🚀 go-pugleaf

<xxein1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:23f03954-354e-4d0a-836f-c66332effb20@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 12:13 am, Jack Sprat <jack_sp...@invalid.uk> wrote:
> Androcles wrote:
> > "The Mad Ape" <chief...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:guq6vo$7ri$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Jack Sprat wrote:
> >>> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> In sci.physics The Mad Ape <chief...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You are an idiot. Stick to picking your nose and eating it.
> >>>> Yet another babbling kook to add to the killfile.
>
> >>>> *PLONK*
>
> >>> Plonk him, OK, but don't ignore his advice! :-)
> >> My goal is to have the entire Newsgroup world plonk me. I like a good
> >> plonking...especially from maniacal fuckwads such as latest said 
> >> plonker.
>
> >> TMA
>
> > I'd be happy to plonk you if you can offer a good reason why I should.
> > To qualify you must be:
> > being boringly stupid,
> > repetitive,
> > unfunny,
> > ineducable,
> > repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci.
> > newsgroup,
> > attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit,
> > because you are a troll,
> > simply insane or
> > any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons.
>
> > Some weirdoes are not plonked, they amuse me and I retain them for
> > their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either
> > one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look
> > down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally,
> > and if you've even seen chickens do that you know what I mean.
>
> Twice is enough.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein:  If all these jerks were teaching physics to students, it's no
wonder the students can't tie their shoelaces.  You impress me with
your overall grasp of the state of the physic.  You speak it well ---
more than I can manage to express for sure, but not more than I know
for sure.  (If not "sure", it is at least a more comprehensive
understanding of the physic and the resulting physics than what is
currently believed.)

It is entertaining to me that all these theories exist while I see
through all of them clearly.  Well, not the exotic or illogical ones.
Who can see through 'that' stuff?  There is no Oz, but they still
present it as a viable theory without a logical proof.

Math is pure and fine with me but not when it represents concepts that
are disconnected by/to a physical logic.  That is what we are missing
today with textbook physics.  Oh!  I have to read that stuff to know
something?  I have read them.  Which one gives the match to the math
and the physic?  They are are all slightly or significantly different
representations.

The fact is though, each one is a different attempt at a match.  Why,
unless we really understood what what was happening?  Logic can help
cure this.  For those who proclaim physics 101, try logic 101.

I'm really glad you posted as you did.  I was feeling lonely.

Now...  Why is there a gravity?  Show your work.  Just kidding - sort
of.  But really, the question is at the heart understanding the
physic.  All the rest (SR) can be answered by Lorentz ether as a
static situation.

The first consideration is why SR?  Smart-ass Einstein and his math
wanted to reduce the Lorentz equations.  He lost a sense of the physic
right there but covered himself by saying that there might be an
ether.  What does he really mean?  He means he wants to reduce the
math to provide simpler methods of producing a workable and common
physics.  It flew great as a method, but lost all physical logic.

The second is to consider gravity.  Einstein might have been just as
stunned as I was when he realized that his theory would have to
include gravity in some way.  But he still wanted to do it in the
reduced math of SR.  SR was already published, so he felt he had to
conform to it or perish.  So he tried.

He came up with a brilliant idea.  Space-time curvature.  But he had
no physical reason for this.  He just wanted to find a way to extend
the reduced math.  Well?  He had to come up with a cosmological
constant and then, later, questioned it.  Not the value, but its
necessity.

Back to the ether - permeability and such properties for something
that he didn't want to necessarily revisit.  Then he died.  He wasn't
the final solution.

Neither am I.  This post is too long.  Ask me for more.


==========================================
Tell us more about "It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of 
sorts."