Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 28 Sep 2009 03:41 On Sep 24, 9:11 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. --------------------- and you ddint mension the fantastic fact that that thory is talking about creation of one antiproton for each Porton could you beleive that is it an enourmous stupidity unless i am missing something!! please thing of it it is alleged to present a process that exists in any of our Atoms while in those Atoms each fraction of a second are proton neutron as well as Anti proton and anti neutrons are created ?? in that case all of us whould melt to energy in a farction of a second !!?? and i still didnt mention the fabulous stupidity about a force messenger that is 100 times bigger than its mother ! so whats going on here? did those people went out of their minds ?? do i miss something?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------
From: David Bostwick on 28 Sep 2009 09:34 In article <09170456-dc12-479a-abf9-a237b0294a25(a)o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Sep 24, 9:54=A0am, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David >Bostwick) wrote: >> Get a room, folks, and save us the nonsense. =A0Or maybe you could get on= > WWE >> Raw. =A0Anywhere other than here. > >Dear David: Talk science. There are few readers brave enough to do >so with leeches and parasites like Dougie Boy and PD waiting to shoot >them down. =97 NoEinstein =97 Pot, meet kettle.
From: PD on 28 Sep 2009 10:40 On Sep 28, 2:41 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 9:11 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. > > --------------------- > and you ddint mension the fantastic fact that > that thory is talking about > creation of one antiproton for each Porton In that collision, yes. Because of the selection rules for that collision. > could you beleive that > is it an enourmous stupidity unless i am missing something!! You must be missing something because this is seen every day. > please thing of it > it is alleged to present a process that exists in any of our Atoms > while in those Atoms each fraction of a second > are proton neutron as well as Anti proton and anti neutrons > are created ?? Yes. Of course the antiprotons and antineutrons don't live long because they come in contact with protons and neutrons. > in that case > all of us whould melt to energy in a farction of a second !!?? No, not at all. There is still an excess of protons and neutrons, and that's what survives. > and i still didnt mention the fabulous stupidity > about a force messenger that is 100 times > bigger than its mother ! There is nothing fabulous or stupid about it. As I said, it's trivial in an experiment to make daughters that are almost 2000 times heavier than their parents. If it's actually observed it can't be fabulous or stupid, even if it is counter to your common sense. > > so whats going on here? > did those people went out of their minds ?? > > do i miss something?? Yes, you missed a lot of experimental facts, and instead relied on your common sense and intuition. This was a rather stupid tactic on your part. > > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------
From: Androcles on 28 Sep 2009 10:46 "David Bostwick" <david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:h9qe0g$5ti$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu... > In article > <09170456-dc12-479a-abf9-a237b0294a25(a)o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >>On Sep 24, 9:54=A0am, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David >>Bostwick) wrote: >>> Get a room, folks, and save us the nonsense. =A0Or maybe you could get >>> on= >> WWE >>> Raw. =A0Anywhere other than here. >> >>Dear David: Talk science. There are few readers brave enough to do >>so with leeches and parasites like Dougie Boy and PD waiting to shoot >>them down. =97 NoEinstein =97 > > Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet fire. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
From: David Bostwick on 28 Sep 2009 11:20
In article <6%3wm.31686$6y1.10539(a)newsfe27.ams2>, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message >news:h9qe0g$5ti$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu... >> In article >> <09170456-dc12-479a-abf9-a237b0294a25(a)o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, >> NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>On Sep 24, 9:54=A0am, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David >>>Bostwick) wrote: >>>> Get a room, folks, and save us the nonsense. =A0Or maybe you could get >>>> on= >>> WWE >>>> Raw. =A0Anywhere other than here. >>> >>>Dear David: Talk science. There are few readers brave enough to do >>>so with leeches and parasites like Dougie Boy and PD waiting to shoot >>>them down. =97 NoEinstein =97 >> >> Pot, meet kettle. > >Kettle, meet fire. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. > > > What heat? |