| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Greysky" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2006 04:00:29 AM |
| Object: |
Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity, and
he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important experimenter
to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the poalrity of
electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing gravity to a force.
To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any better - like Franklin
guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since
gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went accordingly.
There are, however, many clues that this interpretation is NOT correct.
Newton can be forgiven, but there are many clues existing now that indicate
to us, the children produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher
in, that Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides
us with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter
day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in rapidly as the
21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer able to
maintain the rationality of their well oiled universe without looking
foolish. We are now at the stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no
clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has
recently become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the
naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just makes all
of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each other,
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense, or is even needed to make
the 'world go round'.
Trying to join QM to GR only limits the scope and bredth of QM. Or, the fact
that GR seems to be violated by the results of QM but never the other way
around would make QM a more realistic explanation of the universe and only
shows there is something badly wrong with Newtonian / Einstinian concepts
which
relate gravity to a force. Because of what QM is saying about gravity,
namely nothing at all,
the safe conclusion is that what we call gravity doesn't really exist and we
need to rethink
the concept from first principles onwards.
Newton could only see whatever causes gravity as a 'force', but in fact it
isn't, even if his theory does lead to an accurate prediction of the
behavour of matter under self-influence. In fact, QM shows us how motion can
occur
without the need for a force being applied.
Now, perhaps Aristotle's ideas of Gravity and Levity were more correct than
we think - Whatever, we need to stop comparing gravity to a real force
caused by the exchange of Complex particles, but at this point the pressure
for change is so strong scientists are afraid all of their physical models
so laborously constructed for the past 300 ~ 400 years may be destroyed by
looking at the true nature and cause of gravity, BUT, until we
do, we are never going to have a hope of constructing a successful TOE -
Grand Unification
is just a Chimeric amalgamation of wrong-headed concepts held by stubborn
asses who
ignore the reality of what their own experiments are telling them concerning
how this Universe
works and is put together.
So how much pressure needs to be
experienced by our worlds' philosophers and scientists to make them finally
admit they need to go back to the drawing board on this one? Your guess is
as good as the King's.
As I said at the beginning of this missive, we can forgive Newton because he
didn't know any better. But who
will forgive us, we who do know better and consciously turn away from the
truth, to potentially usher in another
Dark Age a thousand years long?
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 06:00:09 PM |
|
|
Greysky:
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity, and
Take your meds.
he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important experimenter
to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the poalrity of
electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing gravity to a force.
To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any better - like Franklin
guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since
gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went accordingly.
There are, however, many clues that this interpretation is NOT correct.
Newton can be forgiven, but there are many clues existing now that indicate
to us, the children produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher
in, that Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides
us with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter
day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in rapidly as the
21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer able to
maintain the rationality of their well oiled universe without looking
foolish. We are now at the stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no
clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has
recently become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the
naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just makes all
of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each other,
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense, or is even needed to make
the 'world go round'.
Trying to join QM to GR only limits the scope and bredth of QM. Or, the fact
that GR seems to be violated by the results of QM but never the other way
around would make QM a more realistic explanation of the universe and only
shows there is something badly wrong with Newtonian / Einstinian concepts
which
relate gravity to a force. Because of what QM is saying about gravity,
namely nothing at all,
the safe conclusion is that what we call gravity doesn't really exist and we
need to rethink
the concept from first principles onwards.
Newton could only see whatever causes gravity as a 'force', but in fact it
isn't, even if his theory does lead to an accurate prediction of the
behavour of matter under self-influence. In fact, QM shows us how motion can
occur
without the need for a force being applied.
Now, perhaps Aristotle's ideas of Gravity and Levity were more correct than
we think - Whatever, we need to stop comparing gravity to a real force
caused by the exchange of Complex particles, but at this point the pressure
for change is so strong scientists are afraid all of their physical models
so laborously constructed for the past 300 ~ 400 years may be destroyed by
looking at the true nature and cause of gravity, BUT, until we
do, we are never going to have a hope of constructing a successful TOE -
Grand Unification
is just a Chimeric amalgamation of wrong-headed concepts held by stubborn
asses who
ignore the reality of what their own experiments are telling them concerning
how this Universe
works and is put together.
So how much pressure needs to be
experienced by our worlds' philosophers and scientists to make them finally
admit they need to go back to the drawing board on this one? Your guess is
as good as the King's.
As I said at the beginning of this missive, we can forgive Newton because he
didn't know any better. But who
will forgive us, we who do know better and consciously turn away from the
truth, to potentially usher in another
Dark Age a thousand years long?
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 06:23:39 AM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are many
clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by the Age
of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else. The
birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They trickeled in
at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them... then
they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that
ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well
oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body
politik for the wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that
say they are providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that
he looks unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Learn the facts then post back.
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense,
QM is silent on the issue,
Rest of misconnections mercifully snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 01:55:55 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are many
clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by the Age
of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else.
The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They
trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore
them... then they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced.
Those that ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of
their well oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the
stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the
scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has recently become.
Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the naked man deny
he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just makes all of us
truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like assuming
gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is speculative. But
then to go further and make it a effective field theory I would say whips
the '*****' out of gravity. The author goes on at the papers end to state
some small problems - you did manage to read it to the very end, right? If
not, skip the hard parts and go to around page 24.
But seriously, you do not think this is the answer, right? If you do, I can
only marvel at the tiny, comfortable world you have created for yourself. A
world where you just have to search the internet and pull up someones -
anyones ideas which happen at the moment to support your argument. But you
are alone in your self-constructed delusion of a world. This paper has been
sitting in the X_archives since the mid 1990's-- 12/11/1995 to be exact--,
and yet I do not hear any of the other illustrious personalities of either
the particle physics world or the relativity world singing its praises.
Where is Donogue's Noble Prize for finding the missing link? This isn't to
say I didn't like the paper. It does show some creativity and does
acknowledge that a new approach is needed.
Learn the facts then post back.
The facts are that you agree with me Bill. I didn't say gravity would never
fit in with QM, just that we are going to need a different interpretation of
what exactly it is before we have a chance of going any farther with it.
It's interesting that Donogue admits there will be some anomalous results
for low energy gravity experiments - sounds like he is describing the
Pioneer anomalous acceleration we are still seeing which no gravity theory
can account for. I take it you agree with him here. That's good, because it
is out of the tiny unexplainable observations like this that a new more
consistent theory of the true nature of gravity will be created.
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense,
QM is silent on the issue,
Rest of misconnections mercifully snipped.
Bill
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 04:54:03 PM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are
many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by
the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something
else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They
trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore
them... then they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century
commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer able to maintain the
rationality of their well oiled universe without looking foolish. We are
now at the stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes,
exposing the scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has
recently become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for
the naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just
makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like assuming
gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post back
when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 05:19:20 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder
by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't
know any better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton
knew force causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed
it to be a force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues
that this interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but
there are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity
is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with
those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter day
scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in rapidly as the
21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer able to
maintain the rationality of their well oiled universe without looking
foolish. We are now at the stage where everyman can see the Emperor has
no clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the wasted
weakling it has recently become. Still, those that say they are
providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks
unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post
back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is. Every one of my
original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to the X-archives to find
more salient thoughts to argue with since you don't seem to be able to
supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and setting up straw-man arguments
on your side will not answer this question.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 06:06:54 PM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder
by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't
know any better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton
knew force causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed
it to be a force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues
that this interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but
there are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us
with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter
day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in rapidly as
the 21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer able
to maintain the rationality of their well oiled universe without
looking foolish. We are now at the stage where everyman can see the
Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the
wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that say they are
providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks
unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will leave
residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post
back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR it
is space-time curvature.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to the
X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you don't
seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and setting up
straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Bill
on your side will not answer this question.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 11:04:00 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yOhwf.211424$V7.86063@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major
blunder by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit,
he didn't know any better - like Franklin guessing how electricity
moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since gravity causes
motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went accordingly. There
are, however, many clues that this interpretation is NOT correct.
Newton can be forgiven, but there are many clues existing now that
indicate to us, the children produced by the Age of Reason that
Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else. The birth of
Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They trickeled in at
first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them... then
they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those
that ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of
their well oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the
stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the
scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has recently
become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the
naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just
makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will leave
residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
Like the pioneer anomaly. Oh, that was in the part of my post which you
snipped - so who isn't reading things, eh? Anyway, Like I said, I found the
paper interesting, just not relavent to the point I was trying to make. An
effective theory for gravity at the distance and energy scales which can be
measured still is not a successful origin theory. Describing how gravity
acts still doesn't say anything about what it is. Telling me butter is
yellow still doesn't tell me what it is made of.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post
back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR it
is space-time curvature.
