NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
in [Physics]
|
From: Dono. on 13 Jul 2010 14:01 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.
From: Surfer on 13 Jul 2010 14:26 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(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 Petry http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5150 Test for consistence of a flyby anomaly simulation with the observed Doppler residuals for the Messenger flybys of Mercury Hans-Juergen Busack http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3555 "..In 2007, the observed Earth flyby anomalies have been successfully simulated using an empirical formula (H. J. Busack, 2007). .....the predictions of the formula for the last two Earth flybys of Rosetta are fully confirmed now. This is remarkable, since an alternatively proposed formula (Anderson et al., 2007) failed to predict the correct values for the recent flybys...."
From: Dono. on 13 Jul 2010 14:30 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.
From: erschroedinger on 13 Jul 2010 16:21 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.
From: spudnik on 13 Jul 2010 18:05
didn't Dirac manage? > GR is a classical theory; none of those are as good as QM. thus&so: this has already been done with quaternions; see _Variational Mechanics_ by Lanczos. I mean, that's what vectors & scalars be, by definition; so, you could legitimately call it "space plus time," and there is nothing weird about it, at all ... well, til Klein went and stringified Kaluza's 4+1 thing, which I doubt can be done with ordinary quaternions, -- because they're not isotropic/homogenous -- like special rel. can. Minkowski's sloganeering about spacetime, a mere phasespace, like Hamiltonians or Lagrangians, was just sophistry. and, he was a good God-am geometer! > If Process Physics ultimately makes better predictions than GR, then > the evidence would be in favor of space + time. --BP's bailout of Wall St. et les ducs d'oil, Waxman's *new* cap&trade (circa '91). http://tarpley.net |