Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #852888

MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics".

Show all headers | View raw

You (MikeMoroney) replied ( to me ):
> > That the speed of light is a constant,
> > regardless of the frame of reference,
> > is a _useful_ assumption that has never been falsified.
> > 
> > Likewise, my assumptions are _useful_ & have never been falsified.
> > In fact, the entire history of science supports my assertions.
> 
> Wrong.

How are my assumptions not useful ?  &
How are they not supported by the entire history of science ?

> > > > From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
> > > > they are to the start of the Big Bang
>
> General relativity does not claim that.
> What we observe is an ever increasing relativistic Doppler effect. 

General Relativity has nothing to say about how slow a natural clock would tick
in an infinitely hot&dense place 13.8 billion light-years away from the observer ?!

You & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics".

> > Locally, at the start of the Big Bang, General Relativity says
> > (natural) clocks ticked the same as they do here&now, not slower.
> 
> Your claim would require infinite speculation.

General Relativity is a _useful_assumption_ that has never been falsified.
You don't even know what it says.  You failed "Sci.Physics".

> > > > No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang.
> > > > Precision is artificial, not natural.
> 
> So you admit your claim is pseudo-scientific nonsense ?

" No entropy at the start " is a _widely_accepted_, _useful_, unfalsified _assumption_.
Again, you failed "Sci.Physics".

> > The trend towards increased entropy has not stopped, nor will it ever.
> > Eventually, Earth will evaporate away; black holes too.
> 
> Perhaps, but entropy is a statistical effect.

Nothing is " more useful, more widely accepted & never falsified "
than the laws of thermodynamics; General Relativity pales in comparison.

ThomasLahn is unaware of the role entropy plays in Hawking Radiation !
You failed "Sci.Physics".

> > > > "No Hidden Variables" ( Bell's Theorem ) willfully ignores:
> > > > We don't know what we don't know.
> 
> Bell's Theorem [assumes] that apparent randomness isn't due to 
> hidden variables, unlike [ what Einstein assumes ].

So ? Bell was a fool; Einstein [ the Swiss patent clerk ]
was the primary founder of modern science.

"eXergy" ( potential entropy ) created/destroys us;
without it, you couldn't drive to the store.

"Life" is that videogame playing in your head;
without it, you're just meat.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

A Theory of All Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-16 08:58 +0200
  Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-16 10:23 +0200
    Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 09:30 -0700
      Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 14:02 -0500
        Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-17 13:05 +0200
    Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 14:01 -0500
      Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 12:38 -0700
        Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 15:18 -0500
          Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-16 22:53 +0200
            Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 17:28 -0500
              Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-17 13:05 +0200
                Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-17 12:14 -0700
                Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-17 22:08 +0200
                Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-17 13:50 -0700
          Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 14:45 -0700
            Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 17:34 -0500
  These assumptions cover a lot of ground. "Dick's DriveIn"  <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-05-16 01:38 -0700
    Corrections of false assumptions (was: These assumptions cover a lot of ground.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-17 01:10 +0200
      Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. "Dick's DriveIn"  <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-05-16 19:17 -0700
        Re: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-17 20:36 +0200
        Re: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-17 20:50 +0200
        Re: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-05-18 01:56 -0400
          MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics". "Dick's DriveIn"  <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-05-18 13:37 -0700
            Re: MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics". Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-19 00:59 +0200
            Re: MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics". Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-05-18 19:28 -0400
  Re: A Theory of All Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 08:35 -0700
    Re: A Theory of All Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 08:46 -0700

csiph-web