Sdrodrian admits his theories are wrong
S D Rodrian
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > In article <3A4D17B1...@louisville.edu>,
> > "J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > > One small problem with Mr. Rodrian's claims
> > Thank God it's small.
> > > - he won't publish them in a
> > > peer-reviewed astrophysical,
> > > physics, or astronomy journal.
> >
> > Are you mad?!?! Can you imagine
> > Galileo submitting his observations
> > to the Church-approved-only periodicals
> > of his day? I've been wracked enough as it is.
>
> That's not the same thing, since the goals
> and epistemology of the two
> (science and the church) are different.
Yes, but the pain/suffering/punishments
are too much alike for me to try them out.
> If you expect to have your theories
> considered as scientifically
> accurate, you would not fear exposing them
> to people trained in
> scientific thinking in the relavent disciplines.
I have news for you: The archives of Usenet
will survive most (if not all) the books and
other sundry paper publications on earth. And
all my "observations" are basically observations
pointing out the obvious. Believe It or Not!!!!
Go thou to http://web.sdrodrian.com and notice
that all I offer IS proofs.
> Comparing such a decision to Galileo
> being reviewed by the Church is a
> way to avoid testing your notions,
> and nothing more. It's certainly not
> a way to support the idea that your theory
> is as world-shaking as
> Galielo's, especially considering the
> paucity of novelty or illumination
> in them.
Well, Tom, if after all the volumes of
"illumination" I have poured your way
you're still in the dark... I just might
consider giving the eye doctor a visit
if I were you.
> > > as to why this hasn't been done,
> > > but frankly, he is blowing
> > > smoke unless he can and brings
> > > the scientific community into the discussion.
> >
> > Sorry: I never discuss things with
> > children. I can wait until you grow up.
>
> That response was certainly not
> calculated to inspire reasonable
> discussion.
By George, he's GOT it! [It is quite true
that I only engage in reasonable discussions
when the discussion is reasonable.]
> Using insults is tantamount to admission
> that you have no basis for your
> argument, since if you did, you'd offer it, instead.
Love a guy who never tires of volumes & volumes
of repetitions--God bless you, Tom! I will take
your advice and keep repeating myself: "Those who
will not learn by the Mind must learn by the Rote!"
> > For the time being, my only interest
> > is in delighting and tickling you; for I still
> > love children... the good and the bad.
>
> Ah, that explains why you aren't concerned
> with tests of accuracy for
> your theories, as your consistent disregard
> of reasonable questions and
> challenges shows.
What tests of accuracy can one possibly propose
for the obvious? Tom, either what I say is self-
evident, or I dare not say it (albeit, like you
yourself.... there are a few Taliban out there
who might not only require to be shown the door
but also have to be told what a door is).
> Note the subject header.
It's not my title: If I agree with a post
it's unlikely I will comment on it. I mostly
just make an objection where I think it's deserved,
or an ellucidation where I think it's helpful.
> > > There are problems with his ideas which
> > > have been addressed much in the past
> >
> > [Fortunately... Mr. Miller will NEVER, EVER,
> > under any circumstances, tell you exactly where
> > the location of those problems is...
>
> I've told you, a few times.
> You have yet to address them:
>
> 1) What predictions, based on your model,
> are different than any other model?
I've already answered this, but I'm doomed to
repeat things to the Taliban because I always
spurned teaching, I suppose. Just one instance:
My model predicted that whatever the universe
was "doing" it would be found to be doing it
faster and faster as it did it. Sure enough, in
1998 researches finally realized that the so-called
expansion of the universe was actually accelerating!
This was the absolutely complete opposite of what
the inflationary universe models had predicted:
Their models varied from a slowing "expansion" to
a complete stop and subsequent contraction. An
acceleration of their inflationary universe model
is as impossible to explain in reasonable terms
as pulling a rabbit out of your ear.
This is really all that is necessary to expose
their models' fallacy and my model's accuracy.
> 2) How is your model different than
> what we already have, with an
> unusual coordinate transformation imposed,
> to no discernable effect?
What does it matter to humanity that the Sun will
become a red giant in 4+ billion years? Tom:
The quest of scientific research is not unlike
the birthing of a child... there is no way to
predict what that baby will grow up to achieve,
but there is always the certainty that if that
baby is stillborn, so will all his/her potentials
to achieve anything also be as stillborn.
