Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
Next: Abbreviating First Order Logic With Identity and Membership
From: glird on 26 Apr 2010 14:22 On Apr 22, 12:15 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > > The DSSCP uses the Kerr-Newman solution of General Relativity, a bit > of Quantum Mechanics (quantization of angular momentum), and the > self-evident discrete self-similarity of nature to correctly > retrodict the radius and mass of the proton. Unless the radius of a proton was already knon, how would anyone know that the retrodiction was correct? > Do we need a new unified paradigm for all of nature, from the > smallest elementary particles to the largest superclusters of > galaxies? > Oh, yeah! A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. glird
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 26 Apr 2010 18:24 On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: ? > > > Do we need a new unified paradigm for all of nature, from the > > smallest elementary particles to the largest superclusters of > > galaxies? > > Oh, yeah! --------------------------------------- > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. ----------------------------------------- Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard model. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: glird on 6 May 2010 12:06 On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > model. The trouble with the present paradigm began with the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made of and totally fillled with the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE
From: glird on 6 May 2010 12:24 On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > model. The trouble with the present paradigm began with the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each of them and the spaces between them too. Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all present models. Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that exists in the universe. glird
From: mpc755 on 6 May 2010 12:29
On May 6, 12:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > model. > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with the Ancient Greek > Philosophers' secret answer "No" to the unasked question "Is matter > compressible". THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made of and > totally fillled with the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE Exactly. I think it is conceptually cleaner to name the 'compressible'. I have named it mæther. Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. |