🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20000208020124.23138.00000758@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
  bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
> >From: sdrodrian@aol.com
> >Date: 2/6/00 4:57 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <87lcb1$nf9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >
> >>  Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
> >>  Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:20:17 -0500 (EST)
> >> From: set@MIT.EDU ()
> >> To: sdrodrian@aol.com
> >
> >> I have a question.  How do you propose to prove your experiments
> >> without
> >> mathematics?
> >
> >Mine are not experiments--that remains for somebody else, not me.
> >What I have done, all I have done, is to examine certain observed
> >facts and interpreted them from an impartial standpoint. Anyone may
> >examine my interpretations and find errors I might have made. We
> >may then examine all such objections, and see where it leads us.
> >
> >>  You keep insulting mathematics, yet you need it to prove
> >>  your experiments.
> >
> >I do not seek to insult mathematics. Although I must admit
> >I feel insulted whenever anyone proposes that mathematics
> >can model reality better than can reality itself. However, why should
> >I need mathematics to prove that the speed of light is always
> >measured as a constant in identical mediums--It's pretty much
> >an accepted fact! The only think I do is give the reason why
> >the phenomenon is real and occurs in this universe of ours
> >(because it's an imploding universe... the c constant effect is
> >inevitable in it).
> >
> >>  You keep getting mathematics wrong.  It's not about
> >>  balancing equations, to the uninitiated layman it may appear that
> >>  way,
> >>  but that is only because the farthest most average people get is
> >>  high-school algebra.
> >
> >I am merely concerned with equations which purport to prove
> >reality. Regardless of all other mathematical disciplines.
> >
> >>  You also neglect to mention how this mathematical version of
> >>  physics
> >>  has
> >>  managed to predict natural phenomena, even though they haven't
> >>  started
> >>  from observation only.
> >
> >That is not my side in this argument. No advocate can be
> >absolutely impartial--any appearance to so be is but an
> >indication of his hypocrisy. But if an equation is proven to be
> >worng but once, it is irrelevant how many times it has proven
> >right: That equation is forever suspect and never trusted again.
> >
> >>  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
>
> What facts would those be?

Why, the very FACTS that the photon will be pulled down
off its path if it passes near a massive-enough gravitational field,
and the FACT that the photon cannot escape a black hole's
gravitational PULL (almost like a flying watermelon, by gum).

> >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).
>
> If the photon has a rest mass, it is virtually insignificant.

I agree with you that it is virtually insignificant, how's that!
But, on the other hand, will you ever agree with me that
it is "just" significant enough? [doubts go here as to just-ice]

> To date
> I am not
> aware of any indication that it does. It's path in the vicinity of
> mass is well
> described by Einstein's equations and has been tested.

All Einstein's equations describe is that the photon reacts
to gravity (it's just that Einstein doesn't like to say as much
and prefers to describe matter traveling invisible channels
made of space). I have no quarrel with Einstein wanting to
come off as super intelligent by saying simple things in
complex language & stuff. I just believe simplicity is more
elegant, all around. [Now you may crucify me for it.]

> >
> > > 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.
>
> Sorry but this is wrong. Einstein's equations predicted an expanding
> universe.
> He added the cosmological constant to keep the universe static.

Say, I believe, this is where I came in in the paragraph above. So
you see: It is you who is obviously wrong, and I who am right
EVEN by your own acknowledgment right here. (Perhaps you were
"confused" by my use of the word "originally." If that's so, you
have my apologies: But you really should have stuck with the facts
instead of trying to interpret them a misinterpretation on my part.
Now you're all unglued & coming apart at the seams.)

> When
> Hubble
> discovered the expansion, Einstein called his cosmological constant
> the
> "greatest blunder of my life"...

And it was a great blunder indeed; as it now gives those of us
who rather model reality than to model a mathematical representation
of reality... more moral ammunition to suggest that EVEN IF one
is likely to make just as many mistakes by modeling reality as by
modeling mathematical models of reality... that the former practice
is preferable to the latter (because the eyes have it over guessing).

> It seems to me you are confused by the facts.

Better to be little confused than outright led into error.
I recommend you make your solutions fit the facts
instead of the numbers--work most of the time.

And just enough is still enough.

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


> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> requires a creationist"




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