Prev: What is the disagreement to aether?
Next: Time flow
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 12:20
Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/

Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.
From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 12:28
On Feb 17, 12:20 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:
>
> http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
> too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.

I haven't looked at it closely, and I can't right now because I have
to give a presentation in about an hour, but it looks incredibly
crankish, and I don't really want to give it a longer look. If you
can show me that he demonstrates these things, though, I would give it
a second look:

1) That he can reproduce the calculation of the perhihelion of mercury
with his model (which Newtonian gravity, that falls off exactly as 1/
r^2, just like in electrostatics, cannot)
2) That he can account for what is really producing the time dilation
in GPS satelites which matches the predictions of GR (since in his
model, it can't be gravity).
3) That it predicts black holes of the correct radius
From: dlzc on 17 Feb 2010 12:31
Dear Ste:

On Feb 17, 10:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone has ever come across
> this before:
>
> http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> Seems like quite a compelling theory, with
> numbers matching apparently too nicely for
> it to be totally devoid of sense.

I especially like how he derived the "velocity" of light from
permittivity and permeability, and seemed to want to take credit for
this as a personal success and "justification". His method fails to
describe the attraction of neutrons by gravity. So it is yet another
dead end, unfortunately.

David A. Smith
From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 12:34
On Feb 17, 12:31 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Ste:
>
> On Feb 17, 10:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just wondering if anyone has ever come across
> > this before:
>
> >http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> > Seems like quite a compelling theory, with
> > numbers matching apparently too nicely for
> > it to be totally devoid of sense.
>
> I especially like how he derived the "velocity" of light from
> permittivity and permeability, and seemed to want to take credit for
> this as a personal success and "justification".

OMG-- epsilon_0*mu_0 = 1/c^2!!! I don't believe it! Why has no one
seen this before?

Wait, no. . . never mind. That's why electromagnetic waves travel at
the speed of light.

Shoot, I really thought he was on to something.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 14:23
On Feb 17, 11:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone has ever come across this before:
>
> http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MFSPears/
>
> Seems like quite a compelling theory, with numbers matching apparently
> too nicely for it to be totally devoid of sense.

Which numbers did you think were compelling?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: What is the disagreement to aether?
Next: Time flow