Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Dono on 8 Dec 2008 17:46
On Dec 8, 12:19 pm, "Ken Sucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> Ken Sucker


:-)

From: mluttgens on 8 Dec 2008 19:09
On 6 déc, 22:04, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has
> turned his attention to other pointless pursuits.
> NoEinstein has petered off to a few random posts on the weekend, no
> longer able to muster the lung power to puff himself up anymore.
> Strich9 and his several aliases seemed to have finally stopped
> chattering.
> Brian Jones gave a brief gasp and announced he was quitting.
> ahahahanson is tired of hyenish cackling.
> Louis Savain no longer has the strength to tell people to pack it for
> months.
> Gerald O'Barr has finally shut up.
> Lester Zick has decided not to dress up anymore.
> Andre Michaud is sniffing less and less, and can still be heard over
> Marcel Luttgens.
> And there are a few others that seem to have faded away.
>
> "Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering
> ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental
> health has deteriorated.
>
> Time to till the field and see what weeds pop up in the spring!
>
> PD

Enjoy http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-206197.html

Marcel Luttgensagstie

From: mluttgens on 8 Dec 2008 19:19
On 7 déc, 15:42, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2:04 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has
> > turned his attention to other pointless pursuits.
> > NoEinstein has petered off to a few random posts on the weekend, no
> > longer able to muster the lung power to puff himself up anymore.
> > Strich9 and his several aliases seemed to have finally stopped
> > chattering.
> > Brian Jones gave a brief gasp and announced he was quitting.
> > ahahahanson is tired of hyenish cackling.
> > Louis Savain no longer has the strength to tell people to pack it for
> > months.
> > Gerald O'Barr has finally shut up.
> > Lester Zick has decided not to dress up anymore.
> > Andre Michaud is sniffing less and less, and can still be heard over
> > Marcel Luttgens.
> > And there are a few others that seem to have faded away.
>
> > "Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering
> > ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental
> > health has deteriorated.
>
> An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. However,
> demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines
> will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that
> discipline. This is the main distinguishing feature of all sciences
> where the ethos of questioning the blind faith, questioning the
> postulates, axioms and dogmas is recognized as a healthy sign and is
> encouraged.
>
> The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks', are extremely important
> members of the scientific community, who are nurturing the important
> discipline of Physics and preventing its degeneration into a religious
> faith. Exploration of all possible alternatives,  hypothesis and
> viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of
> any scientific discipline. All attempts to gag or suppress any dissent
> on the current paradigm of Physics, will amount to a crime against
> humanity.
>
> It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be
> workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. Dissenting
> opinion must be treated as an essential part of the exploration
> process, to explore various inadequacies and shortcomings in the
> current paradigm and to explore various alternatives. The mainstream
> need not accept all dissenting opinion straight away; in fact they
> should not. But the mainstream must pay heed to the dissenting
> opinion, must consider it patiently and if possible discuss it openly.
> Slowly and steadily all valid points from the bulk of dissenting
> viewpoints, will get assimilated in to the mainstream and constitute a
> progress in the concerned scientific discipline.
>
> The current global financial crisis had started brewing many years
> ago. The excessive use of credit system, inadequate control and
> regulatory mechanism, high leverages, greed driven derivatives and
> hedge funds, were all pointing towards an eventual collapse of the
> financial system. I understand that many intellectuals and experts in
> the field, who dared to point out the above lacunae in the financial
> system, were dubbed as 'crackpots' and 'cranks'. In retrospect, after
> the current collapse of the global financial system, those 'crackpots'
> and 'cranks' will now appear to be the ‘sages’ of the system.
>
> Similar grave situation is now brewing in the field of fundamental
> Physics. The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks' of Physics are trying
> their level best to highlight the inadequacies, flaws and lacunae in
> the prevailing paradigm but they are persistently being snubbed and
> gagged by the mainstream. Like the global financial system, it should
> not become too late to start paying heed to the dissenting viewpoint
> in fundamental Physics.
>
> GSS

Einstein's theory is perfect, even if it based on the assumption that
that light velocity is independent from the observer's velocity.

Marcel Luttgens

Marcel
From: mluttgens on 8 Dec 2008 19:28
On 8 déc, 06:09, bill <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> “The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses
> were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that
> some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress
> Velikovsky’s work. Science is generated by and devoted to free
> inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves
> to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas
> may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to
> knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know
> in advance who will discover fundamental new insights.” (Carl Sagan,
> 91, Cosmos, Random House 1980.)

Einsteins's SRT and GRT are perfect, even if they are based on very
primitive premises, like train moving on parallel tracks (which one is
moving?) or elevators (are they in free fall or at rest?).

Marcel Luttgens
From: mluttgens on 8 Dec 2008 19:41
On 8 déc, 22:58, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> GSS wrote:
> > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions.
>
> I assume you meant "religions". Yes.
>
> The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with
> modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning
> faith".
>
> "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
>         -- Arthur C, Clarke
>
> "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith."
>         -- Tom Roberts
>
> The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish
> them.
>
> > However,
> > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines
> > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that
> > discipline.
>
> No scientific discipline "demands" that. What they require is
> UNDERSTANDING, not faith. But to you, and to all too many people around
> here, the two are indistinguishable.
>
> > The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks', are extremely important
> > members of the scientific community, who are nurturing the important
> > discipline of Physics and preventing its degeneration into a religious
> > faith.
>
> Not true. There is no instance in the history of physics of someone
> making a contribution to the field without understanding the
> then-current theories and experiments. Contrary to your claim, crackpots
> and cranks who do not understand the now-current theories and
> experiments are not any part of the scientific community. People who
> present dissenting opinions with full knowledge of current theories and
> experiments are neither crackpots nor cranks -- one obvious difference
> is these latter can get published in the mainstream literature. Cranks
> and crackpots generally cannot get published in the mainstream
> literature, because a major purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting
> readers' time with "impossible" nonsense (see my next paragraph for the
> meaning of "impossible" here).
>
> > Exploration of all possible alternatives,  hypothesis and
> > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of
> > any scientific discipline.
>
> Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with
> all known experiments". Without knowing the current experimental record,
> a crackpot or crank simply does not understand what is and is not POSSIBLE.
>
>         One must generally understand the then-current theories
>         used when the experiment was published, in order to be
>         able to read their paper(s) intelligently. The MMX is an
>         excellent example of this, as are Miller's measurements.
>         Such papers are inherently embedded in the context and
>         milieu of physics when they were written.
>
> > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be
> > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream.
>
> No. But it _IS_ necessary that USEFUL "dissenting opinion" be POSSIBLE
> (in the above sense). Impossible "dissenting opinion" is useless and can
> be safely ignored. That's why so few real scientists pay attention to
> this newsgroup -- >90% of the posts are nonsense (or worse), and >99% of
> the "dissenting opinions" are IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense).
>
> > Dissenting
> > opinion must be treated as an essential part of the exploration
> > process, to explore various inadequacies and shortcomings in the
> > current paradigm and to explore various alternatives.
>
> Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense).
>
> The scientific literature is full of "dissenting opinion". Practically
> all of modern physics was once "dissenting opinion". And there are
> several current schools of thought about extending relativity ("doubly
> special relativity", "loop quantum gravity", "string theory", ...). But
> you won't hear about them around here, because they are all advanced
> topics far beyond the capabilities of just about everybody who
> contributes to this newsgroup; there are MUCH better forums in which to
> discuss them (primarily the literature, not the internet). The cranks
> and crackpots around here are in a completely different world, which is
> unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists).
>
> Tom Roberts

What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity
of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift?

Marcel Luttgens
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft