Standard Model In Trouble
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine theFlow??Rate"
Next: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine the?Flow??Rate"
From: Igor on 5 Jun 2010 14:06 On Jun 4, 11:57 pm, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 9:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 1:48 am, rabid_fan <r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > > > > Neutrino oscillations were directly observed for the first time. > > > This observation implies that neutrinos have mass and it thus > > > contradicts the Standard Model. > > > >http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html > > 1) The Standard model does not fully add up. > 2) It has been build by ad-hoc add-ons > 3) It uses undetectable entities ( virtual particles etc) > > Yet, the standard model is still taught and accepted. > > 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. > > Thats hypocrisy. No hypocrisy at all. Such theories were rejected because aether was completely unnecessary.
From: Y.Porat on 6 Jun 2010 05:54 On Jun 5, 7:19 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 9:05 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 1, 1:48 am, rabid_fan <r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > > > > > Neutrino oscillations were directly observed for the first time. > > > > This observation implies that neutrinos have mass and it thus > > > > contradicts the Standard Model. > > > > >http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html > > > 1) The Standard model does not fully add up. > > You don't even beging to understand the SM, it is way above your > abilities. > -------------------------- pompous fucker Lier!! do YOU UNDERSTAND IT ??!!! do you understand that th emass of 3 quarks is less than 10 percent of the Proton and the other 90 percent is 'Glutenous' doe syour fucken body and fucken mathematician brain composed of 90 percent 'Glueons !! (i bet you cam to physics from mathematics background) and i could add on it other 90 percent of nonsense physics that only fucken mathematicians and crooks as Inertial could do actually psychopath inertial never innovated anything **even not in curent stupid parts of physics ** he is a born parasite YOU CANT CHEAT EVERY BODY FOREVER !!! (though mankind was always composed of 10 percent crooks like you and 90 percent suckers !!! (:-)) Y.P ------------------
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. |