Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:05 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 8, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Natural Philosophy is "metaphysics" done properly. >> >> > See Democritus, Spinoza, Galileo, Faraday, Einstein,... >> >> > Physics = (1) Conceptual foundation of natural philosophy + (2) >> > mathematical model to give analytical rigor to the NP foundation. >> >> + (3) Application of the scientific method, including corroborated >> experimental tests of model's predictions. >> >> Don't do that and it ain't science > ----------------------------------------- > > Discrete Scale Relativity has passed more definitive retrodictions > than most currently-fashionable theories of theoretical physics. Like being able to predict the emission spectrum of Hydrogen? Wait, your theory can't do that. > > It has made over 10 definitive predictions in published papers. How many of them are verified by observation and published in non-fringe journals? > > You might want to learn about this material. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:06 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 8, 5:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> Thanks for this. >> >> I do find your statement that hadrons are characterized by mass, >> charge, and spin to be a bit odd. If that were true, then there would >> be no support for the various selection rules and branching ratios for >> hadron interactions and decays. Moreover, this model seems to neglect >> the information available since the 1960's regarding deep inelastic >> scattering results, including all the tests of QCD at hadron >> accelerators since the late 1970s. > ---------------------------------- > > Right! > > We need to retain all the empirical HEP results of the last 50 years. > > Then throw away ALL of the theoretical HEP rubbish. > > Then completely redo theoretical HEP using the principles and new > dynamics of Discrete Scale Relativity. Why? Your predictions, taken at face value, are wrong by tens to hundreds of standard deviations from what is observed. That doesn't even begin to tackle the issue of your arbitrary parameter choices for your 'theory'. > > Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Giga2 on 9 Jul 2010 04:38 On 9 July, 04:56, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 12:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Uncertainty principle > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle > > > "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by > > precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like > > position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary > > precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the > > less precisely the other can be measured. In other words, the more you > > know the position of a particle, the less you can know about its > > velocity, and the more you know about the velocity of a particle, the > > less you can know about its instantaneous position". > > That's pretty fuzzy. And not really right. > > Consider the following assertions; > 1) A particle has a well defined velocity and position, > but we cannot know both. > 2) A particle does not have both a well defined velocity > and position. > 3) The better we know a particle's position, the greater > the variance when we measure its velocity. > > The Wikipedia article implies (1) (or possibly (2), > which is almost meaningless), but (3) is correct. > > In other words, the Heisenberg thing is a statement > of nature as probabilistic, and science as statistics, > not a statement of our ignorance. > > -- > Rich But what does probabilistic mean? There is a certain range of possibilities but we cannot know which possibility will happen. The greater the range of possibilities the less certain we are that a particular possibility will happen.
From: Y.Porat on 9 Jul 2010 06:21 On Jul 9, 7:35 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" wrote in message > > news:8e0d1d64-898e-404f-b3b8-92c3c8804d19(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > >yet > >it will never be done by > >incapable BORN parrots like PD &CO. > > >(unless they start to steal understandings > >and innovations > >from more capable and innovfative people ...) > > >***and publish it in their publishing companies*** .("-) > > There's absolutely no sign at all that they would steal anything from anyone > else to publish as their own. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- ----------------- that is just a prediction of mine 2 their publishing will be i suppose with some mask on it ie some 'cosmetically 'changes ' Hoops !!! i give them some nasty ideas (:-) BTW i am noT sure at all that something like that HAS ALREADY BEEN D0NE (SOMEWHERE) )!! (that should be the reason to their (including you )!! 'mad' 'unreasonable enthusiasm to 'kill me' iow there is a well ''semi rational'' motivation for it so that there will be no one interested = to prove the theft .... though thousands of people were evidence to it and though anything is well recorded !! Y.Porat ---------------------- -------------------
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 13:13
On Jul 9, 1:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > I would agree, but I'm not sure whether or not the basic principle > should be your theory. But possibly something near to it. Anyhow, GR > seems to be confirmed, so that should be merged into our understanding > of the microcosm as well and from the beginning. > Since QM is known to be incompatible with GR, it could be possible, that > QM is not the right idea. (Actually I think, as QM does something well, > it should describe something. My idea would be, that QM and GR are in an > abstract way inverses to each other. Something like 'matrize' and > 'patrize' (the form and the thing cast within).) > So I would widen the range of this task to physics of our natural > environment in general. To describe it correctly, we need one and only > one proper theory, because there is only one world. ----------------------------------------- Again I basically agree with you. I think General Relativity is the starting point for any realistic unification. I also think Schroedinger was right in his intuition, communicated to Einstein in 1938, that the wavefunction should NOT be understood in terms of probabilities, but rather should be understood in terms of matter waves (reminiscent of de Broglie too). But first one has to understand the gravitational dynamics of the microcosm and that requires Discrete Scale Relativity to explain the scaling of General Relativity and gravitation. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |