On May 9, 4:39*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Sanny wrote:
[...]

I think that 5 minutes using Google will teach you more about this than
any amount of discussion in these newsgroups.

Tom Roberts

xxein: I don't really want to get into an argument here but Google
can probably give support to any thought you may have. It is not an
authoritative document or physic.

If you mean looking at web pages that support your view, there are
plenty. There are plenty without rhyme or reason also. It becomes a
matter of belief.

I know and you know that 'systems' of scale have behavioral qualities
and quantities that are supposed to have a 'definable physic'. Are
you saying we have achieved this understanding of the physic?

I don't think so. We may get results for the applications we seek to
apply, but are they the 'direct' consequence of a physic, or just our
understanding and use of it? We can make Jello anytime without
understanding how it gels.

So, this is the point of consideration. We give reason for physics
through repeatability. This is what we have developed as our
physics. Do we really understand it yet? I doubt it.

We thought we knew physics from Archimedes to Newton. So now we have
Einstein. What's the difference for tomorrow? We were relatively
stupid then, and now we think we know it all? Give us a break.

I have studied this physics situation for a very long time. I can
start to draw pointed suggestions and solutions. They do work, but
just not in the context of the physics you may have in mind. I can't
and won't try to change your belief/mind here. Just be aware that a
consensus will advocate (bandwagon) a change of the understanding of
the physics in the tomorrow.

It may never achieve the physic (itself), but it will get closer.

In the meantime, don't act like a sorcerer who can make a magic fire,
at will, to try and stupify us into believing you command the
universe. You and I can agree that neither one of us can make that
happen (even though a vast majority will be fooled). I'll agree that
there are the so-called 'kooks' that want us to believe their way.
But there is a logic to be found. It is not temporary any more than
this universe. The logic is the juxtaposition of this universe within
itself.

Maybe, some day, we can realise that there are other universes out
there. We have no evidence of that but we can hardly examine an
evidence at hand and make a logic with it that does not have a better
explanation with a logic either.

We are stuck with the temporary logic at hand. And that really sucks
to me. I've put 23 years into understanding the generalities of the
physic presented to us by this universe as the physic to which it
abides. These generalities differ significantly from the physics
currently accepted as belief.

Yeah, SR math works (in it's own context). So does GR (likewise). So
does a billion buyer computer game. What is real anymore? Can we
find out the source code? Or do we just say that if it is not of our
codec, it can't be true?

Smarten up, Tom. There's a whole universe beyond your coffee cup and
the same alligator clips used day after day within a monotonous closed
system.