Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hocus Pocus...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 10, 2002 13:20:53 UTC

is a term used by Richard Feynman to describe "renormalization" math. He also used the terms "shell game" and "dippy process". And RF is one of the architects of renorm. Hans Christian von Baeyer is another professional who is extremely critical of renorm.

I'm especially critical of renorm and transforms. That's far. I haven't looked into non-Euclidean geometry in a serious way yet, but I expect it is more mathbabble.

As an Industrial Instrumentation and Controls Tech, I used square root relationships, logarithms, and calculus in practical applications in my trade, on an on-going basis. I actually made things work using math.

Modern applied physics is in no way hocus pocus. I have absolutely no problem with the surprise of the effect of a newly discovered aspect of a force on the space craft. This is cutting edge research. People even get killed because of unforseeable circumstances.

As to the math for it, I don't have to invent it. The experts at NASA and elsewhere have said it is about 6-mph per century,.. and I say: all the way across the universe, except for complicating factors added in the vicinity of other bodies.

I do not claim to have access to multi-billions of dollars in equipment, and 1000s of experts for a task force. I'm retired on CDN$1250/per month, living in subsidized housing, and no car, just a Seniors' bus pass. In this life, I have gone through a series of humbling experiences. But I have still created the Umbrella Theory of Physics. That's not a brag; just a fact. And I really, really need help with the incidental details. That includes math to go with the mechanics.

If anyone can shoot me down with specific mechanics, I'll thank him. Any lists I have seen so far, I have already addressed quite adequately. If anyone does not think so, I'll provide a specific reference. The last list I saw here, I simply ignored.

All I say is that this new discovery automatically dovetails into my already-published theory, and therefore supports it. As stated in the article, it does not fit into existing mechanisms or theories, and therefore does not support them.

I have no idea why anyone would consider those to be the statements of a crackpot.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins