Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #550831
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: BJ vs Science |
| References | (14 earlier) <n926i8$6hc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e1172c59-6d49-4d8f-bdc1-850c008684d3@googlegroups.com> <n92ctk$i0h$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0f8c7829-1782-44fd-b5b2-fa9cfcf798f0@googlegroups.com> <n92uah$1h3u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Message-ID | <GWfty.36974$Ue1.1322@fx13.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | TeraNews.com |
| Date | 2016-02-06 00:56 -0500 |
On 02/05/2016 02:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/5/2016 10:19 AM, john wrote:
>> There is more than one indication that
>> we have gravity wrong:
>> 1.Galactic rotation curves
>> 2.Missing matter
>
> The above two are the same thing. Galactic rotation curves raise the
> possibility of missing matter. Missing matter is not a problem. It is a
> hypothesis that aligns to one of the possibilities.
> Reminder of the possibilities driven by galactic rotation curves:
> 1. GR is wrong, and the amount of matter is correctly known.
> 2. GR is right, and the amount of matter is not correctly known.
> So Missing Matter is hypothesis number 2. It's not a indication that GR
> is wrong. It is the hypothesis that indicates GR is *right*. Read the
> lines!!!
>
>> 3.Bigger bodies all appear gaseous while
>> smaller ones are observably rocky
>
> Have you ever considered Googling "Why is Jupiter a gas giant and not a
> rocky planet?" You make it sound like nobody has an answer!!
>
>> 4.Huge stones that should not be movable
>> shaped and dressed by earlier people
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not following. You're making the claim somehow that
> ancient stone moving is somehow connected to the theory of gravity being
> wrong? Is it your claim that a theory based on LeSage particles makes it
> clear how those stones were moved???
>
>>
>> I could go on, but you, who thinks that "just
>> because we've never seen something before
>> doesn't mean we shouldn't base our entire
>> science on it, (point particles), would refuse
>> to accept them because, although many
>> (thousands) have seen them before, they can't be replicated on demand.
>
> They CAN be replicated on demand.
>
> And you can refuse to accept the existence of mammals with scales if you
> like, just because you've never seen one before in your whole life and
> every mammal you've ever heard of either has hair or just skin but no
> scales. But this wouldn't change the fact that mammals with scales exist.
Not if Boinker says they don't. He and HVAC operate the same way. If
they don't believe that lasers exist then as far as they are concerned
they don't. And anyone reporting that they saw one (or like me own one)
or God forbid (like me) built one, is obviously a KOOK! I could take my
laser and excise H&V's "roids and he'd still be denying that a laser did
it.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 03:43 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:02 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:34 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:44 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 07:58 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:26 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:30 -0800
BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:43 -0800
BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:09 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:21 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 09:36 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 11:56 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:06 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 12:22 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:13 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:03 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:25 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:51 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:19 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:48 -0600
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:56 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 03:19 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:09 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:32 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:01 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 09:10 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:00 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:07 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:53 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:07 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:15 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:11 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:08 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:07 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 00:06 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 07:48 -0800
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 23:47 -0500
Re: BJ vs Science benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 11:08 -0500
csiph-web