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: eric gisse on 4 Jul 2010 23:53 David Makin wrote: > On 5 July, 01:30, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> > On Jul 4, 3:12 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> >> >> > (5) Non-deterministic modeling - real physical systems are >> >> > fully deterministic >> >> >> A Nobel prize awaits you if you can demonstrate this. >> > ---------------------------------- >> >> > I intend to demonstrate this. >> >> So when can we expect the demonstration? >> >> >> >> > YOU, Woofster, can have the prizes, cookies, gold stars, Colbert >> > Report appearances, etc. I have no interest in that philistine >> > business. >> >> Yet you can't stop the attention seeking behavior on USENET. >> >> >> >> > RLO >> >www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > Another question - has anyone managed to confirm by experiment that > the speed of gravity is c ? Yes. Do a literature search. At the very least, read the Wiki article on the subject. If you want to know more, read the references to stuff by Steve Carlip or Clifford Will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity > I'm guessing the answer is no because the only way I can think of > doing such a thing would be measuring/timing the minute change in > gravity caused by nuclear reaction i.e. loss of mass to energy.
From: eric gisse on 4 Jul 2010 23:54 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 4, 8:55 pm, David Makin <dave_ma...(a)lineone.net> wrote: >> >> Another question - has anyone managed to confirm by experiment that >> the speed of gravity is c ? >> I'm guessing the answer is no because the only way I can think of >> doing such a thing would be measuring/timing the minute change in >> gravity caused by nuclear reaction i.e. loss of mass to energy > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > In General Relativity, gravitational effects travel at c but c can > vary, unlike the case for Special Relativity where c is strictly a > constant. > > When General Relativity is tested to relatively high precision, and it > has been tested many times and in many ways, it always seems to be > verified, i.e., its predictions come within the error bars of the > experimental result. > > If gravitation, or perhaps better said: spacetime curvature, > propagated at a speed different from c, then I think the binary pulsar > experiments would have indicated this. > > I am certainly not an expert on this topic, and would defer to someone > like Clifford Will, or other GR experts, which probably includes Tom > Roberts and Steve Carlip. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Merciful christ you actually said something insightful and referenced the correct experts on the subject.
From: eric gisse on 4 Jul 2010 23:55 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 4, 8:58 pm, David Makin <dave_ma...(a)lineone.net> wrote: >> Eventually found your page: >> >> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu >> >> :) > > --------------------------------------------- > > All I ask is that people take a look and evaluate the new discrete > self-similar paradigm objectively. > > Yours in science, > RLO What happens when someone looks at it and doesn't agree?
From: Hayek on 5 Jul 2010 06:38 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 4, 12:37 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Suppose we have an object traveling at an infinite speed. >> >> Where would its position be ? > ------------------------------------------- > > Sigh, that is impossible. v(max) = c. There is an exception : uncertainty. And under those conditions particles manage to be at two places at the same time. Sounds like moving with zero travel time between two positions. Zero travel time is infinite speed. Uwe Hayek. > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jul 2010 13:32
On Jul 4, 12:02 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > The major thing to reject in physics, in this or any other > century, is --------------------------------------- Let me guess: untestable postmodern pseudophysics? And now to a discussion of your generous and thoughtful comments, which I have had time to chew up and digest. You keep saying "don't get confused by PUNs." I have no idea what you are talking about by PUN. That is not an acronym I have ever seen before, or that I can remember as having enough value to retain. Your scrupulous distinguishing between physical systems and models of physical systems is very dear to my heart. I have been advocating this crucial distinction, which the Platonists appear to be oblivious of, for decades. Sure the mathematics is reversible, but as you say: the physical systems are not. Excellent. Then why does Sean M. Carroll write a whole book on the starting premise that the laws of the microcosm are reversible and therefore the "arrow of time" is a mystery. If you consider the Arrow of Causality instead of the Arrow of Time, the mystery vanishes. We may have to differ on that. Regarding the observable features being different at different cosmological Scales, I have spent the last 3 decades demonstrating that these putative "differences" either do not exist at all, or are due to the fact that analogues differing in size scales by 17 orders of magnitude are going to obviously LOOK different even if they are totally equivalent. Hundreds of pages of research presented at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw attest to the correctness of discrete cosmological self-siimilarity. I know that this is very upsetting to your paradigmatic assumptions, but sooner or later you are going to have to deal with it in a more open- minded manner. There are curently no "best" theories of particle physics. They contain naive and egregious conceptual errors and are literally Ptolemaic model-building efforts. In 10 years they will be gone. Regarding the naiveness of determinism, I think it is you who is naive about what Spinoza thought us and especially about the modern physics understanding that deterministic systems need not involve a high degree of predictability, and can modify their behavior [feedback loops] without a ghost in the machine. -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Physics can be thought of as primarily the mathematical modeling of nature. Natural philosophy is the attempt to understand how nature actually works and how nature really is. Really great scientists combine these two endeavors. You can repeat Bohr's dictum that 'we just want to reproduce observations, and not try to understand how nature really is' BUT I SAY THAT IS PTOLEMAIC THINKING, AND I TOTALLY REJECT IT. Science is the attempt to explain how nature actually works. Quite obviously we canot have direct perfect observational knowledge, and so we always deal with approximations in science. But those approximations should successively come closer to how nature really is. That is the diffrence between a true natural philosopher and a Platonic mechanic. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |