Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463161

Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why does gravity have to be transmitted through particles when gravity isn't a force in general relativity?
Date	2018-07-01 13:28 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<phaku3$6th$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <efeee68d-261f-4e9d-b258-62b0fb085d7a@googlegroups.com> <ph5l6e$6os$1@gioia.aioe.org> <5b46d1e9-c849-4ab6-9ae8-de85d3f67b55@googlegroups.com> <4db7102e-f19c-45c4-b1c7-648442ad46c8@googlegroups.com> <12ebadd1-c8ba-4852-8160-8e6124982201@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:28:11 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 5:10:48 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 12:02:27 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ken, I will explain this to you one more time. You are under the mistaken
>>>> delusion that the very act of TRYING to come up with an idea for a unified
>>>> theory is sufficient to qualify you as someone knowledgeable in physics.
>>>> That is not true. 
>>>> 
>>>> What is true is that the ONLY way to qualify as someone knowledgeable in
>>>> physics is to become educated in physics. Period, end of story. 
>>> 
>>> You are uneducated so that’s the reason why you are not knowledgeable.
>>> I am educated and that’s why I ws able to come up with a new theory
>>> of gravity that is compatible with all the other forces. Period,
>>> end of story.
>> 
>> yes you are educated in Chemical Engineering.
>> My best friend from college also studied Chemical Engineering.
>> I don't recall him taking any classes in upper level physics,
>> and especially not relativity.
> 
> The point is: You don’t need to be in upper level physics to come up with
> new idea of physics. 

Unfortunately, Ken, yes you do. Nobody in history has made a contribution
to physics while being uneducated in physics. And there is a reason for
that. Many reasons in fact. 

> In fact it is detrimental.....current physicists are so involved in
> abstract math they passover the easy and simple solution of the universe.
> For example I came up with a new theory of gravity by refusing to invoke
> any abstractions such as more than 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time 
> 

Providing a simple explanation that is understandable and intuitive to
everyone is not an objective of science. What IS an objective is to produce
a model that makes accurate QUANTITATIVE predictions that match against
precise measurements. Nature has no guarantee to be simple and intuitive,
and in fact many aspects of nature are definitely not that. 

Your fantasies are detached from reality. 

> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Thread

(Thread has 565 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)

csiph-web