Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 12 Jul 2010 07:47 eric gisse schrieb: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > [...] > >> You, and other decendents of Bohr's dismal legacy ('shut up and >> calculate'), would seek to rid physics of much of its beauty and >> power. > > The only meaningful power in physics is the ability to predict. > No. To predict is actually what fortune tellers do. You mean something else: there is a certain phenomenon and we have a model of its behavior, than the model should behave like the phenomenon itself (or at least near). But we cannot predict the outcome of decisions, that are made in the future. We could only model the decision itself, but not the outcome. To demand the ability to predict something would require a certain kind of determinism, that we cannot have. This doesn't mean, that we cannot correctly model certain subsets, that are not subject to future decisions. But we could do something else and that is, what Mr. Oldershaw calls retrodict. We could look, if a certain outcome would fit to our model TH
From: Thomas Heger on 12 Jul 2010 09:38 Y.Porat schrieb: > On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 11, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jul 9, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 9, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >>>>> Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. >>>>> 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. >>>> I don't know that it is known that quantum mechanics is fundamentally >>>> incompatible with GR. >>>> What is true is that there is no quantum mechanical theory of gravity >>>> that works. >>> ----------------- >>> idiot parrot!! >>> WHY IS IT SO LONG THAT >>> 'THERE IS NO QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY OF GRAVITY ""??? >>> (while millons of scientists deal with it ?? >> Actually, the number of scientists working on quantum gravity is quite >> small, a community of a couple hundred. >> >> How long do you think it SHOULD take for a theory to be found? >> >>> during a whole century with all the robast technology that Engineers >>> (:-) supply them ??) >>> do you sometimes for a change -operate the *straw* in your >>> parrots skull ?? >>> or the straw you** eat** and **feed others* !!!?? >>> dont you have the slightest shame or scruples >>> or doubts - or hesitations !!?? >>> Y.Porat >>> --------------------------- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - > > ------------------- > withthe huge development of technical advance (that mainly engineers > suplied > (:-) > it should be done much less than a century!! > yet still you have my and others predictiosn > since curved space time is nonsens > physics > GR will never dolve anything in microcosm!!! > no need tobe a genius tomake that prediction > it needs to be an idiot *not to make* that > prediction !!! > aspace is nothing > all the attaction forces are > properties of mass !! > not of curved space !!! Actually GR talks about *curved spacetime*. Space is flat and nothing, by definition. But that nothing has properties, we call fields. One of those is called gravity, that seem to point to large masses. We have almost the same relation, only way stronger called electromagnetic-force. Those we had to ascribe to space, too, because their ain't anything else. And we have the masses itself, that seem to have substructure. Now I say, we could model all of these behaviors with spacetime alone and call this 'structured spacetime'. Why I think, this would be a viable way? Well, it would allow a relatively simple 'mechanism' and to describe the entire universe as a large super-system. This is self-similar to 'mini-systems', where we could model the relations completely. To do this, I want to use complex-four-vectors and Pauli-algebra. Actually I have some problems with that kind of math, but found some good papers, where that is already done. TH
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 09:45 On Jul 12, 3:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 9, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > I don't know that it is known that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > > > > incompatible with GR. > > > > > What is true is that there is no quantum mechanical theory of gravity > > > > that works. > > > > ----------------- > > > idiot parrot!! > > > WHY IS IT SO LONG THAT > > > 'THERE IS NO QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY OF GRAVITY ""??? > > > (while millons of scientists deal with it ?? > > > Actually, the number of scientists working on quantum gravity is quite > > small, a community of a couple hundred. > > > How long do you think it SHOULD take for a theory to be found? > > > > during a whole century with all the robast technology that Engineers > > > (:-) supply them ??) > > > > do you sometimes for a change -operate the *straw* in your > > > parrots skull ?? > > > or the straw you** eat** and **feed others* !!!?? > > > dont you have the slightest shame or scruples > > > or doubts - or hesitations !!?? > > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > ------------------- > withthe huge development of technical advance (that mainly engineers > suplied > (:-) > it should be done much less than a century!! Really? On what basis do you say that? Interesting that someone who has never done this sort of work should have an idea how long it should take. Especially since you had NO idea how many people were working on it. > yet still you have my and others predictiosn > since curved space time is nonsens > physics > GR will never dolve anything in microcosm!!! > no need tobe a genius tomake that prediction > it needs to be an idiot *not to make* that > prediction !!! > aspace is nothing > all the attaction forces are > properties of mass !! > not of curved space !!! > even those scientists that started to > examine the gravitons particles > understood it > gravitons are particles > and not abstract magic space > and even those gravitons has mass > and they stem from bigger **massive** particles that are sub > composed of smaller particles! that migh tpop out of yjr big particles > in a sort of a 'fountain way > to be recycled on and on !! > > the sooner you and others > will get it -----the better !! