🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <389BB437.2E5CAF3E@louisville.edu>,
  Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> Zirb-Monkey wrote:
> >
> > As I'm sure may of you readers know, sdrodrian has been posting
> > about
> > 100 messages in the past week telling us about how he is a genius
> > because he knows how the universe goes 'round.  It is an interesting
> > theory, but a theory needs one important thing.  It needs to be
> > tested.
> >
> > My question is this:  What kind of properties does this theory make
> > about the universe, and what calculations show it's worth?  That is
> > the
> > big question when going through the scientific method to see if
> > you're
> > correct.  Mr. Rodrian's essay on his theory involves a lot of talk,
> > but
> > where's the proof to back it up?  The definition of a theory is that
> > it
> > must predict the behavior of what it tries to explain.  To do this,
> > we
> > need calculations.
> >
> > Einstien did become famous for his paper on relativity, but it was
> > his
> > mathematical equations that won him the Nobel Prize.  Why else do
> > you
> > think E=mc^2 is synonymous with the man who discovered it?
> >
> > You have a nice idea, but you need to take it to the next level
> > before
> > you proclaim yourself as master of the universe.  (you aren't even
> > close
> > to He-man, so stop making suck flatulent claims).  You do the math.
> >
> > I fart in your general direction.
>
> For the record, the Nobel Prize that Einstein won was for his
> explanation of the photoelectric effect, not for his theories of
> relativity.
>
> Otherwise, what you say about theories in science is correct.  Mr.
> Rodrian's idea (hardly a theory) is cute but untestable in the
> science-sense of the world.

O dear! And I thought the finding that the Hubble constant is
accelerating just HAD to be associated with an imploding universe
and could simply NEVER be reconciled with a Big Bang one!
And c constancy? Why, it's so inevitable in an imploding
universe, and so inexplicable in a Big Bang one! But I do concur
with you that I am not a theoretician: Mine are strictly ONLY
explanations of observed facts, not guesses or suppositions, not
mere opinions or surmises, not conjectures or notions, not sneaking
ideas or shots in the dark, etc.

> He basically has rejected that process
> and
> expects sheep to follow his tune.

Quite the reverse, Mr. Miller: I demand that those who consider
my solutions to the "given" problems reason it out themselves:
I never claim to be right, I only claim to be correct. If you can find
something in my solutions that needs to be corrected, please do it.
I shall be only too glad to give you equal primacy & credit.

However, I do propose that one ought never to believe that
anyone else is right. And my essay does correct a number of
errors in conventional relativity. Which see.

> Thinking people will do otherwise.

I disagree: I'm convinced that thinking people will think
for themselves regardless of what anybody tells them they
ought to think. That's why I advise them to consider the matter
for themselves in the first place, Mr. Miller. Were I to advise
them as you do that they should merely take some Authority's
opinion on who is right and who is wrong... they would either
instantly or eventually prove me as big a scoundrel--

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity


>
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator     Scott.Miller@louisville.edu


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