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
Login

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 14, 2002 15:01:28 UTC

You know I have already explained these things.

Except for things like electron/positron annihilation. That's a crock in the first place. I've listed that sort of thing generally under Rogue Wave manifestations of so-called "Virtual Particles".

Then I sarcastically invented Virtual Logic to describe Relativity and Conventional Physics "popping in and out of reality".

All the rest of the topics on your list, I have addressed with the rationality of Aether Physics. I'm not about to waste my time chewing on it.

Actually, Compton Scattering I once looked at, but as I recall, it wasn't important enough to make up a Topic for it on my website. Seems to me it had something to do with poking particles out of the back of a sheet of gold foil, by impacting the front. Reverse Compton Scattering I don't recall. I'll look it up and see if it's significant. Thanks for the guidance.

And in fact, I consider a great deal of Conventional Physics quite legitimate. I use things like emission/absorption. I'm not simply trying to pick mindless fights. And further, I don't care if some Conventional that I use is not exactly correct, or still being worked on, only that it makes at least tentative sense, as we continue our iterations. Is that a problem?

Even Relativity has provided this kind of very real guidance, even tho' I don't agree with it generally. Light bending, clock-rate shifting, and fission-loss-of-mass were excellent predictions and observations, followed by more remarkable extrapolations. And I have had to consider tham in developing my own Aether Theory. Without this original work, I would have missed them as necessary considerations.

I admire Einstein very much as a genius, but I have recently taken his poster down, until I decide it was not evil genius. I have seen too many dark suspicions that make sense, from people on the Internet. Some of them are very angry with Einsein.

The one saving grace with Einstein, is that I have looked also at his spirituality and philosophy. Any man of such mental/spiritual angst and the with the thoughts arising from it, has to be good. And he published retractions of some of his own stuff, when no one else had even attacked it!

That is at least honesty that Diogenes would have been happy to hold a lamp up to.

If Relativity turns out to be "just" one more iteration on the path to discovering the final truths, it is a good one.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 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