Prev: Inertia still lying for Einstein
Next: Doctrine of need
From: Androcles on 27 Jun 2010 15:31

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:huydnXJhRI3qAbrRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com...
| Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
| > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
| > measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
|
| Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms
and
| anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but
it
| has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
|
|
| > (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
| > that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
| > everywhere else in the Universe.
|
| Obviously you don't know very many physicists. I work daily

Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Roberts has delusions of employment!
You haven't worked since Lucent Technologies fired you out for
wasting company time on usenet, Roberts. Oops! Sorry... retired you.



From: waldofj on 27 Jun 2010 15:33
On Jun 27, 2:46 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> > measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
>
> Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms and
> anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but it
> has not been approved, and most likely will not be.

That's a real shame. I think this is a very important line of
research. Over the decades I have read many "discussions" about things
like: quantum gravity, just what is anti-matter, better tests of the
equivalence principle, and so on. This line of research would go a
long way in reducing the "noise factor"
From: Mitchell Jones on 27 Jun 2010 17:08
In article <S5qdnSfVcpv_7LrR4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com>,
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > In article <Ou2dnSrelu1cer_RRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com>,
> > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> >>> Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
> >>> interaction that violates causality.
> >> I'm not sure what "violates causality" means.
> >
> > ***{The notion of an uncaused event violates causality.
>
> Hmmm. that of course presupposes a useful definition of "cause". My main
> point
> is that using the NAIVE notion of causality, this is not possible. You, and
> Oldershaw, have a rather vague notion of what you mean, but have not given
> any
> specific definition. Indeed, given the long history of the subject, it is
> EXTREMELY unlikely that you, or anybody else, can do so.

***{I already did, but you snipped it out. Here it is again:

"(E)verything which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction
of a specific set of entities, and ... the interaction in question
constitutes the cause of the effect."

When the interactions of the antecedents are understood, the cause is
understood.

As I also indicated in the material you snipped out, the linkage
between cause and effect constitutes a necessary connection across the
time sequence of events of precisely the sort that Hume, and his modern
acolytes, deny.

--Mitchell Jones)***

> > The importance of the law of causality
>
> WHAT "law of causality" ????

***{You snipped it out. Here it is again:

"(E)verything which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction
of a specific set of entities, and ... the interaction in question
constitutes the cause of the effect."

I can't put sticky labels on everything I say so that you will recognize
what it is. Therefore let me offer you some advice: stop snipping out
virtually everything I say. If you will insert your comments into my
text, immediately after whatever sentence you are responding to, I think
you will be able to recognize what you are seeing without the need for
sticky labels.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> >> Note that classical electrodynamics does indeed have causality in the
> >> modern
> >> sense
> >
> > ***{There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation,
>
> Go back and read what I wrote. This is not at all what causality means in
> modern physical theories like classical electrodynamics. The meaning is VERY
> different from what you are trying to discuss."

***{I said that several different ways in the material which you snipped
out. For example:

"There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation, including
perfect correlation, with 'causation.' David Hume argued more than 200
years ago that perfect correlation, which he termed "constant
conjunction," was the best we could do, and that apprehension of
necessary connections within a time-sequence of events was impossible.
His conclusion was that the principle of scientific induction--that
things will behave in the future as they behaved in the past--was an
article of faith, resting on nothing, and that science, as a
consequence, rested on precisely the same grounds as religion. Your
notion of causation 'in the modern sense' is merely an admission that
the Humian point of view has prevailed, and that the term 'modern
science' has, as a result, become an oxymoron."

There was, of course, no sticky label attached to the above, saying:

"Note that the idea of causation described in this paragraph differs
markedly from the classical concept described elsewhere in this post."

And, I would add, there was also no sticky label attached to the
definition quoted earlier, which you also snipped out, saying:

"Note that this is a description of the classical concept of causality,
and that it involves presumed necessary connections across the
time-sequence of events."

I can't put sticky labels on an electronic transmission, Tom. We could,
I suppose, exchange paper messages via regular mail. That would allow me
to attach sticky labels at various points and lead you by the hand like
a child, but, frankly, I don't have time for that. If, therefore, you
want to discuss this subject, then please stop snipping out virtually
everything I say, and start inserting your comments into my text after
the sentences you are responding to.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> > ***{There is nothing "naive" about the idea that no thing may come into
> > existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of
> > continuity),
>
> That is known as conservation of energy and momentum, not "causality". This
> is indeed not naive. But if you confuse this with "causality" the discussion
> becomes hopeless....

