Bill Hobba wrote:


Balance is not the usual mode of the aetherist. I can only think of one
aetherist who posts here who I would classify as balanced - Ijla.

I concur. What Ijla is doing may be wrong ( I don't know that it is), it
is science that he is doing. He as crafted a theory that makes testable
predictions. In Popper-speak that is science.

Bob Kolker

On 29-Sep-2004, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

Modern QFT does away with this idea. And an intelligent man that studies
science does not read more into the equations that can be inferred
directly from experiments.

Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that claims
E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2. Any intelligent person that studies science honestly
does not use inequalities in their theory. Intelligent people use
consistent dimensional algebra to explain all the basic laws of physics
right down to the quantum level and use calculus only for engineering
purposes.

Dave

David Thomson wrote:


Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that claims
E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2. Any intelligent person that studies science honestly
does not use inequalities in their theory. Intelligent people use
consistent dimensional algebra to explain all the basic laws of physics
right down to the quantum level and use calculus only for engineering
purposes.

You mean you reject differential equations and differential forms? If
so, you would have to reject almost every word in Newton's -Principia
Mathematica-.

Bob Kolker

robert j. kolker wrote:


: David Thomson wrote:

:
: Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that claims
: E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2. Any intelligent person that studies science honestly
: does not use inequalities in their theory. Intelligent people use
: consistent dimensional algebra to explain all the basic laws of physics
: right down to the quantum level and use calculus only for engineering
: purposes.

: You mean you reject differential equations and differential forms? If
: so, you would have to reject almost every word in Newton's -Principia
: Mathematica-.

: Bob Kolker

He did say he rejects E=.5mv^2. Wasn't that one of Newton's ideas?

Stephen

wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:


: David Thomson wrote:

:
: Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that claims
: E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2. Any intelligent person that studies science honestly
: does not use inequalities in their theory. Intelligent people use
: consistent dimensional algebra to explain all the basic laws of physics
: right down to the quantum level and use calculus only for engineering
: purposes.

: You mean you reject differential equations and differential forms? If
: so, you would have to reject almost every word in Newton's -Principia
: Mathematica-.

: Bob Kolker

He did say he rejects E=.5mv^2. Wasn't that one of Newton's ideas?


He said and I quote ".... use calculus only for engineering purposes".
Newton used calculus as the gut and bone of his physics, not just for
engineering.

Thompson is an idiot.

Bob Kolker

David Thomson:

On 29-Sep-2004, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

Modern QFT does away with this idea. And an intelligent man that studies
science does not read more into the equations that can be inferred
directly from experiments.

Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that claims
E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2.

It also does away with any connection to reality.

Any intelligent person that studies science honestly does not use
inequalities in their theory.

Get a clue.

On 30-Sep-2004, wrote:

: Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that
claims
: E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2. Any intelligent person that studies science
honestly
: does not use inequalities in their theory. Intelligent people use
: consistent dimensional algebra to explain all the basic laws of physics
: right down to the quantum level and use calculus only for engineering
: purposes.

: You mean you reject differential equations and differential forms? If
: so, you would have to reject almost every word in Newton's -Principia
: Mathematica-.

: Bob Kolker

Hi Bob,

Do you know the difference between "rejection" and "not needing"? Do you
reject calculus just because Ohm's law can be simply expressed as a simple
algebraic equation? I said I found a way to explain the basic laws of
physics without calculus. That means, quite simple, I found a way to
express the basic laws of physics without calculus. Plain and simple.

I don't reject almost every word of Newton just because I found a simple way
to quantify quantum physics. What I do reject are inequalities. If you
start a theory with an equation that says one joule is equal to one kilogram
times the speed of light squared, yes, I have a problem with that. Or, if
you confuse kinetic energy with one joule and say that one joule is equal to
half a joule, I have a problem with that, too.

He did say he rejects E=.5mv^2. Wasn't that one of Newton's ideas?

Hi Stephen,

If you find some place where Newton said one joule is equal to a half joule,
let me know. It seems to me that Newton would have been careful to properly
label kinetic energy different from the symbol for the joule.

Dave

David Thomson wrote:


Hi Bob,

Do you know the difference between "rejection" and "not needing"? Do you
reject calculus just because Ohm's law can be simply expressed as a simple
algebraic equation? I said I found a way to explain the basic laws of
physics without calculus. That means, quite simple, I found a way to
express the basic laws of physics without calculus. Plain and simple.

No you havent. You can't handle symmetries without group theory and go
can't handle field without Lagrangian type analysis. You utter nonsense.

Bob Kolker

"David Thomson" wrote in message
...

On 30-Sep-2004, wrote:

: Modern Aether theory does away with SRT, QFT, QED, and anything that
claims
: E=mc^2 or E=.5mv^2. Any intelligent person that studies science
honestly
: does not use inequalities in their theory. Intelligent people use
: consistent dimensional algebra to explain all the basic laws of
physics
: right down to the quantum level and use calculus only for engineering
: purposes.

: You mean you reject differential equations and differential forms? If
: so, you would have to reject almost every word in Newton's -Principia
: Mathematica-.

: Bob Kolker

Hi Bob,

Do you know the difference between "rejection" and "not needing"? Do you
reject calculus just because Ohm's law can be simply expressed as a simple
algebraic equation? I said I found a way to explain the basic laws of
physics without calculus. That means, quite simple, I found a way to
express the basic laws of physics without calculus. Plain and simple.

Explain the momentum operator of QM without calculus.

Bill


I don't reject almost every word of Newton just because I found a simple
way
to quantify quantum physics. What I do reject are inequalities. If you
start a theory with an equation that says one joule is equal to one
kilogram
times the speed of light squared, yes, I have a problem with that. Or, if
you confuse kinetic energy with one joule and say that one joule is equal
to
half a joule, I have a problem with that, too.

He did say he rejects E=.5mv^2. Wasn't that one of Newton's ideas?

Hi Stephen,

If you find some place where Newton said one joule is equal to a half
joule,
let me know. It seems to me that Newton would have been careful to
properly
label kinetic energy different from the symbol for the joule.

Dave

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


David Thomson wrote:


Hi Bob,

Do you know the difference between "rejection" and "not needing"? Do
you
reject calculus just because Ohm's law can be simply expressed as a
simple
algebraic equation? I said I found a way to explain the basic laws of
physics without calculus. That means, quite simple, I found a way to
express the basic laws of physics without calculus. Plain and simple.

No you havent. You can't handle symmetries without group theory and go
can't handle field without Lagrangian type analysis. You utter nonsense.

Bob Kolker

Of course. I have asked him a simple question - Explain the momentum
operator of QM without calculus. His reply will be most interesting.

Thanks
Bill