Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 14:52 On Jul 25, 12:56 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of* > > a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you > > should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced > > the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at > > all. > > The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the > spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula > > Look under: > "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element" > > That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the > spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling > of the Rydberg formula. I did not in anyway "calculate" what the form > of the formulas should be, I just plotted the data and did a curve > fitting exercise to show that you could create a Rydberg formula that > reproduces the He spectra to within a percent of the observed values. I've looked at your stuff. Congratulations, you earned a pair of eyeballs. It is still not interesting. At the very basic level, all you are doing is an empirical fit. There is no underlying theory. ANY empirical fit with a sufficient number of free parameters can be made to fit an arbitrary number of data points. In this case, you have a relatively low number of data points, because you've selected only those cases that make the fit look good. That borders on scientific fraud. If you want to know why the *ratio* of spectral lines is about the same for He and H, then a simple quantum mechanics text will explain to you why. The sad part about this is that you think you've discovered something that somebody else doesn't know how to do, just because they don't do the empirical fit the way you do. The problem is that the quantum mechanical method explains WHY the Rydberg formula is the way it is, and doesn't HAVE to do any empirical fitting to get 1% results. > > Now Eric says that the Rydberg formula only applies to hydrogen or > hydrogen-like ions, but what I have shown is that it is wrong - just > look at how closely I have been able to reproduce the spectra for He, > Li, & Be using nothing but a simple scaling of the Rydberg formula. > The spectra for the other ions of an atom follow exactly the same > staircase spectral energy pattern which is very predictable (Have you > even bothered looking at those graphs????). Eric says that this is > impossible even in principle, and it would be if you blindly believed > his principles based upon the orbital model of the atom. But since the > spectral data can find a fit using only the Rydberg formula, then I'd > say these "principles" need to come under review since I just did > something which is "in principle" impossible. > > But once again getting back to the topic of this post, you and others > simply won't look at it, you won't even get past the 1st sentence - at > least look at the graphs I references in my original post. I wouldn't > mind if you looked at it and then threw stones, you're not even > looking. This is worse than censorship or moderation where you blanket > ignore anything which does not match your existing dogma. So really, > it matters little if Scientific American censors all scientifc > innovation, no one would want to read about it anyways. No wonder > science makes so little progress. > > So once again, I beg of you to actually read what I have proposed. If > you spent this much time reading to the bottom of this post, it is the > least you could do: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee > > Otherwise, you too are guilty of putting a blind unscientifc dogmatic > eye on all possible scientific innovations.
From: Androcles on 27 Jul 2010 05:45 "John Christiansen" <superkaempe(a)mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message news:4c4ea8ba$0$4818$ba624c82(a)nntp02.dk.telia.net... | | "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> skrev i en meddelelse | news:4c4e9605$0$19170$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | > | > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote | > news:Jxl3o.262130$sD7.68527(a)hurricane... | >> | >> "Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message | >> news:4c4dc765$0$2599$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | >> | | >> | Should be page 341, before the Supplement. | >>> | >> That is about aberration. | >> It says " and his (Lorentz's) own theory ALSO fails." | > | > I rewrite it: | > "If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the | > ether is at rest with regard to the Eart's surface, according to Lorentz | > there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails." | > | > It is a complex sentence. We can write it seperatly: | > | > "We are "legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at | > rest with regard to the Eart's surface". | > | | And what makes you or anybody else think that earth is so unique that any | real or (most likely) imagined ether would be at rest with regards to its | surface? The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. | This is far more interesting than Bialek's drivel, John: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
From: ben6993 on 27 Jul 2010 07:00 On Jul 27, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "John Christiansen" <superkae...(a)mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message > > news:4c4ea8ba$0$4818$ba624c82(a)nntp02.dk.telia.net... > | > | "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> skrev i en meddelelse > |news:4c4e9605$0$19170$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > > | > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote > | >news:Jxl3o.262130$sD7.68527(a)hurricane... > | >> > | >> "Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > | >>news:4c4dc765$0$2599$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | >> | > | >> | Should be page 341, before the Supplement. > | >>> > | >> That is about aberration. > | >> It says " and his (Lorentz's) own theory ALSO fails." > | > > | > I rewrite it: > | > "If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the > | > ether is at rest with regard to the Eart's surface, according to Lorentz > | > there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails." > | > > | > It is a complex sentence. We can write it seperatly: > | > > | > "We are "legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is > at > | > rest with regard to the Eart's surface". > | > > | > | And what makes you or anybody else think that earth is so unique that any > | real or (most likely) imagined ether would be at rest with regards to its > | surface? The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. > | > This is far more interesting than Bialek's drivel, John: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E > This is far more interesting than Bialek's drivel, John: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E An interesting demonstration. In the horizontal experiment the weight of the arms should not be affecting the results, as any sagging of the mechanism is perpendicular to the direction of the rays. In the vertical experiment the sagging can be resolved in the direction of the rays. But wouldn't maximum disruption be when the arms are at 90 deg to the vertical whereas the disruption is shown to be maximum at 45 deg to the vertical?
From: Androcles on 27 Jul 2010 08:13 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:760858e8-3e7c-49b7-9d8e-72853e3b6104(a)m1g2000vbh.googlegroups.com... On Jul 27, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "John Christiansen" <superkae...(a)mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message > > news:4c4ea8ba$0$4818$ba624c82(a)nntp02.dk.telia.net... > | > | "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> skrev i en meddelelse > |news:4c4e9605$0$19170$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > > | > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote > | >news:Jxl3o.262130$sD7.68527(a)hurricane... > | >> > | >> "Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > | >>news:4c4dc765$0$2599$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | >> | > | >> | Should be page 341, before the Supplement. > | >>> > | >> That is about aberration. > | >> It says " and his (Lorentz's) own theory ALSO fails." > | > > | > I rewrite it: > | > "If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the > | > ether is at rest with regard to the Eart's surface, according to > Lorentz > | > there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also > fails." > | > > | > It is a complex sentence. We can write it seperatly: > | > > | > "We are "legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether > is > at > | > rest with regard to the Eart's surface". > | > > | > | And what makes you or anybody else think that earth is so unique that > any > | real or (most likely) imagined ether would be at rest with regards to > its > | surface? The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. > | > This is far more interesting than Bialek's drivel, John: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E > This is far more interesting than Bialek's drivel, John: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E An interesting demonstration. In the horizontal experiment the weight of the arms should not be affecting the results, as any sagging of the mechanism is perpendicular to the direction of the rays. In the vertical experiment the sagging can be resolved in the direction of the rays. But wouldn't maximum disruption be when the arms are at 90 deg to the vertical whereas the disruption is shown to be maximum at 45 deg to the vertical? ============================================== The beamsplitter is set at 45 degrees to the apparatus and so it is horizontal and vertical at the shift extremities. It may have a slight sag. In horizontal mode it would show a shift if rotated rapidly, that is what Sagnac did and is the basis of the modern laser gyro. Here's one that anyone can make http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xOWe2JNq0A
From: Szczepan Bia�ek on 27 Jul 2010 12:58
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe(a)mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote news:4c4ea8ba$0$4818$ba624c82(a)nntp02.dk.telia.net... > > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> skrev i en meddelelse > news:4c4e9605$0$19170$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... >> >> I rewrite it: >> "If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the >> ether is at rest with regard to the Eart's surface, according to Lorentz >> there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails." >> >> It is a complex sentence. We can write it seperatly: >> >> "We are "legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is >> at rest with regard to the Eart's surface". >> > > And what makes you or anybody else think that earth is so unique that any > real or (most likely) imagined ether would be at rest with regards to its > surface? The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. Astronomers see whirls with the stars in the centre. So was obvious that everything rotate (vapour, dust, planets). In such case all is at rest with regards to the Earth's surface. But some people create the ether as the solid body. The Earth plough it. The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. But many people treat it seriously. But experiments disprove it. Now no ether but only old Interstellar Medium (electrons, ions and dust). It is also named: rare plasma. This medium is intensivelly investigated. What is wrong in that? Analising of the XIX century experiments is a lost of time. The solid ether do not exists without any doubts. S* |