***{I didn't say it was "causality," I actually inserted a parenthetical
comment describing it as "the principle of continuity." In effect, there
was a sticky label present, and you simply ignored it. Here is the
entire sentence, most of which you snipped out:

"There is nothing 'naive' about the idea that no thing may come into
existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of
continuity), and that, as a consequence, all forces are exerted by
entities in collision, and that, as a further consequence, everything
which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction of a specific
set of entities, and that the interaction in question constitutes the
cause of the effect."

Here is the sticky label you apparently needed to comprehend the above:

"Note that the latter portion of the above sentence, starting after the
second comma from the end, is a description of the classical concept of
causality."

As for whether the discussion "becomes hopeless...," the answer would
appear to be that it was hopeless from the outset, since an exchange of
messages in which one party snips out and essentially ignores everything
the other person says can hardly be described as a "discussion."

--Mitchell Jones}***

>
> Tom Roberts

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: eric gisse on 27 Jun 2010 20:04
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------

Notice how everything gets snipped when you can't respond to what is said
but don't want to stop talking.

>
> Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking and assessing degrees
> of indoctrination, perhaps you would like to comment on the following
> scientific arguments.

Lest we forget, the original claim was that you think you know more about
physics than I do. I then promptly pointed out that you have no formal
training in the subject, which is manifestly true given your dodging every
time I point that fact out.

Riddle me this, Robert. You claimed you studied at the University of
Washington. Let's find out.

On what floor is the physics library?
When you get out of the elevator on that floor, which direction is the front
desk?

>
> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].

The curiosity of why you call it G' when physicists call it G aside, this is
rather obvious to anyone who has done even a cursory literature search. The
smallest measured scale for G is in the ~cm range.

>
>
> (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
> that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
> everywhere else in the Universe.

I find this claim rather odd. Why is it you feel physicists would be 100%
certain about something that has not been measured?

>
>
> (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure
> untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude.

Thus once again I find myself pointing out your unfamiliarity with modern
science.

>
>
> (4) Are there alternatives to (2)? Yes! And at least one very natural
> and promising new paradigm. It is called Discrete Scale Relativity
> and you can explore this completely different understanding of nature
> at
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

What exactly is your affiliation with Amherst?

> The main idea is that gravitational
> coupling
> is not absolute, but has a discrete self-similar scaling.

Even though G has been measured to be constant and the same value across
every currently accessible length scale...

>
>
> (5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to make the time
> spent studying it worthwhile?

A very good question, given that the author knows no mathematics past what
is taught in high school.

>
>
> (a) Explains the meaning of Planck's constant.
> (b) Explains the meaning of the fine structure constant.
> (c) Retrodicts the correct radius for the hydrogen atom.

Retrodictions are curve fitting to known answers. Unimpressive.

Let's see it predict the spectra of the Hydrogen atom.

> (d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius.

Given there's no observational relevance to 'gravitational Bohr radius', I
wonder how you know it is correct.

> (e) Correct radius of the proton.

Ah, and is the 'correct' radius actually observed to be what you claim it to
be?

> (f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution of GR+EM.

GR does not describe quantum objects, Robert. Perhaps you should actually
study GR instead of saying silly things.

> (g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis.

Now predict the force felt by two parallel conducting plates.

> (h) Range of galactic radii.
> (i) Correct galactic spin periods.

Whatever the hell that means...

> (j) Correct binding energy for H atom.

Since you think you have the 'correct' binding energy for a Hydrogen atom,
you should be able to derive the emission spectra of Hydrogen.

> (k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent and sensible.
> (l) A reasonable quantum gravity theory

Let's see your prediction for Mercury's perihelion precession.

> (m) The key to reconciling GR and QM.
>
>
> Yours in science,
> RLO
> http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

Science is the making of testable predictions instead of curve fitting to
what is known. Are you going to make testable predictions, or are you going
to fart and make more excuses?
From: eric gisse on 27 Jun 2010 20:06
Tom Roberts wrote:

> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
>> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
>
> Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms
> and anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this,
> but it has not been approved, and most likely will not be.

I presume because it was felt that the proposal was non-viable...?

[...]
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: Inertia still lying for Einstein
Next: Doctrine of need