Cosmologist in Lederhosen Spouts Nonsense!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 19 May 2010 01:37 On May 19, 12:55 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > On May 18, 11:21 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > >> Inability to name 5 (or even 1) major advance from 'outsiders' in physics > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > Well, how about Einstein, Faraday, Mendeleev, Kepler, Mandelbrot, ... > > should I go on? When they made their early and most far-reaching > > discoveries, they were "outsiders", especially Einstein and Faraday. > > Uh, wrong on all counts chuckles. > > Every one of these men were heavily entrenched in the field. Einstein > corresponded heavily with physicists of the day and was familiar with the > state of the art. Faraday performed a lot of experiments and was a > contemporary to Gauss. Mendeleev studied the field of chemistry in order to > make the periodic table, Kepler studied the works of Tycho Brahe, Mandelbrot > is a mathematician who built off the works of others. > > None of these people are/were 'outsiders'. They learned the state of the > art, and took it further. > > You are not like these people. You do not understand the state of the art in > the fields you want to revolutionize, much less the basics. > > > > >> and transparent attempt at moving on by snipping the question >and > >> responding to the least-relevant part of my post noted. > > --------------------------------------------- > > > Ok, here is something perhaps a bit more relevant. HOW are you going > > to keep the kettle boiling for the 10^1000 years, give or take a few > > googols, while you are waiting for it to magically freeze? > > It is possible to flip a coin enough times that you get a billion heads or > tails in a row. ===================== > It is possible that a person can quantum tunnel through a > wall. It is, however, 'unlikely'. Just like a boiling pot of water > spontaneously freezing or all the air in your room migrating to one side. Lean some physics! There are NO coins in tunnelling. http://www.altair.org/Qtunnel.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Quantum_field_theory_view Sue...
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 19 May 2010 12:08 On May 18, 3:26 am, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- undress to reply) wrote: > > Let me give another example. I assume you know how Mendelian > inheritance works. The number of different potential children a couple > can have is far larger than the number of human beings who have ever > existed. However, it is I think obvious that, by chance, genetically > identical children could be conceived---it's just very improbable > (except for identical identical twins, in which case there is really > only one conception). ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a good example, but your thinking about it is a bit Old School and too Platonic. Even "identical identical twins" are not exactly "identical". You can read about this in any decent advanced biology or genetics text written in the last 10 years. Pay special attention to sections on epigenetics, etc. This is not speculative biology; it is empirically documented fact. No two adult humans could possibly be literally exactly identical. Far less two beings from different planets! The exact identity you imagine only resides in the Platonic domains of the postmodern physics paradigm. Science requires a strict and thoughtful distinction between physical reality and abstract over- idealizations. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 19 May 2010 14:51 eric gisse wrote on Tue, 18 May 2010 21:55:33 -0700: (snip Eric's atempts to write about history...) > It is possible that a person can quantum tunnel > through a wall. Another crackpot confused by frehman books... P.S: Newsgroup list reverted. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 19 May 2010 21:43 eric gisse wrote on Wed, 19 May 2010 17:01:01 -0700: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > >> eric gisse wrote on Tue, 18 May 2010 21:55:33 -0700: >> >> (snip Eric's atempts to write about history...) > > Obviously successful, or beyond your ability to understand. Either way > you couldn't find anything to whine about. Experience clearly shows that simultaneous discussion of more than two topics at one time puts you dangerously close to "brain fusion" by overheating :-D Leave your attempts to write about history for better occassion. >>> It is possible that a person can quantum tunnel through a wall. >> >> Another crackpot confused by frehman books... > > Uh huh. Siding against me on a technical point that I'm right about? > Again? If I received a dollar for each time that a crackpot here affirms me that he is right I would be *very* rich. >> P.S: Newsgroup list reverted. >> >> >> > P.S: Back into my killfile. P.S: Newsgroup list reverted again. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: spudnik on 19 May 2010 23:18
yeah, and if you argue with me, you could make yourself into an Einstein-Rosen bridge to pass through that wall (because, you'd weigh less than no thing, being "exotic matter" .-) thusNso: depends upon which frame of reference, not neccesarily one of A's or B's; I know, that is totally elementary, dood. what ever, the one thing that is not approachable is the speed of light -- not encroachable, at any rate, unless you happen to be a photon with no momentum. > What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say > the speed of light from A to B is c-v, > the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > the "time" each way is the same? thusNso: which has more decimal places: the integer value of Avagadro's No., or the surfer's canonical value of pi? thusNso: "infinite descent & more" is just a contradiction of some sort, which assuredly is plausible for such a negative conjecture/theorem. why is unique factorization problematic for these non-allowed integral values (assuming, Fermat was correct, for once ?-) whether mod arithmetic Day One is inadequate, I don't know enough of it to say. > no problem with quadratic reciprocity, though. thusNso: twins are always of the form, 6n plus and minus one? thusNso: on the wayside, please, attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's God-am corpuscular "theory," by not using them in equations with "momentum (equals mass times directed velocity)." thusNso: actually, receding glaciers are probably better for rafting, compared to advancing ones, iff there's more water. thusNso: can one tell a priori that a black surface will absorb more infrared, since it is invisible in the first place, invoking, perhaps, blackbody curves (and, there are "line spectra" for both absorption & emmission) ?? I wish folks like Y'know and y'Know would at least *try* to write their syllogistical theories in terms of, "There Are No Photons?" just this afternoon, a lecturer showed a slide with a graph of "phonons from 0 to over 1 teracycles;" is that the sound of light? http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/LightMill/light-mill.html thusNso: I like all three of those; note that there is a raw infinity of trigona, two of whose edges are perpendicular to the other edge, as far as spherical trig goes, and I really like those "half lunes." --y'know dot the surfer's value of pi dot com period semicolon & I mean it! http://\\:btty |