The reason why we must search for the true nature
of reality/the universe, is because eventually
all may depend on whether our mortal judgments
are based on a true, or on an imaginary reality.
Ours is a fatal future that requires the greatest
adherence to the truth we can muster in ourselves.
> 3) Given that your model produces
> identical predictions as the currently
> formulated Big-Bang 'baby-universe' model,
> what's the point of the extra
> co-ordinate transformation? Since you
> include Occam on your web-site,
> you must admit, if honest, that there is
> no reason to accept your model,
> since it produces predictions which are
> identical to already published
> models, but has an unnecessary
> layer of explanation.
If it were so, I wouldn't waste a second on it
(as I have always & always will dedicate my life
to distinguishing what may be momentarily true only
to Man from what will always be true to the universe).
Fortunately, my model of an imploding universe
does not make identical prediction (as per the
example I noted above). It's true that my model
in no way contradicts The Standard Model, but
the Standard Model is not unlike a description
of modern day animals: Modern day elements/sub-
particles are like elephants, tigers, and snails:
Highly evolved beasts which are rather adequately
described and understood. My concern is centered
almost exclusively on how it all originated (and
this would be the equal, in biological evolution,
of studying the natural circumstances which led to
the animo acids which led to the origins of life).
I don't believe I need defend research which is
not specifically aimed at producing a specific
product for the public use (as I said before)...
because the historical record shows far too many
instances where research in one field yielded
countless unexpected side benefits. That is the
nature of all objective human research, after all.
> > > and which he has never been able to
> > > address other than by hand-waving.
> >
> > Well, I do what I can; and ever will:
> > I don't think I can reply to all the posts
> > here (there, and everywhere), but I'll
> > give it a shot... tomorrow: Gotta wake up
> > early tomorrow. So, I'll just wave g'night!
>
> Uh huh. You've never even responded to me,
> let alone answered any of my
> *scientific* challenges to your model.
I'm sorry, but it appears that you have missed all my
replies to your posts! But fear not, as you can revisit
at least some of the ones I found in a search resulting in:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696425162&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696736265&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=698530845&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=706604249&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=707027827&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=707023649&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=708119111&fmt=text
Here's the search URL if you wish to find more
(be sure to include ALL the URL in your browser):
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%2B%22rodrian%
22+AND+%2B%22Tom+McWilliams%
22&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&format=terse&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=ALL&su
bjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=
> Until you do, I'll consider your theory
> scientifically repudiated, and
> leave you to entertain in peace.
Since I have done so: I'll consider that, at least
as far as you're concerned, my theory is
scientifically proved. And I will leave you to
watch the football games on TV in peace.
> Everyone interested in scientific testing
> can go home now. I've
> definitively debunked SDRodrian's 'theory',
> and he asserts that having
> fun, not explaining the universe, is his goal.
I think you have a lot to explain after you
go through this reply to your post definitively.
And, as for fun... I've met so many people who
think that having no fun in life equates with
taking life seriously that I no longer marvel
at the fools, and just enjoy watching them make
fools of themselves. Good luck, Tom.
> I predict we'll hear nothing to contradict me,
> and little else about the
> theory itself.
> -Tm
You need to go into some other business
(than predicting), Tom. Have you tried
really applying yourself to being a right
and proper Taliban? The pay may not be
great, but it's a healthy, outdoors life.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
dav...@aol.comeherebob (DBC) wrote:
> In article <92qpt3$feb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
>
> >An
> >acceleration of their inflationary universe model
> >is as impossible to explain in reasonable terms
> >as pulling a rabbit out of your ear.
>
> acceleration of a falling object? Not the
> same, but vaguely similar?
> ~David
Actually it's exactly that! In other words:
You have a universe which is in the grips
of that attracting force Gravity which seems
to be expanding instead of collapsing! And
the questions such a self-contradicting notion
give rise to are literally never-ending:
How is such a thing possible at all?
Well, of course it just isn't... so all
the rationalizations you will run across
to attempt to explain this paradox will of
necessity be utter nonsense and gibberish.
