fargolime

23 ms·

181.
by fargolime 13y ago
> A "it just is" theory does none of these things. Sure. But the physics to predict the behavior for galaxies or other objects moving away from one another is already covered by a theory of gravity. When the blog post removes t
182.
by fargolime 13y ago
> You can ask "why" all the way down, but the effect of you sitting on a chair still has an explanation. Trading one problem for another doesn't really solve anything. You take issue with the blog post for not answering yo
183.
by fargolime 13y ago
> Gravity holds you to that chair... You've explained how the effects of gravity can be predicted, not why gravity holds me to the chair. What is the mechanism that causes the gravity that holds me to the chair? Is it undiscover
184.
by fargolime 13y ago
> The author still posits no mechanism for why the distribution that Hubble observed holds for every galaxy in the sky nor does he ever address this point at all. Hubble found that the galaxies are moving apart from one another in the si
185.
by fargolime 13y ago
> The link doesn't explain why this would happen. Physics doesn't answer why on anything. Hubble's observations still apply. He didn't try to explain why the observational data is what it is. > Spacetime isn&#x27
186.
by fargolime 13y ago
Physics doesn't answer why on anything. For example, why does gravity hold me to my chair? Nobody knows. Physics explains only how gravity affects things.
187.
by fargolime 13y ago
A much simpler explanation that adds no new assumptions and shows that space itself need not be expanding to explain what we observe is at http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/expanding-space-obvia... . It a
188.
The Biggest Problem in Physics Is Institutional (2011)(finbot.wordpress.com)
3 points by fargolime 13y ago|0 comments
189.
Edward Snowden's Country Of Choice Has An Even Worse Surveillance Record(businessinsider.com)
4 points by fargolime 13y ago|0 comments
190.
by fargolime 13y ago
"Looking forward to conflict" comment auto-logged, reference #391Z328. Report to the proper authorities within 24 hours for interrogation. You've been auto-added to the no-fly list. That's likely what will happen from he
191.
by fargolime 13y ago
Already this is scrolling off the news. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of voters either don't care or don't feel they can change it. If they do try to change it, they put themselves at risk. The surveillance will cont
192.
by fargolime 13y ago
I call her 50% responsible. The other half is the lender (gov't-backed entity) squeezing her at relatively high interest. They shouldn't have got so greedy. Now they'll get no more out of her, and of course taxpayers eat the loss.
193.
by fargolime 14y ago
Worse, wormholes contradict general relativity's own postulate, the equivalence principle, as shown by rock-solid logic here: http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/no-black-holes/ Wormholes provide an endless stream of grant money, caree
194.
by fargolime 14y ago
A massive enough black hole could contain our entire observable universe. An observer crossing the event horizon of a black hole needn't notice anything special either. That's the theory anyway. Black holes are disproved using the theory it
195.
by fargolime 14y ago
Linking would be going too far off topic, which I won't do. It would indicate an ulterior motive I don't have. You'd need at least a good laymen's background in relativity theory to understand my work. If you have that, you can give me a wa
196.
by fargolime 14y ago
> What I admire is people who take this difficult terrain as a given and find a way to get to their destination anyway. Same here. Alas, I'm not one of them. I'm not both a scientist and politician. Like a lot of folk on HN I have a sof
197.
by fargolime 14y ago
But I'm not frustrated, nor whining. I have no cause to advance; I no longer seek publication of my ideas. Your comment demonstrates the following thinking I've seen in today's scientific community though: If you have anything to say agains
198.
by fargolime 14y ago
I'm well aware of the issues noted in your first two big paragraphs. These are the typical reasons given in the informal research I mentioned. It boils down to this reasoning: A purported solution to a major outstanding problem in physics i
199.
by fargolime 14y ago
I've done that, FWIW, which isn't much. The solutions will likely be lost to science. Perhaps a future internet archaeologist will find and disseminate them to a more scientific audience.
200.
by fargolime 14y ago
I said the equivalent: "I have solved...or so I claim".
201.
by fargolime 14y ago
Of course I do.
202.
by fargolime 14y ago
As I said, no one who could expertly read my papers will read them. So while I'm a crank, a crackpot, nowadays that's based on subject matter alone.
203.
by fargolime 14y ago
It's much worse than the article describes. I've solved five outstanding problems in physics, or so I claim. Just little ones like dark energy. I dedicated a decade to the effort (not that that proves anything, I'm just saying I didn't slap