Ok. So describe the interaction of these spin-2 particles with the Higgs
field to create mass. You're just adding layers of obfuscation to an
already fuzzy issue.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to the
X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you don't
seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and setting
up straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Why would I want to do that? I *am* ignorant concerning the nature of
gravity. You are too. Everyone on this planet is. I differ in the
realization as to how far back we may need to go to make the correction. I
used to think a wrong turn was made in the 1960's and 1970's concerning
basic fundamental concepts which make cosmology clearly wrong. I am
beginning to realize the wrong turn was made in probably the the late
1600's. That's a pretty big turn of the screw. Cutting and pasting my
comments to create your vapid one-liners will not change the facts.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL redio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 12:33:41 AM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:49mwf.47086$dO2.34038@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yOhwf.211424$V7.86063@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major
blunder by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit,
he didn't know any better - like Franklin guessing how electricity
moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since gravity causes
motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went accordingly. There
are, however, many clues that this interpretation is NOT correct.
Newton can be forgiven, but there are many clues existing now that
indicate to us, the children produced by the Age of Reason that
Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else. The birth of
Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They trickeled in at
first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them...
then they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced.
Those that ignore them are no longer able to maintain the
rationality of their well oiled universe without looking foolish. We
are now at the stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no
clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the wasted
weakling it has recently become. Still, those that say they are
providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that he
looks unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look
silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will
leave residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
Like the pioneer anomaly. Oh, that was in the part of my post which you
snipped - so who isn't reading things, eh? Anyway, Like I said, I found
the paper interesting, just not relavent to the point I was trying to
make.
Correct - it contains science - not evasive nonsense.
An effective theory for gravity at the distance and energy scales which
can be measured still is not a successful origin theory. Describing how
gravity acts still doesn't say anything about what it is. Telling me
butter is yellow still doesn't tell me what it is made of.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post
back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR
it is space-time curvature.
Ok. So describe the interaction of these spin-2 particles with the Higgs
field to create mass. You're just adding layers of obfuscation to an
already fuzzy issue.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to the
X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you don't
seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and setting
up straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Why would I want to do that?
Correct - your ingnorance can not be covered up.
I *am* ignorant concerning the nature of gravity.
Correct.
You are too. Everyone on this planet is. I differ in the realization
that most people believe such ignorance does not prevent one from
understanding what we do know and if it interests them spend their time
learning the facts. You, on the other hand, rather than learning the facts,
prefer to post nonsense to science newsgroups and try and pass it off as
insight.
Bill
as to how far back we may need to go to make the correction. I used to
think a wrong turn was made in the 1960's and 1970's concerning basic
fundamental concepts which make cosmology clearly wrong. I am beginning to
realize the wrong turn was made in probably the the late 1600's. That's a
pretty big turn of the screw. Cutting and pasting my comments to create
your vapid one-liners will not change the facts.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL redio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 01:03:29 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9tnwf.211683$V7.90662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:49mwf.47086$dO2.34038@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yOhwf.211424$V7.86063@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major
blunder by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy
credit, he didn't know any better - like Franklin guessing how
electricity moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since
gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went
accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there
are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides
us with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for
latter day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in
rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are
no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well oiled
universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the
scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has recently
become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the
naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just
makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with
each other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will
leave residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
Like the pioneer anomaly. Oh, that was in the part of my post which you
snipped - so who isn't reading things, eh? Anyway, Like I said, I found
the paper interesting, just not relavent to the point I was trying to
make.
Correct - it contains science - not evasive nonsense.
An effective theory for gravity at the distance and energy scales which
can be measured still is not a successful origin theory. Describing how
gravity acts still doesn't say anything about what it is. Telling me
butter is yellow still doesn't tell me what it is made of.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is.
Post back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR
it is space-time curvature.
Ok. So describe the interaction of these spin-2 particles with the Higgs
field to create mass. You're just adding layers of obfuscation to an
already fuzzy issue.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to
the X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you
don't seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and
setting up straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Why would I want to do that?
Correct - your ingnorance can not be covered up.
I *am* ignorant concerning the nature of gravity.
Correct.
You are too. Everyone on this planet is. I differ in the realization
that most people believe such ignorance does not prevent one from
understanding what we do know and if it interests them spend their time
learning the facts.
