🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <389F9AA5.179836AA@louisville.edu>,
  Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >  One example that comes to mind is Einstein's
> > >  theory of relativity predicting the fact that light from a
distant
> > >  star  would be curved by the sun's gravitational field.
> >
> > It's only a great prediction if one assumes the photon is massless
> > (or that it does not contain matter): I, on the other hand, am quite
> > convinced from observed facts that the photon is made of matter
> > and that consequently it obeys the laws of gravity (even if it may
> > not do so EXACTLY like every other form of matter).
>
> Convinced or not in your own mind, experimentation proves your
> assumption incorrect.

So, basically, what you're saying is that when a theory predicts
Santa Claus uses flying reindeer, if experimentation (mathematical,
of course) finds no objections to Santa Claus using flying reindeer
then my assumption that "It's all bogus, man!" has been proven
incorrect?

> Other predictions and explanations of the general theory have also
been
> demonstrated, such as the slowing of time in increasing gravitational
> fields (Newton's laws predict no such effect on time).

Go thou to my web site. There will you find that I say Einstein was NOT
wrong but merely giving out unnecessarily convoluted explanations
(time dilation does occur: Molecular activity DOES slow down with
increased velocity in this universe, but it is not BECAUSE the molecule
is being accelerated--Why should a molecule being so stressed calm
down????????--No, Mr. Miller... it slows down BECAUSE it is being
slowed down towards absolute rest from a higher "velocity" AND
that higher velocity comes about because the universe is an implosion:
In our imploding universe NO HIGHER LINEAR VELOCITY than the
current one towards shrinking is possible! Instead ALL APPARENT
ACCELERATIONS ARE REALLY DECELERATIONS... that is why
when you apparently accelerate a molecule it REALLY calms down:
BECAUSE IT REALLY IS CALMING DOWN in the direction of
absolute rest. Einstein was not wrong, he just did not know this:
Only I knew this, FIRST... and now you know it after I just told you.

> This has been
> demonstrated on different floors of an office building using atomic
> clocks, it has been demonstrated by atomic clocks, on stationary, one
> sent on an accelerated journey in an aircraft, and it has been
> demonstrated by a binary pulsar system.

Yes. The effect is REAL, Einstein's explanation is backwards (it's
like a child looking out the window of his father's car and explaining
how, "The world is passing by." The effect is real, his explanation
backwards.

> And, Newton's laws fail to explain the precession of the perihelion
> point of Mercury's orbit completely.

This is because Newton never knew what happens when matter
travels through a massive gravitational field... not that Newton was
stupid and Einstein was smart, Mr. Miller.

> In other words, until you can clearly demonstrate, mathematically, the
> flaws in GR upon which BB theories are postulated, you simply continue
> to demonstrate that your "reality" exists only in your head and not in
> the real world.

If I tell you the moon orbits the earth... believe it or not, Mr.
Miller:
I certainly have no intention of trying to prove this to you
mathematically
or any otherwise. You are going to have to bone up on some old books.

> It is the way you wish it was, simply because you
> cannot understand or do not accept the interpretation through lack of
> complete understanding, the working of the BB models.

Not, Mr. Miller: I just looked up one early evening--And THERE was
the moon! Ergo, assuming I am on the planet earth... (it's just an
assumption, yes, Mr. Miller... you yourself may have assumed you're
on the Planet of The Itty Bitty Living Brains... and that automatically
shoots down any chance I might have of ever making you believe
the moon orbits the earth--I'll admit that much).

> >
> > > In the start of your essay you start from observations only,
> > > expecting me to accept that as proof that your theory is superior,
> > > yet you forget that almost all of the erroneous theories of
physics
> > > have been built not upon a mathematical foundation, but by
> > > observation.
> >
> > And you forget that Einstein's original theories predicted a static
> > universe, but that he had to rush to correct his model when the
Hubble
> > constant was discovered.
>
> Wrong again.  Einstein's original equations predicted a changing
> universe, non-static.  He introduced his cosmological constant when
> astronomers at the time convinced him that the universe was static
(and
> interestingly enough, even with the constant, you still get a changing
> universe).

