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: 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 -----------------------
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 Jul 2010 13:04 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 - |