Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 Jul 2010 13:00 On Jul 12, 7:47 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > No. > To predict is actually what fortune tellers do. ---------------------------------------- Thomas, get a grip! Predictions are a sine qua non of science. General Relativity made several Definitive Predictions, most notably the "bending of starlight/eclipse expt. That is the standard we must retain. Predictions that are prior, quantitative, non-adjustable, feasible, and unique to the theory being tested. Have you forgotten how science works? You are far from alone! RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 13:51 On Jul 12, 10:36 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 I don't have to tell you. It's in the record that you thought that millions of scientists were working on quantum gravity. It's also in the record that it's your foot-tapping expectation that they should have gotten an answer in the last 50 years. > just answer BASIC physics questions" > > what are the properties of space ??!!! Quite a few. - curvature - impedance - permittivity - permeability - electric field - magnetic field - gravitational field Quite a few others too... > 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 > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Thomas Heger on 12 Jul 2010 14:55 Y.y.Porat schrieb: > On Jul 12, 3:38 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Y.Porat schrieb: >> >>> 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 ???!!! > Well, I don't know. Possibly 'nothing'. This is very hard to believe, but maybe we have no material background at all. Only connections, that build patterns, that we call matter. Maybe a fluid of some kind would work, but I simply don't know. So I exclude this question from my model. Maybe someone else has an idea. > the rest is word salad No. I had spent some time on this subject and think, my idea is correct. But it could be - of course- wrong. I only bet on mine, while you bet on yours. TH
From: Thomas Heger on 12 Jul 2010 15:10 Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > On Jul 12, 7:47 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> No. >> To predict is actually what fortune tellers do. > ---------------------------------------- > > Thomas, get a grip! Predictions are a sine qua non of science. > Yes, but Eric seems to mean something else with 'predictions'. E.g. the weather in ten days. Weather is certainly a physical subject. But we can't predict a specific weather at a certain date and location for ten days. This is because this phenomenon is too complex and we don't have all the data. We can only model smaller systems, that are not subject to unstable feedbacks like we have in climate. So predictions are possible only at specific situations, where we don't have decisions, having some kind of impact, that are made in the future. Lotto would be an other example, where we can be certain about the number of balls drawn, but not about the numbers they carry. > General Relativity made several Definitive Predictions, most notably > the "bending of starlight/eclipse expt. > > That is the standard we must retain. > > Predictions that are prior, quantitative, non-adjustable, feasible, > and unique to the theory being tested. > My personal prediction would be the so called 'growing earth' hypothesis. Another is the behavior of comets, where we don't find any water or ice. I could make a lot more with ease, but I don't want. I think, it would be better, to understand the mechanisms first and then try to model them. > Have you forgotten how science works? You are far from alone! > Thanks TH
From: oriel36 on 12 Jul 2010 16:05
On Jul 12, 6:00 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 12, 7:47 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > No. > > To predict is actually what fortune tellers do. > > ---------------------------------------- > > Thomas, get a grip! Predictions are a sine qua non of science. > Well,no,predictions are the bread and butter of empiricism rather than science and empiricism has a very definite beginning with Isaac's use of the predictive system which determines things like eclipses with the 365/366 day calendar system.It is a lovely story of you want to actually to the bottom of things but readers here are generally not interested in how Isaac managed to create an avenue directly from experimental science to planetary dynamics which later turned into universal evolution and the 'no center/no circumference' ideologies of today. > General Relativity made several Definitive Predictions, most notably > the "bending of starlight/eclipse expt. > There is no point in getting into a question begging session where you ignore any medium to get the exotic 1905 conception up and running and then have some medium to bend light for this general relativity thing.When Albert went to bend light there was no messing around,he seriously bent it and I thought the (pre-Galactic discovery) idea was so hilarious I rarely ever came back to relativity in the belief that people took this stuff seriously - "This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished." http://bartelby.org/173/30.html The rejection of the idea of stellar islands we now call galaxies in the previous paragraph ,as the thing was written in 1920, was another remarkable prediction so c'mon guys,are you so desperate that you want to spend another 100 years with this stuff. > That is the standard we must retain. > > Predictions that are prior, quantitative, non-adjustable, feasible, > and unique to the theory being tested. > > Have you forgotten how science works? You are far from alone! > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |