Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 16:32 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't know why you think QED and QCD are untestable. > ------------------------------------------ > > Well, take QCD. > > What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic > fudging? Top quark. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 16:33 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 10, 1:47 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Woof, woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,... > --------------------------------- > > What makes Eric Gisse so angry. > > (1) He can't stop barking > > (2) He has fleas > > (3) It's the drool problem > > (4) All of the above > > (5) Something else > > I would wecome your input. If you'd prefer to not discuss why your theory gets the wrong answer by 40 to 500 standard deviations, just say so.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 22:59 On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic > > fudging? > > Top quark. ----------------------- Never directly observed. Only very indirectly INFERRED, using questionable assumptions.
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jul 2010 23:11 On 7/10/10 9:59 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic >>> fudging? >> >> Top quark. > ----------------------- > > Never directly observed. > > Only very indirectly INFERRED, using questionable assumptions. There are multiple processes that can lead to the production of a top quark. The most common is production of a top–antitop pair via strong interactions. In a collision a highly energetic gluon is created which subsequently decays into a top and antitop. This process is responsible for the majority of the top events at Tevatron and is the process observed when the top was first discovered in 1995. See: V.M. Abazov et al. (DØ Collaboration) (2009). "Observation of Single Top Quark Production". arΧiv:0903.0850v1 [hep-ex].
From: Thomas Heger on 11 Jul 2010 00:07
Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > On Jul 10, 4:32 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic >>> fudging? >> Top quark. > ----------------------- > > Never directly observed. > > Only very indirectly INFERRED, using questionable assumptions. I personally think, that particles are 'mapping devices'. A bit difficult to explain: think there is a certain state, than such a 'device' would shift it around, according to its design. So a proton 'contracts'. It attracts the path of an electron. This is such a 'device' (described as an operator), too, but a different one, that could be best described as a circle. The circle now goes around all axes, what are three, hence the proton is a tri-foil-knot. Since this has three 'blades', any such blade could be regarded as an entity (quark), while they could never be separated, because they are part of a single structure. Since the proton is timelike stable, we could attach a timelike axis of rotation to that knot. If we would shift the axis, we get a neutron, that in this picture has an axis, that is spacelike, what makes it roll like a barrel. Because this is a meta-stable state, the naked neutron will eventually flip over to the more stable proton state, while releasing the residual angular momentum as neutrino and electron. The neutrino in this picture is the same as an electron, but rotated 'sideways', what makes it wiggle along the timeline. TH |