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: Thomas Heger on 8 Jul 2010 04:19 Sam Wormley schrieb: > On 7/7/10 11:10 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> >> Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010}. >> >> QED-based predictions = 0.877 to 0.9 fermi for proton radius >> >> New High Precision Measurement = 0.84 fermi for proton radius >> >> Discrete Scale Relativity = 0.814 fermi for proton radius >> >> Discrete Scale Relativity beats QED on this one, my friend. >> > > > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60990/title/The_incredible_shrinking_proton > > > "Nothing is immune to downsizing in these tough economic times � not > even subatomic particles. New measurements published in the July 8 > Nature suggest that the proton has a radius about 4 percent smaller than > previously thought". Maybe lizards shrink, too, as do man. Than their fossils appear large to us, because we are getting smaller. Only the lizards where tiny then as they are now, but we call them dinosaurs. And former men where bigger, too. As you could see here: http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/charts/charts.html TH
From: Thomas Heger on 8 Jul 2010 08:46 Benj schrieb: > On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> What this means for you is "Shut up and calculate." When you have a >> model that will support doing calcultions that can be compared to >> observational measurements, and that comparison favors your model over >> the prevailing model, then and ONLY THEN will there be incentive to >> consider the new paradigm. >> >> If you'd like the paradigm considered on its own abstract appeal, then >> this is the domain of metaphysics and not physics. Metaphysics does >> not require the test just described, where physics does. If you are >> not willing to pursue that test, then you are posting to the wrong >> group. > > This statement is not only misleading but also completely wrong. The > idea that metaphysics is somehow "religion" or "myth" is completely > incorrect. This idea is, however, a paradigm of Social Darwinist > theory. The truth, of course, is that metaphysics considers topics > that "official" physics deems unworthy of study. There is no rule in > metaphysics that states that principles and theories of metaphysics do > not require confirmation by observational measurements. Au contraire. > The problem is that physics currently just rejects all such data and > measurements out of hand as "nonsense". And the persons making the > measurements as deluded and misguided no matter what their proven > ability in science. > > Hence the difference between physics and metaphysics is not one of > confirmation by experiment. That assertion is totally false. The > difference is that physics is a religion that limits activities to > ONLY those issues where dogma is not challenged. Metaphysics on the > other hand is TRUE and ADVANCED science that demands the FREEDOM to > investigate ANY topic and test it against reality. However, often the > subjects of metaphysics are very complex, little understood and > sometimes apparently random which makes their study exceedingly > difficult. But difficult is not the same word as "impossible". A > fine point that traditional physics has chosen to totally ignore. I totally agree ! But what I don't understand is the reason of such an (apparent ?) behavior. E.g. there was Podclednov and his spinning rings. Those experiments where repeated and confirmed by Martin Tajmar. So where is the discussion about these results? Could be -at least- interesting to understand the phenomenon. Same with the so called 'cold fusion', what seems to be a bad misnomer btw. But to understand the experiments of Pons and Fleishman would certainly enhance our understanding of nature. To just say, it didn't work because it couldn't, isn't scientific. TH TH
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 10:26 On Jul 7, 11:10 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > There are several experimental tests of QED which are measurements to > > exquisitely high precision. The match between theory and experiment is > > dependent on the inclusion of contributions of processes by which > > particles travel backwards in time. There are no competing models that > > feature strict, time-ordered determinism that have exhibited the same > > success in predicting the results of precision measurements. You are > > welcome to demonstrate that you have a candidate that does show that > > success. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010}. > > QED-based predictions = 0.877 to 0.9 fermi for proton radius > > New High Precision Measurement = 0.84 fermi for proton radius > > Discrete Scale Relativity = 0.814 fermi for proton radius > > Discrete Scale Relativity beats QED on this one, my friend. Show the calculations. You can link to where the calculations are done. How do you do with the magnetic moment of the muon? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 10:57 On Jul 8, 12:28 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > What this means for you is "Shut up and calculate." When you have a > > model that will support doing calcultions that can be compared to > > observational measurements, and that comparison favors your model over > > the prevailing model, then and ONLY THEN will there be incentive to > > consider the new paradigm. > > > If you'd like the paradigm considered on its own abstract appeal, then > > this is the domain of metaphysics and not physics. Metaphysics does > > not require the test just described, where physics does. If you are > > not willing to pursue that test, then you are posting to the wrong > > group. > > This statement is not only misleading but also completely wrong. The > idea that metaphysics is somehow "religion" or "myth" is completely > incorrect. I said no such thing. What I said is that physics imposes requirements that metaphysics does not. There is a good reason why these two are classed as two different methods of investigation. There is a methodology associated with (and in fact pretty much DEFINES) science, and abdicating the methodology simply means you are no longer doing science, even if you are thinking about the same kinds of physical entities that physics would consider. Put another way, science is not so much defined by WHAT it is that it studies, but HOW it goes about studying them. > This idea is, however, a paradigm of Social Darwinist > theory. The truth, of course, is that metaphysics considers topics > that "official" physics deems unworthy of study. There is no rule in > metaphysics that states that principles and theories of metaphysics do > not require confirmation by observational measurements. Au contraire. > The problem is that physics currently just rejects all such data and > measurements out of hand as "nonsense". I'm curious what *data* and *measurements* are being rejected as nonsense. > And the persons making the > measurements as deluded and misguided no matter what their proven > ability in science. > > Hence the difference between physics and metaphysics is not one of > confirmation by experiment. That assertion is totally false. The > difference is that physics is a religion that limits activities to > ONLY those issues where dogma is not challenged. This is remarkable. Nobel Prizes have almost always been for work that has challenged the conventional wisdom. Most of the interesting work that is being done today is looking for places where the current theories are wrong. > Metaphysics on the > other hand is TRUE and ADVANCED science 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. > that demands the FREEDOM to > investigate ANY topic and test it against reality. However, often the > subjects of metaphysics are very complex, little understood and > sometimes apparently random which makes their study exceedingly > difficult. But difficult is not the same word as "impossible". A > fine point that traditional physics has chosen to totally ignore.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 13:20
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 to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Technical Notes" then choose #3 "Modeling Subatomic particles ..." Results reported here: http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf > 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! RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |