Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 25 Sep 2009 09:16 On Sep 25, 12:50 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 25, 12:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:52 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of > > > > > mass+energy and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found > > > > > an example where these were not conserved, they invented an > > > > > undetectable particle, the neutrino, that was carrying away the > > > > > stuff that was missing, or occasionally bringing in extra when there > > > > > was a lack. > > > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did > > > > > happen. This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos".. > > > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff > > > > > even when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't > > > > > find it, or extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, > > > > > they're doing what you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody > > > > > thinks they're wrong to do so. When experiments give results that > > > > > disagree with their theories they usually decide that something else > > > > > is going on that masks the truth. > > > > > Not quite, but I see where you're going. > > > > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and > > > > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was > > > > proposed. > > > > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to > > > > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward: > > > > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all. > > > > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle > > > > that is carrying away some of the momentum. > > > > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You > > > > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle > > > > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were > > > > e that we do > > > not understand yet. We really should not ignore that possibility. It > > > could easily be that GR is right within broad limits but in our attempts > > > to interpret the actions of distant galaxies from their EM radiation > > > alone we have made some mistakes. > > > > And it could easily be that GR is wrong and also there is matter that is > > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold.. > > > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > > I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos. > > > The ones that detected neutrinos have done very well. > > > > > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was > > > > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that > > > > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that > > > > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll > > > > learn what was involved. > > > > As I understand it, the original problem was that neutrons spontaneously > > > change into protons plus electrons with a variable amount of measurable > > > energy. So it was assumed there was an undetectable particle that > > > carried off the extra energy etc. > > > Not just energy, but momentum and angular momentum as well. > > > > The assumption was that there would be a whole lot of these particles > > > coming out of a nuclear reactor, so they looked for protons turning into > > > neutrons plus positrons near the reactor. And they found a few protons > > > turning into neutrons plus positrons there. Since protons are completely > > > stable and never turn into anything else normally, they assumed what was > > > making it happen was the undetectable particles. > > > > Why did they assume it was particles and not some sort of undetectable > > > radiation? > > > Well, it had the signature of a particle, since there was a clear > > connection between the momentum missing and the kinetic energy of the > > observed products. And radiation carries integer spin, while this one > > apparently carried half-integer spin. Radiation was considered, but a > > radiation model gets things wrong. > > > > Why was it particles and not changes in the probability field > > > that allows unlikely things to happen much more often? Because they were > > > predisposed to particles. > > > There isn't a good model for a change in a probability field that > > would reproduce the results. It's easy to handwave that it's something > > "else", but unless a predictive model comes from that "else", it's not > > worth much. > > > > For the same reason that they preferred to > > > think it was undetectable particles instead of undetectable elves. It > > > fit their prejudices. > > > > But that isn't exactly a bad thing. They're physicists and they ought to > > > be prejudiced in favor of undetectable particles over undetectable > > > elves. There's nothing really wrong here. It's proper that when they > > > find an experiment that contradicts a rule they believe is never > > > contradicted, they should decide there's an undetectable fudge factor > > > that secretly restores the rule. > > > Not a fudge factor. A guess as to what's going on, which if it's > > correct, would leave other footprints. It's like if you think it's > > elves, then you should also see elf footprints or little green hats. > > > > That's how physics is done, and other > > > sciences too. And they might as well think it's particles instead of, > > > say, waves, because if it's a particle then each individual particle > > > that gets created can get destroyed in a single interaction. Waves would > > > leave little bits of wave slopping around, radiating off to the farthest > > > star or beyond. Particles tie up the loose ends neater. Tidy. And with > > > no evidence whatsoever to tell them what the undetectable entity is > > > like, they might as well assume it's the sort of thing they've been > > > looking for. In those days a lot of physicists were looking for new > > > particles, so it only makes sense to call the undetectable entity one.. > > > > > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two > > > > proposals on the table: > > > > 1. General relativity is wrong. > > > > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is > > > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > > Or: > > > > 3. There are other things going on out in distant space that we do > > > not understand yet. We really should not ignore that possibility. > > > But "other things we don't understand yet" doesn't really provide > > anything to test to see if it's right, does it? Scientifically > > useless. > > > > It > > > could easily be that GR is right within broad limits but in our attempts > > > to interpret the actions of distant galaxies from their EM radiation > > > alone we have made some mistakes. > > > > And it could easily be that GR is wrong and also there is matter that is > > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold.. > > > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > > I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos. But > > > I think they're right to look. > > > > "There is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. .... You > > > certainly usually find something if you look, but it is not always quite > > > the something you were after. --J.R.R. Tolkien- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > ----------------- > wrong !! > a theory must be 'closed'' hermetically ' > especially if awarded by a Nobel prize -- I disagree. Every theory -- every one -- has open questions and untested predictions. There is not a single theory ever made that has had all of its predictions tested. > one hole in the bucket will on the long run > leave the bucket with no water !!! > > it puts a big question mark about how Nobel prizes are too > quickly awarded > > Y.P > --------------------
From: PD on 25 Sep 2009 09:18 On Sep 25, 12:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 11:52 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of > > > > mass+energy and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found > > > > an example where these were not conserved, they invented an > > > > undetectable particle, the neutrino, that was carrying away the > > > > stuff that was missing, or occasionally bringing in extra when there > > > > was a lack. > > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did > > > > happen. This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff > > > > even when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't > > > > find it, or extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, > > > > they're doing what you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody > > > > thinks they're wrong to do so. When experiments give results that > > > > disagree with their theories they usually decide that something else > > > > is going on that masks the truth. > > > > Not quite, but I see where you're going. > > > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and > > > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was > > > proposed. > > > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to > > > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward: > > > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all. > > > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle > > > that is carrying away some of the momentum. > > > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You > > > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle > > > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were > > > e that we do > > not understand yet. We really should not ignore that possibility. It > > could easily be that GR is right within broad limits but in our attempts > > to interpret the actions of distant galaxies from their EM radiation > > alone we have made some mistakes. > > > And it could easily be that GR is wrong and also there is matter that is > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold. > > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos. > > > > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was > > > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that > > > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that > > > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll > > > learn what was involved. > > > As I understand it, the original problem was that neutrons spontaneously > > change into protons plus electrons with a variable amount of measurable > > energy. So it was assumed there was an undetectable particle that > > carried off the extra energy etc. > > > The assumption was that there would be a whole lot of these particles > > coming out of a nuclear reactor, so they looked for protons turning into > > neutrons plus positrons near the reactor. And they found a few protons > > turning into neutrons plus positrons there. Since protons are completely > > stable and never turn into anything else normally, they assumed what was > > making it happen was the undetectable particles. > > > Why did they assume it was particles and not some sort of undetectable > > radiation? Why was it particles and not changes in the probability field > > that allows unlikely things to happen much more often? Because they were > > predisposed to particles. For the same reason that they preferred to > > think it was undetectable particles instead of undetectable elves. It > > fit their prejudices. > > > But that isn't exactly a bad thing. They're physicists and they ought to > > be prejudiced in favor of undetectable particles over undetectable > > elves. There's nothing really wrong here. It's proper that when they > > find an experiment that contradicts a rule they believe is never > > contradicted, they should decide there's an undetectable fudge factor > > that secretly restores the rule. That's how physics is done, and other > > sciences too. And they might as well think it's particles instead of, > > say, waves, because if it's a particle then each individual particle > > that gets created can get destroyed in a single interaction. Waves would > > leave little bits of wave slopping around, radiating off to the farthest > > star or beyond. Particles tie up the loose ends neater. Tidy. And with > > no evidence whatsoever to tell them what the undetectable entity is > > like, they might as well assume it's the sort of thing they've been > > looking for. In those days a lot of physicists were looking for new > > particles, so it only makes sense to call the undetectable entity one. > > > > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two > > > proposals on the table: > > > 1. General relativity is wrong. > > > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is > > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > Or: > > > 3. There are other things going on out in distant space that we do > > not understand yet. We really should not ignore that possibility. It > > could easily be that GR is right within broad limits but in our attempts > > to interpret the actions of distant galaxies from their EM radiation > > alone we have made some mistakes. > > > And it could easily be that GR is wrong and also there is matter that is > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold. > > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos. But > > I think they're right to look. > > > "There is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. .... You > > certainly usually find something if you look, but it is not always quite > > the something you were after. --J.R.R. Tolkien > > ---------------- > to explain some unexplained part > by relating it to some suggeted particle > that i s not really found is > cheating !! But it IS found. We've measured its mass to one part in a million. > and certainly does not worth and djsutify > that hurry to reward them by the Nobel ! > and certianly does not justify all those parrot crooks to blow their > chests with > an idiotic theory in which > there are force messengers that are > hundreds of times bigger than their mother !!! There's nothing idiotic about such theories. Daughters being heavier than their mothers happens all the time. I've already explained that to you. You want to hang on to the notion that this is impossible and you refuse to believe otherwise, to the point where you will insist that experimental evidence to the contrary must be mistaken. That's not scientific, Porat. > > Y.P > ------------------------
From: PD on 25 Sep 2009 09:20 On Sep 25, 12:25 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 9:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat. > > > > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your > > > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify > > > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check > > > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true. > > > > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger > > > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would > > > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that > > > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test. > > > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things) > > > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that > > > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to > > > > rule out background events. > > > > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come > > > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing > > > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be > > > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick > > > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be > > > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on > > > > that masked the truth. > > > > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the > > > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it? > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy > > > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where > > > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the > > > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or > > > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack. > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen. > > > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even > > > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or > > > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what > > > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do > > > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they > > > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth. > > > Not quite, but I see where you're going. > > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and > > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was > > proposed. > > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to > > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward: > > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all. > > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle > > that is carrying away some of the momentum. > > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You > > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle > > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were > > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was > > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that > > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that > > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll > > learn what was involved. > > > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two > > proposals on the table: > > 1. General relativity is wrong. > > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold. > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > PD > > -------------- > how can one get the Nobel on a theorty > while as yous say > there are still two missing particles to complete > the story The W and Z are not missing. They've been observed! And their properties measured to very high precision. > and still A HIGGS BOSON !! missing > to complete the story ??!!! Yes, there's an open question to the theory. No theory ever has all of its open questions answered. Ever. If you waited for all the open questions in a theory to be answered, then no Nobels would EVER be awarded. You don't know how science works, I guess. > and while at the end of the day > it is one bigg bul!!.... ??? > that olly the croocky 'Dugi ' and alike are supporting ???!!! > > Y.P > -------------------------
From: Jonah Thomas on 25 Sep 2009 10:10 PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > > > I hope they do better than the experiments that detected > > > > neutrinos. > > > > > You really should read some actual science some time. The > > > experiments that detect neutrinos were well done. You seem to be > > > totally ignorant of them. > > > > They detected positrons and neutrons at about the same time, > > indicating that what they found was protons converting to neutrons > > and positrons. This happened far more often near the nuclear reactor > > than it usually would, indicating that something about the reactor > > was probably causing it. They assumed that it was the many incidents > > in the reactor where beta particles were produced that caused it. In > > those reactions there was something missing, in the neutron+positron > > reacton something extra was needed. > > > > This did not actually detect the undetectable particle. It detected > > the reaction that visibly violated conservation of energy and > > momentum. The undetectable particle is still undetectable, but you > > can detect its traces -- incidents where stuff disappears or appears > > out of nowhere, that imply that the undetectable particle has been > > there. > > This last paragraph is wrong. The neutrinos were initiators of a > reaction (inverse beta decay) that would not happen otherwise at those > rates. The fact that there was something initiating those reactions > that only the thing called a neutrino would do, was the indicator. There is something to what you say. The particle itself is still undetectable, but since we know that there is no possible way to get that result than with an unobservable particle, we can for all intents and purposes say that we have observed the undetectable particle. Only a pedant would say otherwise. As I was saying, when the experiment gives results that differ from long-accepted theory, the natural response is to decide that there is something wrong with the experiment or decide that something else is going on that masks the truth. And there is nothing wrong with this.
From: Y.Porat on 25 Sep 2009 11:57
On Sep 25, 3:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 25, 12:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 25, 4:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 24, 10:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 11:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 5:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 9:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ere found > > > > it i s one to a few billions !!! > > > 2 > > > it was found not by say bombarding Atoms > > > th e palce those super aprticles; are alleged tobe found > > > but in a huge accelerator using eelctron positron collission > > > in the nuc > > > trhere ar e not all those huge accelerations as in that > > > artificially made accelerator > > > > NORE THOSE HUGE ENERGIES (in the atom )THAT ARE IN THAT ACCELERATOR > > > you dont find any traces in normal obseravtions of Atom and nuc about > > > suchenormous energies involved !! > > > so > > > no connection between those fantastic experiments and **reality * > > > an unbelievable stupidity !! > > > 3 > > > as i understand > > > the Higgs bosons were nevr found !! > > > and it is part and parcel of that theory !! > > > > so as long as they are not found > > > it is a big bleeding hole in all that theory !! > > > that shoud or well might kill it !!if not found > > > and all the chances (untill now )show it will never be found > > > 4 > > > i said the mass of the electron is 0.00045 mev/c^2 > > > you are right it is a little difference it is Meves > > > (with capital M) > > > (you enjoy to catch me by obvious Typo mistakes ...) > > > but still doea not make a differnce to our dispute > > > 5 > > > i > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > --------------------------------- > > and another question: > > what has > > Anti proton and Anti neutrons > > got to do in our regular Atom ???!!!! > > What does measuring the fracture stress of concrete in an artificial > test rig have to do with the fracture stress of concrete in a real > bridge pylon? (Everything! That's why they do it in a test rig!) > > ---------------- very nice that yiou know soemthibg about structrel engineering but your methaphore i snot exactly as our cureent dsicussion even modeling a struture of a abilding i snot as simple as one whould think it is ascience of itself and mind you in many cases it is not acurate enough because a model will never be as the orriginal itslef by one to one 2 here i had a principal question: 9i confess i ddint study it properly but ddi i undestood coreectly that the huge accelarator is creating **anti particles ??!!!! and you what to model it with reality ?? is there a room in real every day matter for anti particles ???!!! as far as i rememvebr antiparticles will destroy our matter?? am i wrong about it? ------------- 2 you didint tell us that in that accelerator while looking fo rthe W or Z and inorder "to close the picture ft the theory "--- there are some missing links ?? if so can that be a complete theory to be sure and so chest drumming about it?? if we go backto your building model methaphore it is enough that just one building element willbe missing *and the wole structure is collapsing* if you want a more striking example in building a space craft it is enough that jsut one miserable covering ceramic brick will be missing and we get the famous catastrophy!!! do you see the diffrence between engineering and table theory responsibility (:-) if there is a mistake in you theory no one stil died from that in sapce engineering ... you saw the results !! btw you see that not **all** my questions are as if i know a better answer sometime i ask because i dont know but i have a hunch that there is soemthing wrong or jsut waht to learn better by the media of the net is it a crime inmany other cases wile i thing i have some better answer than others i contribute it it should be a sytem of 'give and take as for your best ability so now back to my above question question about the antiparticles in our real common matter (excuse me my ignoranc about it may be laziness but at my age some laziness is legitimate (:-) what is your explanations ?? btw i never saw you asking any questions just for he sake of learning something you always pose as if you know everything ..... (my father used to say anyone who is ashamed --- will not have children !! ...(:-) TIA Y.Porat --------------------- |