in showing where to find
> >> the
> >> errors which can be used to show one theory to be less accurate
> >> than
> >> another.
> >
> >Your eyeballs beat Occam's razor every time: Put the razor down
> >and look with your own eyes (and... using your brain for something
> >other than to remember all the stuff you've stuffed into it by rote
> >wouldn't hurt, either).
>
> Let me put it another way: in every successful scientific revolution,
> the new theory explains not only new phenomena which the old theory
> doesn't explain but also most if not all of the phenomena the old
> theory does explain.

And let me put it to you this way: SR/GR do not explain
why the speed of light is constant (mine does). SR/GR
does not explain why the "expansion" of the universe is
accelerating (mine does). This is a quantum hop over &
above explaining it just as well.

> In particular, I saw nothing about the
> Michelson-Morley experiment in the web page you cited.

It's not required. You saw nothing about sunrise/sunset
in my page either (it's also not required): Egads, man!
The damn page is already 120,000 bytes and its sole
purpose was to say that SR/GR has a couple of flaws in it!

> That is
> critical if you are going to convince anyone but laymen.

I don't really think my job is to convince anyone. I did
my job by pointing out the obvious. My job is finished.
It's actually YOUR job now to determine whether the facts
fall on the side of the Big-Banger or of the Big-Crunchers:
I'm only a casual observer on the sidelines in all this... Look:
I am already in the bleachers munching on my popcorn and
waiting for all of you to take the field... Just remember this:
I always root for the underdog. At the start of the game
those are the Big-Crushers: Go, man, go! (Mango?!)

> >> On a related note, *other than the simplicity of the math*, is
> >> there
> >> any evidence that the speed of light is not slowly changing, rather
> >> than space expanding or contracting?
> >
> >The "current" speed of light is a factor of the age of the universe:
> >Do not guess--Read the text. But know this: Radiation is possible
> >only in a collapsing universe. I just don't see how it could be
> >possible in an exploding one (and in this, at least, everybody
> >agrees: NO ONE who assumes an exploding universe can easily
> >explain why the photon behaves the way it does--least of all
> >Einstein,
> >who based all his equations on the only thing he believed absolute
> >in the universe... the speed of light. Because of this, my friend,
> >if ever anywhere somebody discovers a greater speed than c
> >then all the foundations of SR/GR must topple; while such a find
> >would only be an "interesting" discovery for Absolute Relativity
> >and would be of no significance whatever one way or the other.
> >Perhaps you're one of those chaps who will have to wait this out.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >S D Rodrian
> >sdr@t-three.com
> >http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> About this web page: your analogy with a cork and a ship works fine
> with a single photon, but doesn't explain how a light bulb can send
> photons in all directions.

Please note: It works for all photons everywhere! Read it again
(I only used one photon for simplification): Every photon has
its source (even if one source is the father of all photons).
This is why I specifically spoke about space expanding (and
therefore making the photon's source de facto the center of
the universe), instead of speaking there of matter as shrinking.

> You'll need to explain at least four
> photons tetrahedrally oriented (i.e., along the directions of the
> hydrogens in a methane molecule) to convince me that your theory could
> work.

Again: Oriented or rowing.... the only quality SOURCE can
impart a photon is orientation relative to itself. Period. (And
because SOURCE will always be at the center of the x-space
universe... every photon will "shoot" out away from SOURCE
with an orientation.) Now all you need do is realize that all
SOURCE(s) have an absolute orientation with respect to each
other in our universe... to then follow the photon as it "shoots"
through our universe in an apparently linear direction. Oh, by
the way, did I mention that all "forms" of matter are shrinking?

Simple, no?

>
> >> *"Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"*
> >
> >Agn... It's was "ok."
>
> I think you didn't get that the above was a punchline to a joke:

Actually I did--I am a Lincoln enthusiast from long long ago!
I just added my own punchline. (I thought about, "Third act
could've used some work....." But vetoed it as undignified.)

> After
> President Lincoln was assassinated, a newspaper reporter came up to
> the First Lady and asked her how she felt.  She replied, "How do you
> think I feel? My husband's just been shot!"  The reporter then asked,
> "Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
>
> The point of the joke is refers to when I said "*other than the
> simplicity of the math* is there any evidence that the speed of light
> is not slowly changing, rather than space expanding or contracting?"

Yes, I also caught your analogy. Very nice, actually.

> If a theory results in equations that are impossible to solve,
> scientists will never accept that theory.
>
> John D. Wheeler

If a theory results in equations that are impossible to solve,
mathematicians will simply crunch the numbers into any shape
until they accept its elegant distortions as proof of its truth.

                       -- S D Rodrian

sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

And, by the way, I am still trying to make the above
article even more easy to read and understand.











Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.