Waitaminute, Mr. Miller: Are you saying that Einstein's believed
the astronomers over his equations!?!?!? What have we here?
What have we here! Was Einstein modeling reality with his equations
or was he just modeling his guesses (for ONLY if he was modeling
guesses could he have possibly ever been convinced his equations
were not modeling reality, obviously). Got you there, Mr. Miller.

> > >  I'll accept it as superior if the experimental data fits better
> > > than with any other theories, but not well until then.
> >
> > Mathematicians tend to add strictly mathematical possibilities to
> > their models (try them out) to see if the equations balance: This is
 a
> > fatal game, because, being human, mathematicians will tend to
believe
> > that if their equations balance, that MUST be proof that their
> > otherwise only strictly mathematical possibilities... just might be
> > real (or why else would they prove themselves to be such perfect
> > solutions?). This is a truism which only a non-mathematician would
> > ever consider to be true, of course.
>
> But physicists test whether such truisms exist observationally.

Then let them test my truisms as well, Mr. Miller. And let's see
whether it's an exploding or an imploding universe. I can wait
for their results. I am an infinitely patient man.

> If  they
> do not, they reject the mathematical model.  You have yet to
demonstrate
> where the flaw in the mathematics is, just that you don't like the
> conclusion.  Yet you can offer no observational proof that the
> mathematics is incorrect.  Sorry, that is not how science works.

I have certainly told you plenty of times where to look for Einstein's
erroneous assumptions, Mr. Miller: 1) Einstein assumed SOME
"forms" of matter were indeed fundamental (ironically, this erroneous
assumption could be what let him to postulate the particle nature
of light, which is correct). 2) Einstein did not know ours was an
imploding universe... which let him to believe c constancy was
something mystical about the universe (when it's simply a result
of the fact that ours is an imploding universe).

I leave it to somebody else to check all the software lines of
codes and re-program relativity's computer. I've done enough.

> > >  I have one problem with the section where you use Newton's
> > >  1st Law of Motion.  You say that there are external forces acting
> > >  upon the universe.
> >
> > If I said that I mispoke--I will reread my text to see where I may
> > have led anyone to believe that. What may have caused some confusion
> > may be when explaining that a "body in motion" (say, the so-called
> > expansion of the universe) needs a constantly applied force to
explain
> > its continuing acceleration because otherwise gravity would bring
such
> > an expansion to a stop. The only force in the universe is a
> > fundamental one that acts towards the center (attraction) or acts
away
> > from the center (repulsion).
>
> But, the flaw in your logic is that there is a center.  No such center
> exists in modern cosmology in the BB models.

Well, I do assume there is a center, Mr. Miller (although I've never
seen it myself): It's a guess, therefore, which springs from the notion
that when one has an implosion it implodes towards some center or
other. But my center is a strange and wonderful place, Mr. Miller:
You should visit it (full of doctors and nurses, and soothing music).

> Therefore, your
> conclusions are incorrect simply because

What, Mr. Miller? Thou giveth not mathematical reasons why?!?!?!
In that case, Mr. Miller... I'm afraid I'll have to wait until you can
provide me with the math why my conclusions are wrong. Sorry.

> you have chosen to ignore  what
> I and others have said about what the BB models actually say about the
> expansion of the universe.

Gibberish doesn't count, Mr. Miller. Only in mathematics:
Show me your mathematical gibberish!

> There is no center, there are no edges.

There is a center (it's called The S D Rodrian How I Learned To Stop
Worrying ABout The Universal Implosion And To Love the Bomb Center).
And there IS a gate around the edges, Mr. Miller--in case some of
the Big Bang inmates try to run off with parts of my Implosion model.

> So, unless you can prove a center exists, your reliance on it makes
for
> the weakest part of your argument.

I like to argue just for its own sake: I'm one of those art of art's
sake
arguers.

> If the universe did begin as a point explosion, you might have a
point.
> It didn't so you don't.

Well, in that case I humbly partially accept your partial concession
that I am partially correct. Mr. Miller--Now let's pick apart
your other parts.

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


> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator     Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> University of Louisville
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium




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