NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudosciencerules
Next: The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity
From: Surfer on 13 Jul 2010 23:49 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:30:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jul 13, 11:26�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 13, 10:55�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> >> >> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with >> >> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flowhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5404 >> >> >You always try to sneak in a crackpot paper by the Cahill crank >> >together with legitimate papers. This is a new tactic, Peter. >> >> Dono, two other authors have also found preferred frame explanations >> for the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies: >> >> Non-Prefered Reference Frames and Anomalous Earth Flybys >> Walter Petryhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5150 >> >> > >The guy can't even write English. He cites marinov , cahill, slava >turyshev, all of the crackpots.Not worth reading his tripe. Try again, >peter. Not a problem. The fact that you wish to wear blinkers doesn't force everyone else to do so.
From: Dono. on 13 Jul 2010 23:58 On Jul 13, 8:49 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:30:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Jul 13, 10:55 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >> >> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > >> >> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flowhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5404 > > >> >You always try to sneak in a crackpot paper by the Cahill crank > >> >together with legitimate papers. This is a new tactic, Peter. > > >> Dono, two other authors have also found preferred frame explanations > >> for the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies: > > >> Non-Prefered Reference Frames and Anomalous Earth Flybys > >> Walter Petryhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5150 > > >The guy can't even write English. He cites marinov , cahill, slava > >turyshev, all of the crackpots.Not worth reading his tripe. Try again, > >peter. > > Not a problem. The fact that you wish to wear blinkers doesn't force > everyone else to do so. I'll let you eat the droppings of crackpots, you have done it so well for so long.....
From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 01:04 On Jul 13, 4:21 pm, "erschroedin...(a)gmail.com" <erschroedin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 12:43 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: > > > > > Sigh, > > > If you wanted proof that theoretical physics has left the world of > > reason and wandered into the swamp of untestable postmodern > > pseudoscience, braying like a crude drunk, just read Dennis Overbye's > > piece in the Science Times section of today's NYT [7/13/10]. > > > General Relativity has been considered one of mankind's finest > > achievements. But our heroic string theorists, unrestrained by the > > principles of science, would blithely throw it out the window into the > > trashbin. > > > In place of GR, the much-deluded Verlinde offers hand-waving about > > poorly defined and unmeasurable abstractions: information, entropy and > > holographic screens. His speculations cannot make a single definitive > > prediction [and the same has been true for string theory in general > > over the last 30 years] whereby the speculations could be considered > > scientific. > > > Does the community of theoretical physicists protest? Not much. > > Perhaps the majority see a long-term feeding trough in this untestable > > pseudoscience stuff? > > > What has happened to science? Has it run its course? Are we to go > > back to Ptolemaic thinking, wherein the critical Definitive > > Predictions/Empirical Testing of science is jettisoned in favor of > > revealed [by the theoretical physicists themselves, of course] > > "religion"? > > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > The problem is, GR is incompatible with QM, and QM is the best > description of the real world. GR is a classical theory, and none of > these are as good as QM. QM is statistical in nature and has nothing to do with the physics of nature. Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment? Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave.
From: Surfer on 14 Jul 2010 01:07 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:21:44 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedinger(a)gmail.com" <erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >The problem is, GR is incompatible with QM, and QM is the best >description of the real world. GR is a classical theory, and none of >these are as good as QM. > That would seem less of a problem if people were willing to replace GR with something more compatible with QM. But I currently only know of two such approaches. One is Nottale's theory of Scale Relativity which has led to, for example: Derivation of the postulates of quantum mechanics from the first principles of scale relativity http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2418 And the other is Cahill's theory of Process Physics which has led to, for example: A Quantum Cosmology: No Dark Matter, Dark Energy nor Accelerating Universe http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2909 Nottale's theory involves a notion of fractal space-time, the fractality of which induces quantum behavior. Cahill's theory involves a notion of dynamical three space, the flow equations of which have wave solutions with a fractal structure. Although they are different theories I am tempted by the idea that the fractal space time of the former (which is assumed) might be equivalent in some way to the fractal structure of the wave solutions of the latter (which are derived). Both theories have produced new predictions which have been confirmed. Both are easier to comprehend than Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory.
From: Surfer on 14 Jul 2010 01:50
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:04:55 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Why is the particle always detected exiting a single slit in a double >slit experiment? > >Because it always enters and exits a single slit, duh! > Or perhaps detection involves a process of localization. Then if you give a wave packet an opportunity to localize at a slit then that is where it will be able to happen. But if you don't provide such an opportunity, the spread out packet can pass through both slits and localize somewhere else. > >A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. > That is a similar idea to this theory. Which to believe is a matter of preference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation ".....The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the wavefunction...." |