Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer
Percy
Member
Posts: 22506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 8 of 90 (614615)
05-05-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-01-2011 9:00 AM


Does Mayer's theory differ from general relativity in its predictions of the effects of a spinning object on the geometry of space?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM Percy has replied
 Message 13 by fearandloathing, posted 05-05-2011 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


(1)
Message 12 of 90 (614630)
05-05-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-05-2011 1:34 PM


I can't tell if that's a yes or a no.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2011 3:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 29 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-08-2011 6:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 14 of 90 (614647)
05-05-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by fearandloathing
05-05-2011 3:09 PM


I hadn't seen that particular article, but yes, that's the recent news that prompted the question. I'm curious whether Mayer's theory makes any predictions that would differentiate it from general relativity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by fearandloathing, posted 05-05-2011 3:09 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by fearandloathing, posted 05-05-2011 3:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 36 of 90 (614897)
05-08-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-08-2011 2:55 PM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:
As it is, the graphs derived from his metrics seem to fit the sky surveys' data nicely whereas those derived from FLRW and Hubble constant appear to miss the target by a large margin which is all easily verifiable given the links to the databases and to the alternative metrics provided in the PDF.
You're telling us that currently accepted scientific theory is inconsistent with observations, and that science is not taking any particular notice, and even further that science is ignoring someone whose ideas actually do match observations? Really?
I'm also curious why you didn't mention this when I asked if Mayer's ideas make any predictions that would differentiate it from currently accepted theory. You replied at the time that your preference for Mayer was philosophical rather than based upon evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-08-2011 2:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-08-2011 5:07 PM Percy has replied
 Message 38 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-08-2011 5:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 39 of 90 (614902)
05-08-2011 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-08-2011 5:07 PM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:
As to his graphs and predictions, you can check them all if you want. He himself does not claim to be perfectly certain but is saying that all has to be tested experimentally.
So this could only mean that you misspoke when you said that current theory was inconsistent with observations, and that you further misspoke when you claimed that Mayer's theory better matches observations. And now you're saying the exact opposite, that Mayer's ideas have yet to be tested against observations. What would those tests be?
I suggest you stop suggesting that I go check out Mayer for myself. I'm discussing with you, not Mayer. You're here to make the best case for Mayer you can. The rest of us are, if they're like me, waiting to see if you will say anything about Mayer that doesn't sound like empty hype. You should be writing advertising copy for crystal water Internet sites.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-08-2011 5:07 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-09-2011 11:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024