Arrow of Time II
in [Physics]
|
Prev: folks really believe that oilcos hate cap&trade on fossilized fuels TM?
Next: BP's the Man in Moon, Gulf, Alaska, ARCO etc. -- go with their cap&trade, or nationalize?
From: eric gisse on 26 Jun 2010 23:34 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...] >> >> Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much >> doubt that. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > But you are more than a little uncertain about that, aren't you > Woofster? Sorry to convey uncertainty where there is none, Robert. I am absolutely certain you have no formal training in the subject given your inability to discuss mathematics beyond a high school level, and complete unfamiliarity with the scientific method. > > RLO > http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jun 2010 23:45 On 6/25/10 10:36 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Well, even though I probably know more physics than you, my knowledge > of postmodern pseudophysics may be a bit limited. That's pretty obvious from your postings. You refrain from saying much of anything about physics. Perhaps a more fruitful approach is to dissect some of your "publications" here on USENET.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Jun 2010 11:31 On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------- 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://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Jun 2010 11:42 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. > The importance of the law of causality WHAT "law of causality" ???? >> 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. > ***{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.... Tom Roberts
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 11:55
On 6/27/10 10:31 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]. Physics in free fall Dropping supercold atoms may prove useful for understanding general relativity http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60357/title/Physics_in_free_fall Condensate created in freefall http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42949 > > > (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. Gravitational constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#The_GM_product "The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10−67 newtons, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is approximately 10−28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity — roughly the same ratio as the mass of the Sun compared to a microgram mass". > > > (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure > untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude. Actually G appears to be a "universal constant" of nature and therefor is applicable at all scales and ranges. There is NO observational evidence that it is not valid at the atomic scale where it is overwhelmed by the strength of the electromagnetic force by 37-38 orders of magnitude. |