Re: Hobba's misconceptions
Bill Hobba
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndqoonr....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Aetherist:
> >On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:11:27 +0100, "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> >>news:vNdqf.75823$V7.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> [...]
> >>> generally tolerant persuasion. I try to be tolerant and I know it
> >>> does not appeal to me.
> >>
> >> Bill, I don't believe in magic:
> >
> > Neither do I... Nor do I buy it just does, or, such gobbly-goob as:
> >
> > "Motion implied by the equations of EM."
>
> Well, then how about something more definite, like, ``we got us here
> some of these charged like thingies that whack them other charged liked
> thingies by interactin' with them thar ether like thingies and nobody
> don't need no steenking 'quations to knowd that are the factses and the
> nukular stuff is exactactly the same only differnt.''
>
> The lack of equation clutter really gives it that je ne sais quoi
> needed for a real theory.
Bilge, I have said it before and I will say it again - you are too much -
your posts really bring a smile to my face.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Thanks
Bill
>
> > As if the equation of EM can endow or induce something to physically
> > move... Sheez! Ass-backwards...
>
> Well I suppose that an equation that merely gets the correct answers
> to 13 decimal places pales in comparison to a theory which realizes
> that the complete failure to predict anything can be more than amply
> offset by a sufficiently undetectable causal mechanism with plenty
> of room to add more invisible, undetectable mechanisms with physically
> causal free parameters. Who could possibly be so anal retentive as to
> argue that adding a new free parameter `cause the old ones didn't work
> is not a causal mechanism? I'm sure Miss Science Manners would intervene
> if such a breach of decorum were to occur.
>
> > And,
> >
> > "Those are found by carrying out the variation on the EM
> > lagrangian."
> >
> > Or,
> >
> > "That is another assumption one needs to make about the
> > fields for them to produce force - they are derivable
> > from the PLA."
> >
> > Which, of course, says NOTHING!!!
>
> Then you should feel right at home, since you always say NOTHING.
> Most people at least show some gratitude for taking the time to
> phrase something in the way that seems most likely to be understood.
> If you don't appreciate the effort, people might just post something
> concise like an equation with no explanation other than some freindly
> advice to like it or lump it.
>
> > about the physical aspects of the
> > 'field' but does allow one to mathematically represent it. It is
> > your simple elegant point that clearly shows the observational
> > evidence of the physical medium... So, everytime someone spouts off
> > writing there is no observational evidence or properties of the
> > medium it makes one want to metaphorically throttle the Bozo for
> > being so self blinded...
>
> Give up, paul. The planet mercury will have pools of free standing
> liquid nitrogen before anyone on the inside of building where physics
> is done becomes senile enough to let you in. Since no one has yet
> identified a pathogen for kookiness, your best bet at getting a first
> hand look at science would be to check into a level 4 biohazard facility
> for observation. Sort of a quid pro quo arrangement.
>
>
> >> I don't believe in the power of equations, just as I don't believe
> >> in the power of words as in Ali Baba.
> >
> > Hear, hear... Sadly however, your words fall upon the deliberately
> > self blinded. It will have no meaning to him whatsoever.
>
> No shit. This nonsense has been going on since before newton. If only
> someone would slapped issac up 'side the head and bellowed, ``Issac, thou
> art an idiot. What uppeth with thy k/r^2 crap? The least thou could doest
> is bindeth the planets with ethereal stretchy stringfluxions analogous to
> the worldly superslinky. No proper boffin would be so intemperate as to
> protest that thy superslinky guideth the planets by edict of kr^2. Thy
> credibility hingeth on the many free paramaters available to fit a causal,
> yet conveniently vacuous superslinky, not some silly book of symbols that
> only agreeth with the Almighty when spoken by a man educated in the ways
> of science, the patience Job and the BIC pen corporation for a sponsor.
> Do not forget the cunning of experimentors who will seek to tarnish thy
> reputation should your theory not include a sufficient number of
> Constants to post-dict future discoveries in the Heavens.''
>
> Had newton been wise enough to use stretchy, invisible, but very
> sturdy rubber bands, I'll bet string theory would make a lot sense,
> if not already solved all of the questions men have asked for
> centuries, including ``What do women want?'' Since newton dropped
> the ball, I guess I'll be dead before that last question succumbs
> to popscience.
>
>