Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill - A Geophysical Theory That Needs Consideration
Next: EINSTEINIANA: THE FUNDAMENTAL NIGHTMARE
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 13:31 On Jul 8, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I disagree. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, > taught in the humanities departments at universities. > Philosophy is not currently considered a science, > precisely because systematic experimental > confirmation of model predictions is not an essential > and indispensable activity in philosophy. ---------------------------------------- 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. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 16:02 On Jul 8, 12:31 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 8, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I disagree. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, > > taught in the humanities departments at universities. > > Philosophy is not currently considered a science, > > precisely because systematic experimental > > confirmation of model predictions is not an essential > > and indispensable activity in philosophy. > > ---------------------------------------- > > 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.
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 17:10 On Jul 8, 12:20 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 8, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Show the calculations. You can link to where the calculations are > > done. > > Go towww.amherst.edu/~rloldershawand click on "Technical Notes" then > choose #3 "Modeling Subatomic particles ..." > > Results reported here:http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf 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. > > > How do you do with the magnetic moment of the muon? > > I am still waiting for someone to derive the magnetic moments and > gyromagnetic ratios for the p, e, n and u using K-N metric and DSR. > > Others need to start participating! > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: RichD on 8 Jul 2010 23:56 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
From: Y.Porat on 9 Jul 2010 00:00
On Jul 4, 9:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/4/10 1:34 PM, Hayek wrote: > > > Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 7/4/10 11:37 AM, Hayek wrote: > >>> Suppose we have an object traveling at an infinite speed. > > >> Suppose you consider things that can happen in the universe. > > > You seem to know what happens at uncertainty ! > > > Share ! > > > Uwe Hayek. > > 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". ------------------- iow as for now !! there is a big difference betwen what we know and what 'nature knows'' yet that does not mean that we cant know more tha now do now a great deal oabout what we dont know is becuse of wrong paradigms laxk of the betetr measurment toools that might come later in some cases we can BYPASS the H U P by the pwer of better thinking! ie to collect information from diffferent direction and combine them toa better knowledge for instance according to the HUP we cant know the mass of the photon or inner structure of the Atom yet by proper information collection and combination from different data sources we can know better than current knowledge!!! 2 ne example about current nonsense physics is particles without mass or no mass can reach c or mass is not conserved etc etc Y.Porat ---------------------- |