"There are NO paradoxes in nature, only
in our minds." --SDR
For a long time now I have been convinced
that "whatever the universe was doing" it
HAD to be doing that at an accelerating pace
because Newton's dictum that a force applied
to a body results in the acceleration of that
body as long as it's being acted on by said
force--Remember that the universe is in the
grips of the force of gravity: There is no
alternative but that "whatever the universe
is doing... it must be found, sooner or later,
to be doing "this" faster and faster as it
continues. And in 1998, finally researchers
discovered that the so-called recession of the
galaxies (the usual proof the the universe is
expanding) is actually accelerating! [1998 was
a very good year for me.] This discovery, of
course, is impossible to explain with any model
of an inflationary universe without employing
nonsensical rationalizations/gibberish such as
the imaginative proposal that there exists some
sort of "funny matter" which produces some sort
of "funny energy" which repels where gravity
attracts--at the same time/place, mind you! Or
the unholy resurrection of Einstein's "worst
blunder" ... that goofy Cosmological Constant he
pulled out of his hat to try to rationalize why
in a universe in the grips of gravity... there
did not seem to be an implosion on a cosmic level:
It was as monstrous a paradox for Einstein as
it still is for everybody else whose superstition
remains that the universe is really expanding;
and, as you can see, their reaction is not only
the same as Einstein's but in some case it IS
Einstein's! [Einstein, of course, immediately
acknowledged the utter goofiness of his "funny
energy" (or Cosmological Constant) proposal as
soon as Hubble established the recession of the
galaxies "constant" ... which is, at least more
reasonably explained by imagining some primordial
Big Bang as the source of the recession/expansion.
[And the reason Einstein was so awfully embarrassed
by his Cosmological Constant proposal is precisely
because it was --and remains-- so darn goofy.]
And there the matter seemed to rest until 1998 when
it was discovered (as it absolutely HAD to be found
in an imploding model) that the so-called expansion
of the universe is accelerating! This pretty much
eliminates the Big Bang theories as the raison d'ete
of such an expansion... and sends cosmology back to
the drawing board where all fanciful Rube Goldberg
confusions are given birth to by our poor unchanging
human nature--e.g. all modern proposals pretty much
run a long the lines of Einstein's "greatest blunder."
So we are back to scratch. And the hurdle remains the
same as faced by Einstein: How is it possible that in
an imploding universe there is not a pile-up of matter?!?!
The answer was always there in the divisibility of
the atom, of course: The atom is NOT fundamental.
This was hard to accept by many, and many more to
this day persist in rejecting the next logical step
(namely, that NO subparticle of matter whatsoever
is likewise fundamental and indivisible... in effect,
that ALL forms of matter are simply that: just "forms").
Once you accept that, it tells you why it is that our
imploding universe does not and never can result in
an accumulation (pile-up) of fundamental matter at its
whatever "center" ... because there is no such thing
in the entire universe as a fundamental form of matter
to begin with! [Yes, neutrons result in a pile-up IN
neutron stars, but Black Hole stars tear them all down
to some more fundamental subparticle(s) if at that, and
so it goes ad infinitum.] And if the entire universe
itself is not only made up simply/exclusively of forms
and not fundamental particles, then the universe itself
is also "a" form and NOT fundamentally "material." And
this is why it can implode/shrink (in place as it were)
without easily giving up the secret of what it's really
up to (imploding)... as at the human level all the grand
choreography of its (the universe's) forms of matter
(each & every last single one of them) imploding (or
"shrinking towards their centers")... creates an almost
perfect ballet of eternal unchangeability for our wonder,
awe, and sheer entertainment. It is both elegant... and
quite simply unimaginably wonderful to behold with eye
or mind.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian
I,JM
<SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes
>"There are NO paradoxes in nature, only
>in our minds."
Our minds *are part* of Nature.
I,JM
fzfpqkyivvVqppkpWqppkkivvZpzkkkvi
S D Rodrian
"I,JM" <X-...@magick.de.PANTS.mon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <93ag0k$vbd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Smug Deluded Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes
> >"There are NO paradoxes in nature, only
> >in our minds."
>
> Our minds *are part* of Nature.
>
> I,JM
Okay then... just for YOU,JM:
"There are no paradoxes in nature, only
in our minds as apart from nature." *
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
* "Nature does not dream, nature does not
lie, nature does not delude herself...
that is something only we do (apart from
nature... as that is our nature)." --SDR
I,JM
Or to put it another way, there are no paradoxes; only a limit to
current understanding.
I,JM
In article <93bj6t$qpn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian
<SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes
fzfpqkyivvVqppkpWqppkkivvZpzkkkvi