Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 00:03 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. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 00:07 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. It has made over 10 definitive predictions in published papers. You might want to learn about this material. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Y.Porat on 9 Jul 2010 00:16 On Jul 9, 6:03 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> 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. > > Yes, it is a big job, but it must be done sooner or later. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ---------------- 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*** .("-) Y.Porat --------------
From: Thomas Heger on 9 Jul 2010 01:07 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. (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. TH
From: whoever on 9 Jul 2010 01:35
"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: news(a)netfront.net --- |