Arrow of Time II
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Inertia still lying for Einstein
Next: Doctrine of need
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Jun 2010 22:22 On Jun 27, 8:04 pm, eric Woofster <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Notice how everything gets snipped...? > ----------------------------------- YES! I have noticed the same thing! Your smarmy accusations and shabby inuendoes seem to vanish and my serious questions remain to be answered. Perhaps some "spooky action-at-a-distance"? The answers to most of your questions about Discrete Scale Relativity are answered at my website. If I don't know any physics, then how could I get a paper published in The Astrophysical Journal? Have YOU ever tried that? Hah! You could also get my transcripts from UW via the Freedom of Information Act if you are sufficiently monomaniac. OH MY GOODNESS! My part of the post did not disappear! I conclude that nature abhors a vacuum, and cannot distinguish your thoughts from vacuous nothingness. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking > > and assessing degrees of indoctrination, perhaps > > you would like to comment on the following > > scientific arguments. > > > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling > > factor G' has never been measured within an > > Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle]. > > > (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. > > > (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! > > Assumption (2) is pure untested speculation, > > and indicates an unscientific atitude. > > > (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. > > > The main idea is that gravitational coupling > > is not absolute, but has a discrete self-similar scaling. > > (5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to > > make the time spent studying it worthwhile? > > > (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. > > (d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius. > > (e) Correct radius of the proton. > > (f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution > > of GR+EM. > > (g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis. > > (h) Range of galactic radii. > > (i) Correct galactic spin periods. > > (j) Correct binding energy for H atom. > > (k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent > > and sensible. > > (l) A reasonable quantum gravity theory > > (m) The key to reconciling GR and QM. > > > > Yours in science, > > RLO > > http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Jun 2010 00:27 Androcles wrote: > 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. As usual, that's just plain wrong. Every bit of it. You really are a pathetic worm. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Jun 2010 00:46 waldofj wrote: > 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" I agree that this is a very important experiment. The program advisory committee at Fermilab agrees, with the caveat that the measurement must be sufficiently sensitive (nobody expects anti-hydrogen to fall up, at most a few parts in 10^8 difference from hydrogen is expected; some models have limits much smaller than that). Our proposal was close to meeting their desired sensitivity. But the Fermilab current plan is to turn off the antiproton source before we could perform this experiment, and that scheduling issue is a major reason it was not approved. At least one experiment to measure the gravitational fall of both hydrogen and anti-hydrogen has been approved at CERN, and will probably happen in a few years or so. Ironically, it is technically MUCH more difficult to do this with hydrogen than with anti-hydrogen, because detecting hydrogen atoms with kinetic energies in the milli-eV range is a challenge (they must be that slow for gravity to have an appreciable effect). Fortunately, hydrogen is quite plentiful, so they plan to ignore >99.99% of it and just measure excited atoms as they de-excite inside the gravitational interferometer. The challenge with anti-hydrogen is trapping enough anti-protons to make it; detecting them is easy as they annihilate whenever they hit anything. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Jun 2010 00:51 eric gisse wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> 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...? The primary issue was scheduling -- they plan to turn off the antiproton source before we could perform the experiment. Another was cost, as the alternative funding we expected for an antiproton decelerator fell through (also because of the plan to turn off the antiproton source). Tom Roberts
From: waldofj on 28 Jun 2010 04:33
On Jun 28, 12:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > waldofj wrote: > > 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" > > I agree that this is a very important experiment. The program advisory committee > at Fermilab agrees, with the caveat that the measurement must be sufficiently > sensitive (nobody expects anti-hydrogen to fall up, I'm inclined to agree with that but I would still like confirmation ;-) here is an interesting article I found on anti-matter http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.html I like the quote from Wheeler: "There is only one electron in the universe!" > at most a few parts in 10^8 > difference from hydrogen is expected; some models have limits much smaller than > that). Our proposal was close to meeting their desired sensitivity. But the > Fermilab current plan is to turn off the antiproton source before we could > perform this experiment, and that scheduling issue is a major reason it was not > approved. > > At least one experiment to measure the gravitational fall of both hydrogen and > anti-hydrogen has been approved at CERN, and will probably happen in a few years > or so. Hope so! > Ironically, it is technically MUCH more difficult to do this with hydrogen than > with anti-hydrogen, because detecting hydrogen atoms with kinetic energies in > the milli-eV range is a challenge (they must be that slow for gravity to have an > appreciable effect). Fortunately, hydrogen is quite plentiful, so they plan to > ignore >99.99% of it and just measure excited atoms as they de-excite inside the > gravitational interferometer. The challenge with anti-hydrogen is trapping > enough anti-protons to make it; detecting them is easy as they annihilate > whenever they hit anything. > > Tom Roberts |