| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Stephen" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2005 09:06:51 PM |
| Object: |
Debunking Physics |
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
.
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
23 Apr 2005 01:17:31 AM |
|
|
"Stephen" <paradigm@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:78ecc8f6.0504221806.1f6f9de4@posting.google.com...
something sad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 06:03:40 AM |
|
|
"Stephen" <paradigm@westnet.com.au> wrote in message news:78ecc8f6.0504221806.1f6f9de4@posting.google.com...
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
Skipping the two silly introduction paragraphs and arriving at
the third paragraph:
| "When I rub a glass rod and place it near a suspended pith
| ball it attracts the pith ball. Physics sees this attraction
| as the result of dislike charges.
Wrong.
Physics *models* this attraction as the result of something
it *calls* "dislike charges".
| ... This begs the question
| of how dislike charges cause attraction.
Wrong.
No question is begged.
Charge is *defined* by the observed attraction.
| ... I decided that the
| attraction was due to the pith ball absorbing emission from
| the glass rod and that everything in the Universe absorbs
| and emits as a product of its existence.
You must have had a bad physics teacher and/or have read the
wrong books. Let's hope Patrick Reany doesn't read this...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
23 Apr 2005 03:06:51 PM |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity, " Harlan Ellison.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr GroundAxe" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
22 Apr 2005 10:05:20 PM |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
Just because you aren't smart enough to understand physics, don't try
and turn it into philosophy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 06:32:10 AM |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
Very first sentence:
"If we are to embrace a scientific perspective we need to accept that
everything has a cause, that everything has material substance and is
composed of what we call matter, and that our explanations need to be
consistent with observation."
With the exception of the last part: *Why* do we need to accept that?
Why do you think *your* idea of what a "scientific perspective" is has
to be true, and all scientists are wrong on their idea?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 12:47:14 PM |
|
|
Stephen Reality is random and chaos play a big part in the actions of
the universe. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
23 Apr 2005 10:04:51 AM |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100 years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
23 Apr 2005 05:26:58 PM |
|
|
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<GaWdncuDNpiO-fffRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100 years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
Bob Kolker
The criticisms of my debunking physics article have no relation to
what the article
actually states.
I do not state that all physics is wrong. I state that physics
sacrifices materialism and
causality for the sake of quantification.
Nothing in my article contradicts observation. What it contradicts are
some of the physics
"interpretations" of observation.
It appears that many individuals have a religious belief in the
interpretations and
abstractions of physics and are quick to ridicule anyone who questions
those
interpretations and abstractions.
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
23 Apr 2005 08:20:48 PM |
|
|
"Stephen" <paradigm@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:78ecc8f6.0504231426.4260669d@posting.google.com...
It appears that many individuals have a religious belief in the
interpretations and
abstractions of physics and are quick to ridicule anyone who questions
those
interpretations and abstractions.
It figured with that standard formula rant, the term "religious belief" had
to show up.
Get over it. And be less boring next time you post.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 02:55:42 AM |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:<GaWdncuDNpiO-fffRVn-sw@comcast.com>...
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100
years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
Bob Kolker
The criticisms of my debunking physics article have no relation to
what the article
actually states.
I do not state that all physics is wrong. I state that physics
sacrifices materialism and
causality for the sake of quantification.
Then provide a better model.
Nothing in my article contradicts observation. What it contradicts
are
some of the physics
"interpretations" of observation.
It appears that many individuals have a religious belief in the
interpretations and
abstractions of physics and are quick to ridicule anyone who
questions
those
interpretations and abstractions.
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 02:54:36 AM |
|
|
Robert Kolker wrote:
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100 years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
You can build a computer with Aristotlean physics.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 03:44:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1114329276.384154.33720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100 years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
You can build a computer with Aristotlean physics.
You can build a computer with paper clips (of the metal
flavor). Now try to hook up a TTY. Go do it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 04:42:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1114329276.384154.33720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100
years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
You can build a computer with Aristotlean physics.
You can build a computer with paper clips (of the metal
flavor). Now try to hook up a TTY. Go do it.
LOL
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
25 Apr 2005 02:56:45 AM |
|
|
In article <1114378972.296129.205750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1114329276.384154.33720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100
years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
You can build a computer with Aristotlean physics.
You can build a computer with paper clips (of the metal
flavor). Now try to hook up a TTY. Go do it.
LOL
Now, go do it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
24 Apr 2005 12:00:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Apr 05 08:44:11 GMT
<7rKdnYCw1bY75fbfRVn-hA@rcn.net>:
In article <1114329276.384154.33720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100 years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
You can build a computer with Aristotlean physics.
You can build a computer with paper clips (of the metal
flavor). Now try to hook up a TTY. Go do it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/
:-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Physics |
25 Apr 2005 02:56:13 AM |
|
|
In article <bavsj2-dl.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Apr 05 08:44:11 GMT
<7rKdnYCw1bY75fbfRVn-hA@rcn.net>:
In article <1114329276.384154.33720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Schoenfeld" <schoenfeld1@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Stephen wrote:
See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm for an article titled
Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever.
You are behind the time. That sort of think went poof! over 100 years
ago. If physicists kept on thinking as you suggest we would not be
having this conversation on a computer network whose workings are
based
on quantumelectrodynamics.
You can build a computer with Aristotlean physics.
You can build a computer with paper clips (of the metal
flavor). Now try to hook up a TTY. Go do it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/
:-)
I just found out about a book published (I think) in the 70s
that showed how to make one. So it's on my list of books to
add to my library.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
