Prev: Universe not expanding & caused by Einstein's gravity redshift
Next: LHC is Black Hole DOOMSDAY
From: rotchm on 6 Jun 2010 10:42
> Until there is something better.  Do you have something better?  

Yes. Ther are many better models out there.

> > Lorentz Ether theories (and similar ones)
>
> > 1) Do add up
> > 2) Somewhat ad-hoc
> > 3) Uses one undedectible entity (ether).
> > Yet, such theories are rejected because it uses an undedectible
> > entity.
>
> No .. because SR does NOT have problems 2 and 3 .. and so is better.

SR has *somewhat* ad-hoc in its light postulate: Why was it
postulated? It was empiric and from that
empiric observation, E postulated it. The Light postulate was not
deduced from more basic considerations; it was introduced to satisfy
E's works. However, in LET's, the light postulate is not introduced,
it is deduced from more basic considerations.

Most LET's do have an 'ether', contrary to SR. But that does not make
SR 'better' (define better). Does SR predict the existence/emergence
of gravity? Some LET's do. Anw, this thread is about the St.Model...
Define 'better'.

> > Thats hypocrisy.
>
> NO .. its good science.  A theory that 'works' is 'accepted' (tentatively)
> until something better comes along.

I dont dispute that. But what if there are two theories that 'work'?
Can one be free to choose which theory to use?
From: rotchm on 6 Jun 2010 10:59
> > 1) The Standard model does not fully add up.
>
> You don't even beging to understand the SM, it is way above your
> abilities.

I guess thats why I have a high paying job in the field and you dont.

> > 2) It has been  build by ad-hoc add-ons
>
> Nope, it was constructed to reflect the advancements in experimental
> physics.

Go read. There are many sites out there describing the history and
build-up of the SM and those site to
indicate that the SM is ad-hoc. Every time a new effect is
discovered, physicist just incorporate it in the SM.


<LET's>
> > 1) Do add up
> > 2) Somewhat ad-hoc
>
> VERY ad-hoc. Require a DIFFERENT aether for each experiment.

Liar. They do not require different ethers for different exp's.
Even, some 'LET's' do not require any 'ether' (as in ponderable
material)

One again, you are clueless. Go read up for a few years to see whats
out there. You know, there is more to literature than your playgirl
books. Google "dono the troll" for more info.


> And you are the same aetherist idiot you've always been.

Liar. I am still a Relativist.


Go find a boyfriend, he might listen to your unfounded rants.

From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 10:59
"rotchm" <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3218a5-8f14-412c-bae5-80bc949d4bae(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> Until there is something better. Do you have something better?
>
> Yes. Ther are many better models out there.

What?

>> > Lorentz Ether theories (and similar ones)
>>
>> > 1) Do add up
>> > 2) Somewhat ad-hoc
>> > 3) Uses one undedectible entity (ether).
>> > Yet, such theories are rejected because it uses an undedectible
>> > entity.
>>
>> No .. because SR does NOT have problems 2 and 3 .. and so is better.
>
> SR has *somewhat* ad-hoc in its light postulate:

No

> Why was it
> postulated?

Ask Einstein

> It was empiric and from that
> empiric observation, E postulated it.

Yeup

> The Light postulate was not
> deduced from more basic considerations; it was introduced to satisfy
> E's works. However, in LET's, the light postulate is not introduced,

No .. the aether is .. with no evidence of its existence

> it is deduced from more basic considerations.

Nope

> Most LET's do have an 'ether',

Ther eis one LET. And an aether is part of it

> contrary to SR.

SR says nothing about how light is propagated.

> But that does not make
> SR 'better' (define better).

yes .. it does

> Does SR predict the existence/emergence
> of gravity?

GR does.

> Some LET's do. Anw, this thread is about the St.Model...
> Define 'better'.

You are the one wanting something better

>> > Thats hypocrisy.
>>
>> NO .. its good science. A theory that 'works' is 'accepted'
>> (tentatively)
>> until something better comes along.
>
> I dont dispute that. But what if there are two theories that 'work'?
> Can one be free to choose which theory to use?

Not if one is better than the other.

From: Edward Green on 7 Jun 2010 20:41
On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Edward Green schrieb:

<...>

> > I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge
> > of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have
> > a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the
> > rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can
> > leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same
> > answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic
> > circumstances.
>
> By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are
> countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro
> *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but
> the realness and countability of elementary particles.

You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my
invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the
countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway.

> The question is, if atoms are composed out of a nucleus and some
> electron flying around.
> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also
> wavy,space-filling and pointlike.

Nonetheless, I think it was Feynman who said "the neutron is a
particle for anybody's money", or words to that effect, and I tend to
agree. For all the wavy point-likeness, we can count baryons, at
least. Put enough of them together, with some electrons, and they make
rocks. Further down in the particle zoo, I make no opinion. Photons,
for example, we can certainly count detections, and possibly if we are
very clever we can count emissions, but I doubt we can count the
number present in a field: even if we have operators which claim to do
so.

> I found a way to model the same behavior without 'real' particles. The
> trick -if you like- is to model the 'opposite' of the particles and
> those as a pattern or structures within this kind of invisible medium.
>
> Than particles are somehow an equivalent to a vortex (like on large
> scale a tornado). But such a structure could be created out of nothing,
> only this 'medium' needs to be disturbed enough.
>
> So I think about particles as names for discontinuity in a continuum.

I agree with you in broad strokes.

> My example was a screw, like the form called kink-surface, that has
> something to count (the ripples), but those build a continuum, only
> wound up. At this you could look from the top and it would look like a
> circle. From the side it looks like a sine wave. So there is no need to
> say, because there is something, that we could count, this is composed
> out of something countable as well. This is like the tornado: tornados
> could be counted (and certainly are), but the air they are composed of,
> we cannot count.

Interesting. Though academically, we could count the air molecules, in
principle. But I suppose your "air" is a continuum.

I also mention, out of academic interest, that if we had a lot of
tornadoes close together we might in fact have some difficulty
counting them... we might find two in the process of merging, for
example.

<...>

> > I agree with you that particles are structures. But some of them are
> > quite stable and very countable "structures". Why is there a
> > contradiction here?
>
> My favorite argument is the so called growing Earth hypothesis, because
> that would be in direct contradiction to the particle concept, but I
> think, it could be easily proven:

>http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html

It's been a long time since I've seen that name one Usenet!

>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005014

Ah... there is a lot of interesting stuff out there.

> The problem for the particle concept would be, that the Earth seems to
> grow from the inside, while gaining also mass, what is hard to explain
> with any kind of particle mechanism.

That hypothesis is a bit far out for me, if you will forgive me.
From: BURT on 7 Jun 2010 21:33
When science is beginning to be complete the Standard Model will
really count for something. The goal is of a completion of all
theories that are made to work together for an overall picture. That
is the future of the Standard Model and it is great; not now.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Universe not expanding & caused by Einstein's gravity redshift
Next: LHC is Black Hole DOOMSDAY