Your 'facts' are failing us all. Learn what interests you and then Go
Beyond. But you need to be brave to do that. It is much easier and safer to
join the crowd and cite your facts as though doing so will provide a
solution. At the very heart of the struggle in physics today lies gravity.
If we knew what it was and how it really acted, cosmology would be showing
us things our theories already predicted. Physics would be very boring.
Instead, we are seeing gravity becoming far removed from our reality, and
physical phenomena exist which are causing the collective scientific jaw to
drop. Surprise. And what do you do? Throw up some old paper from the mid
90's as though it offers any explanation at all to what we are seeing today.
You, on the other hand, rather than learning the facts, prefer to post
nonsense to science newsgroups and try and pass it off as insight.
You, on the other hand prefer to wallow like a pig in the mud in what
knowledge you do understand, to the exclusion of all else. You and a few
others like Bilgge remind me of the story of the blind men who are each
trying to describe an elephant by feeling only one part of the whole. But
you take it one uglier step further by villifying, deriding, and insulting
those other blind men who have a grip on different parts than you do and are
giving different explanations than you are - they are obviously liars,
fraudsters, and just plain wrong, you shout! How long ago did your intellect
crystallize into the frozen form it is now in? Yet, I see by the last remark
you made that there is still a small bit of youthful suppleness hoping
against hope to break out and run free before you turn into a complete
fossil.
Bill
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 11:25:03 PM |
|
|
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:5Vnwf.53498$7h7.14796@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9tnwf.211683$V7.90662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:49mwf.47086$dO2.34038@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yOhwf.211424$V7.86063@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major
blunder by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy
credit, he didn't know any better - like Franklin guessing how
electricity moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since
gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went
accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there
are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides
us with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for
latter day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in
rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are
no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well oiled
universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the
scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has recently
become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the
naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just
makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with
each other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will
leave residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
Like the pioneer anomaly. Oh, that was in the part of my post which you
snipped - so who isn't reading things, eh? Anyway, Like I said, I found
the paper interesting, just not relavent to the point I was trying to
make.
Correct - it contains science - not evasive nonsense.
An effective theory for gravity at the distance and energy scales which
can be measured still is not a successful origin theory. Describing how
gravity acts still doesn't say anything about what it is. Telling me
butter is yellow still doesn't tell me what it is made of.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is.
Post back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR
it is space-time curvature.
Ok. So describe the interaction of these spin-2 particles with the Higgs
field to create mass. You're just adding layers of obfuscation to an
already fuzzy issue.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to
the X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you
don't seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and
setting up straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Why would I want to do that?
Correct - your ingnorance can not be covered up.
I *am* ignorant concerning the nature of gravity.
Correct.
You are too. Everyone on this planet is. I differ in the realization
that most people believe such ignorance does not prevent one from
understanding what we do know and if it interests them spend their time
learning the facts.
Your 'facts' are failing us all. Learn what interests you and then Go
Beyond. But you need to be brave to do that. It is much easier and safer
to join the crowd and cite your facts as though doing so will provide a
solution. At the very heart of the struggle in physics today lies gravity.
If we knew what it was and how it really acted, cosmology would be showing
us things our theories already predicted. Physics would be very boring.
Instead, we are seeing gravity becoming far removed from our reality, and
physical phenomena exist which are causing the collective scientific jaw
to drop. Surprise. And what do you do? Throw up some old paper from the
mid 90's as though it offers any explanation at all to what we are seeing
today.
You, on the other hand, rather than learning the facts, prefer to post
nonsense to science newsgroups and try and pass it off as insight.
You, on the other hand prefer to wallow like a pig in the mud in what
knowledge you do understand, to the exclusion of all else. You and a few
others like Bilgge remind me of the story of the blind men who are each
trying to describe an elephant by feeling only one part of the whole. But
you take it one uglier step further by villifying, deriding, and insulting
those other blind men who have a grip on different parts than you do and
are giving different explanations than you are - they are obviously liars,
fraudsters, and just plain wrong, you shout! How long ago did your
intellect crystallize into the frozen form it is now in? Yet, I see by the
last remark you made that there is still a small bit of youthful
suppleness hoping against hope to break out and run free before you turn
into a complete fossil.
You mistake new age platitudes for science. It isn't. But I think you know
that anyway which is why you do it rather than discuss the science ie you do
not know the science so you revert to your 'Om' mantra's like 'It is much
easier and safer to join the crowd and cite your facts as though doing so
will provide a solution'. Science of course is based on facts - facts you
have demonstrated total ignorance of. You can not even read and understand
cited papers - basic compression seems a problem. People on science forums
will discuss facts - not platitudes denying their importance.
Bill
Bill
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 11:28:18 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:PyHwf.212649$V7.53567@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:5Vnwf.53498$7h7.14796@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9tnwf.211683$V7.90662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:49mwf.47086$dO2.34038@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yOhwf.211424$V7.86063@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the
first important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed
wrong concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a
major blunder by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old
guy credit, he didn't know any better - like Franklin guessing
how electricity moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since
gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went
accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there
are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics
provides us with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly
enough for latter day scientists to ignore them... then they
began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those
that ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality
of their well oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now
at the stage where everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes,
exposing the scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it
has recently become. Still, those that say they are providing
clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto
death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to
explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with
each other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will
leave residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
Like the pioneer anomaly. Oh, that was in the part of my post which you
snipped - so who isn't reading things, eh? Anyway, Like I said, I found
the paper interesting, just not relavent to the point I was trying to
make.
Correct - it contains science - not evasive nonsense.
An effective theory for gravity at the distance and energy scales which
can be measured still is not a successful origin theory. Describing how
gravity acts still doesn't say anything about what it is. Telling me
butter is yellow still doesn't tell me what it is made of.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is.
Post back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In
GR it is space-time curvature.
Ok. So describe the interaction of these spin-2 particles with the
Higgs field to create mass. You're just adding layers of obfuscation
to an already fuzzy issue.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to
the X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you
don't seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and
setting up straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Why would I want to do that?
Correct - your ingnorance can not be covered up.
I *am* ignorant concerning the nature of gravity.
Correct.
You are too. Everyone on this planet is. I differ in the realization
that most people believe such ignorance does not prevent one from
understanding what we do know and if it interests them spend their time
learning the facts.
Your 'facts' are failing us all. Learn what interests you and then Go
Beyond. But you need to be brave to do that. It is much easier and safer
to join the crowd and cite your facts as though doing so will provide a
solution. At the very heart of the struggle in physics today lies
gravity. If we knew what it was and how it really acted, cosmology would
be showing us things our theories already predicted. Physics would be
very boring. Instead, we are seeing gravity becoming far removed from our
reality, and physical phenomena exist which are causing the collective
scientific jaw to drop. Surprise. And what do you do? Throw up some old
paper from the mid 90's as though it offers any explanation at all to
what we are seeing today.
You, on the other hand, rather than learning the facts, prefer to post
nonsense to science newsgroups and try and pass it off as insight.
You, on the other hand prefer to wallow like a pig in the mud in what
knowledge you do understand, to the exclusion of all else. You and a few
others like Bilgge remind me of the story of the blind men who are each
trying to describe an elephant by feeling only one part of the whole. But
you take it one uglier step further by villifying, deriding, and
insulting those other blind men who have a grip on different parts than
you do and are giving different explanations than you are - they are
obviously liars, fraudsters, and just plain wrong, you shout! How long
ago did your intellect crystallize into the frozen form it is now in?
Yet, I see by the last remark you made that there is still a small bit of
youthful suppleness hoping against hope to break out and run free before
you turn into a complete fossil.
You mistake new age platitudes for science. It isn't. But I think you
know that anyway which is why you do it rather than discuss the science ie
you do not know the science so you revert to your 'Om' mantra's like 'It
is much easier and safer to join the crowd and cite your facts as though
doing so will provide a solution'. Science of course is based on facts -
facts you have demonstrated total ignorance of. You can not even read and
understand cited papers - basic compression seems a problem.
That should be comprehension.
Bill
People on science forums will discuss facts - not platitudes denying their
importance.
Bill
Bill
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 08:59:55 PM |
|
|
Greysky <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:9tnwf.211683$V7.90662@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:49mwf.47086$dO2.34038@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:yOhwf.211424$V7.86063@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major
blunder by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy
credit, he didn't know any better - like Franklin guessing how
electricity moves, Newton knew force causes motion, so, since
gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a force, and went
accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there
are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides
us with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for
latter day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in
rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are
no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well oiled
universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the
scientific body politik for the wasted weakling it has recently
become. Still, those that say they are providing clothes for the
naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks unto death. This just
makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with
each other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will
leave residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
Like the pioneer anomaly. Oh, that was in the part of my post which you
snipped - so who isn't reading things, eh? Anyway, Like I said, I found
the paper interesting, just not relavent to the point I was trying to
make.