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------- > > any attarction forceincluding gravity- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Y.y.Porat on 12 Jul 2010 11:25 On Jul 12, 3:38 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Y.Porat schrieb: > > > > > On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 11, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Jul 9, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Jul 9, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >>>>> Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > >>>>> 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. > >>>> I don't know that it is known that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > >>>> incompatible with GR. > >>>> What is true is that there is no quantum mechanical theory of gravity > >>>> that works. > >>> ----------------- > >>> idiot parrot!! > >>> WHY IS IT SO LONG THAT > >>> 'THERE IS NO QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY OF GRAVITY ""??? > >>> (while millons of scientists deal with it ?? > >> Actually, the number of scientists working on quantum gravity is quite > >> small, a community of a couple hundred. > > >> How long do you think it SHOULD take for a theory to be found? > > >>> during a whole century with all the robast technology that Engineers > >>> (:-) supply them ??) > >>> do you sometimes for a change -operate the *straw* in your > >>> parrots skull ?? > >>> or the straw you** eat** and **feed others* !!!?? > >>> dont you have the slightest shame or scruples > >>> or doubts - or hesitations !!?? > >>> Y.Porat > >>> --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > >>> - Show quoted text - > > > ------------------- > > withthe huge development of technical advance (that mainly engineers > > suplied > > (:-) > > it should be done much less than a century!! > > yet still you have my and others predictiosn > > since curved space time is nonsens > > physics > > GR will never dolve anything in microcosm!!! > > no need tobe a genius tomake that prediction > > it needs to be an idiot *not to make* that > > prediction !!! > > aspace is nothing > > all the attaction forces are > > properties of mass !! > > not of curved space !!! > > Actually GR talks about *curved spacetime*. Space is flat and nothing, > by definition. But that nothing has properties, we call fields. One of > those is called gravity, why ?? because you say so ??? 2 waht are those fields composed of ?? of pieces of vacuum ???!!! the rest is word salad Y.P ---------------------
From: Y.y.Porat on 12 Jul 2010 11:36
On Jul 12, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 3:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 9, 8:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 9, 12:07 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I don't know that it is known that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > > > > > incompatible with GR. > > > > > > What is true is that there is no quantum mechanical theory of gravity > > > > > that works. > > > > > ----------------- > > > > idiot parrot!! > > > > WHY IS IT SO LONG THAT > > > > 'THERE IS NO QUANTUM MECHANICS THEORY OF GRAVITY ""??? > > > > (while millons of scientists deal with it ?? > > > > Actually, the number of scientists working on quantum gravity is quite > > > small, a community of a couple hundred. > > > > How long do you think it SHOULD take for a theory to be found? > > > > > during a whole century with all the robast technology that Engineers > > > > (:-) supply them ??) > > > > > do you sometimes for a change -operate the *straw* in your > > > > parrots skull ?? > > > > or the straw you** eat** and **feed others* !!!?? > > > > dont you have the slightest shame or scruples > > > > or doubts - or hesitations !!?? > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > ------------------- > > withthe huge development of technical advance (that mainly engineers > > suplied > > (:-) > > it should be done much less than a century!! > > Really? On what basis do you say that? > Interesting that someone who has never done this sort of work should > have an idea how long it should take. Especially since you had NO idea > how many people were working on it. > > > yet still you have my and others predictiosn > > since curved space time is nonsens > > physics > > GR will never dolve anything in microcosm!!! > > no need tobe a genius tomake that prediction > > it needs to be an idiot *not to make* that > > prediction !!! > > aspace is nothing > > all the attaction forces are > > properties of mass !! > > not of curved space !!! > > even those scientists that started to > > examine the gravitons particles > > understood it > > gravitons are particles > > and not abstract magic space > > and even those gravitons has mass > > and they stem from bigger **massive** particles that are sub > > composed of smaller particles! that migh tpop out of yjr big particles > > in a sort of a 'fountain way > > to be recycled on and on !! > > > the sooner you and others > > will get it -----the better !! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- > > > any attarction forceincluding gravity- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ------------------ nasty pig demagogue ***parrot** !! dont tell me what i did or not just answer BASIC physics questions" what are the properties of space ??!!! before syatting to run we have anough hamd waivares here no need for another*** pompous **farther !! learn fist to walk before running i dont want to quote the more rude say ... 2 if you dont mind you can get from me a few private lessons about how to do pioneering science THAT YOU NEVR DID !!! BESIDE STEELING IDEAS AND MATERIAL FROM OTHERS !!! Y.Porat ----------------------- |