Correct - it contains science - not evasive nonsense.
An effective theory for gravity at the distance and energy scales which
can be measured still is not a successful origin theory. Describing how
gravity acts still doesn't say anything about what it is. Telling me
butter is yellow still doesn't tell me what it is made of.
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is.
Post back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR
it is space-time curvature.
Ok. So describe the interaction of these spin-2 particles with the Higgs
field to create mass. You're just adding layers of obfuscation to an
already fuzzy issue.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to
the X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you
don't seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and
setting up straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Why would I want to do that?
Correct - your ingnorance can not be covered up.
I *am* ignorant concerning the nature of gravity.
Correct.
You are too. Everyone on this planet is. I differ in the realization
that most people believe such ignorance does not prevent one from
understanding what we do know and if it interests them spend their time
learning the facts.
Your 'facts' are failing us all. Learn what interests you and then Go
Beyond. But you need to be brave to do that. It is much easier and safer to
join the crowd and cite your facts as though doing so will provide a
solution. At the very heart of the struggle in physics today lies gravity.
If we knew what it was and how it really acted, cosmology would be showing
us things our theories already predicted. Physics would be very boring.
Instead, we are seeing gravity becoming far removed from our reality, and
physical phenomena exist which are causing the collective scientific jaw to
drop. Surprise. And what do you do? Throw up some old paper from the mid
90's as though it offers any explanation at all to what we are seeing today.
You, on the other hand, rather than learning the facts, prefer to post
nonsense to science newsgroups and try and pass it off as insight.
You, on the other hand prefer to wallow like a pig in the mud in what
knowledge you do understand, to the exclusion of all else. You and a few
others like Bilgge remind me of the story of the blind men who are each
trying to describe an elephant by feeling only one part of the whole. But
you take it one uglier step further by villifying, deriding, and insulting
those other blind men who have a grip on different parts than you do and are
giving different explanations than you are - they are obviously liars,
fraudsters, and just plain wrong, you shout! How long ago did your intellect
crystallize into the frozen form it is now in? Yet, I see by the last remark
you made that there is still a small bit of youthful suppleness hoping
against hope to break out and run free before you turn into a complete
fossil.
Unable to argue his saucerhead ideas, the saucerhead now heads for Ad
Hominem Acres.
Bill
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 11:50:33 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder
by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't
know any better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton
knew force causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed
it to be a force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues
that this interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but
there are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us
with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for latter
day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in rapidly as
the 21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer able
to maintain the rationality of their well oiled universe without
looking foolish. We are now at the stage where everyman can see the
Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the
wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that say they are
providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that he looks
unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will leave
residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post
back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR it
is space-time curvature.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to the
X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you don't
seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and setting up
straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Bill
Hey! These saucerheads are *smard*!
on your side will not answer this question.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
.
|
|
|
| User: "Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 12:20:45 AM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:080120062250333555%art_deco@127.0.0.1...
Bill Hobba <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:Y5hwf.4505$fb4.4376@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fKgwf.211330$V7.63544@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:f7ewf.13373$oW.213@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fv7wf.211132$V7.155563@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity, and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first
important experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong
concerning the poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major
blunder
by comparing gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he
didn't
know any better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves,
Newton
knew force causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he
supposed
it to be a force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many
clues
that this interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but
there are many clues existing now that indicate to us, the children
produced by the Age of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that
Gravity is something else. The birth of Quantum Mechanics provides
us
with those clues. They trickeled in at first, slowly enough for
latter
day scientists to ignore them... then they began pouring in rapidly
as
the 21st century commenced. Those that ignore them are no longer
able
to maintain the rationality of their well oiled universe without
looking foolish. We are now at the stage where everyman can see the
Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body politik for the
wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that say they
are
providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that he
looks
unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
There are a lot of things I can say about this paper, Hobba. Like
assuming gravity is not a nonrenormalizable field theory, which is
speculative.
The paper did not assume that. Read it again.
So you admit you did not read the paper? It clearly states:
'In addition, whatever the physics of high energy really is, it will leave
residual effects at low energy in the form of highly suppressed
non-renormalizable interactions.'
But then to go further and make it a effective field theory
It is obvious you have no idea what an effective field theory is. Post
back when you do. Rest of junk snipped.
I know what it isn't: the answer to What Gravity Really Is.
In the effective field theory of gravity it is spin 2 particles. In GR it
is space-time curvature.
Every one of my original points stand. Perhaps you should go back to the
X-archives to find more salient thoughts to argue with since you don't
seem to be able to supply any of your own. Mere handwaving, and setting
up
straw-man arguments
will never cover up your ignorance.
Bill
Hey! These saucerheads are *smard*!
Watchout the saucerheads might come *armed* with laser projectiles.
*clip* - *clop*
on your side will not answer this question.
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pvc" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 01:58:43 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are many
clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by the Age
of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else. The
birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They trickeled in
at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them... then
they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that
ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well
oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body
politik for the wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that
say they are providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that
he looks unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
is it your paper?
Learn the facts then post back.
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense,
QM is silent on the issue,
Rest of misconnections mercifully snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nightbat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 06:40:44 AM |
|
|
nightbat wrote
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are many
clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by the Age
of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else. The
birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They trickeled in
at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them... then
they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that
ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well
oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body
politik for the wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that
say they are providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that
he looks unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Learn the facts then post back.
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense,
QM is silent on the issue,
Rest of misconnections mercifully snipped.
Bill
nightbat
Yes silence is golden when you have no answers unlike the
profound Earth Science Team Officers like Officer Greysky. It's easier
to clueless just unplug the light then Officer Greysky FTL Comm. produce
it, what else is new?
ponder on,
the nightbat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
08 Jan 2006 11:48:38 PM |
|
|
nightbat <nightbat@home.ffni.com> wrote:
nightbat wrote
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are many
clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by the Age
of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else. The
birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They trickeled in
at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them... then
they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those that
ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of their well
oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific body
politik for the wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those that
say they are providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or that
he looks unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Learn the facts then post back.
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with) that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense,
QM is silent on the issue,
Rest of misconnections mercifully snipped.
Bill
nightbat
Yes silence is golden when you have no answers unlike the
profound Earth Science Team Officers like Officer Greysky. It's easier
to clueless just unplug the light then Officer Greysky FTL Comm. produce
it, what else is new?
ponder on,
the nightbat
Do you enjoy demonstrating your idiocy in public, frootbat?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
.
|
|
|
| User: "Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
09 Jan 2006 12:24:59 AM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:080120062248386683%art_deco@127.0.0.1...
nightbat <nightbat@home.ffni.com> wrote:
nightbat wrote
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:1p5wf.13290$oW.9597@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Isaac Newton was the first one to formulate a theory concerning
gravity,
and he got it wrong. Like Ben Franklin, who was the first important
experimenter to research Electricity, but guessed wrong concerning the
poalrity of electric force, Newton made a major blunder by comparing
gravity to a force. To give the old guy credit, he didn't know any
better - like Franklin guessing how electricity moves, Newton knew
force
causes motion, so, since gravity causes motion, he supposed it to be a
force, and went accordingly. There are, however, many clues that this
interpretation is NOT correct. Newton can be forgiven, but there are
many
clues existing now that indicate to us, the children produced by the
Age
of Reason that Newton helped usher in, that Gravity is something else.
The
birth of Quantum Mechanics provides us with those clues. They
trickeled in
at first, slowly enough for latter day scientists to ignore them...
then
they began pouring in rapidly as the 21st century commenced. Those
that
ignore them are no longer able to maintain the rationality of their
well
oiled universe without looking foolish. We are now at the stage where
everyman can see the Emperor has no clothes, exposing the scientific
body
politik for the wasted weakling it has recently become. Still, those
that
say they are providing clothes for the naked man deny he is nude, or
that
he looks unto death. This just makes all of us truth-seekers look
silly.
Some Clues, not in any particular order:
The Standrd Model doesn't seem to need gravity in order to explain
matter.
Quantum physics and Relativity Physics are totally at odds with each
other,
Wrong
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024
Learn the facts then post back.
indeed QM sems to be saying (for those who have ears to hear with)
that
gravity isn't even a force in the Classical sense,
QM is silent on the issue,
Rest of misconnections mercifully snipped.
Bill
nightbat
Yes silence is golden when you have no answers unlike the
profound Earth Science Team Officers like Officer Greysky. It's easier
to clueless just unplug the light then Officer Greysky FTL Comm. produce
it, what else is new?
ponder on,
the nightbat
Do you enjoy demonstrating your idiocy in public, frootbat?
Just as you enjoying picking your nose on the front porch, flying duckman.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
.
|
|
|
| | | |
