Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: looking
Next: FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
From: Thomas Heger on 28 Jul 2010 15:10 Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > On Jul 28, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Here are some facts that may enlighten you. > > (1) If you search arXiv.org for reseach papers with the term "magnetic > monopoles" in the abstract, published in the 2005-2010 period, YOU GET > 380 ENTRIES. Are all these research physicists more out-of-touch with > what is going on in research physics than you, or might the reverse be > true? > > (2) If no one ever believed that "free quarks" and magnetic monopoles > existed, why were millions of dollars spent on looking for them, > producing false positives (very famous one by Blas Cabrera), and then > covering up the non-detection of free quarks with "confinement", and > the non-detection of magnetic monoples with: "Inflation hid the ONE > TRUE MM in a galaxy far, far away"? > Maybe this paper is helpful http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v62a/62a0231.pdf This Lochak paper is one of those, that have influenced my own model. You shouldn't think about monopoles as e.g. 'north-particle'. They are in my eyes specific states: Guess you have an eddy in a surface. That surface is horizontal, but the eddy is vertical. It occupies no space of the surface, what is our observed space, but circles around an imaginary axis. Imagine this axis of the eddy to be timelike, but not our time. Since these things have very strange features, I'm a bit afraid, they could create one of those things at the LHC, what is not recommended, if they are energetic enough. > (3) Physicists in the last few decades who have won Nobel Prizes, and > who have expressed dismay at various forms of intellectial and > personal arrogance, as well as non-scientific attitudes, being > accepted within the physics community, would include R. Feynman, S. > Glashow and P. Anderson. > All the physicists I have asked were quite rude to me, with only very few exceptions. So I would agree from my own experience. TH
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 15:36 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 28, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Now I'm curious about what you think the order of events was. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Here are some facts that may enlighten you. > > (1) If you search arXiv.org for reseach papers with the term "magnetic > monopoles" in the abstract, published in the 2005-2010 period, YOU GET > 380 ENTRIES. Are all these research physicists more out-of-touch with > what is going on in research physics than you, or might the reverse be > true? Why is it that you feel this is indicative of anything other than some folks are interested in magnetic monopoles? > > (2) If no one ever believed that "free quarks" and magnetic monopoles > existed, why were millions of dollars spent on looking for them, Millions of dollars, Robert? Could you give a source for this number? > producing false positives (very famous one by Blas Cabrera), and then > covering up the non-detection of free quarks with "confinement", You seem pretty sure there are lots, and lots of 'coverups'. > and > the non-detection of magnetic monoples with: "Inflation hid the ONE > TRUE MM in a galaxy far, far away"? That'd do it, but what gives you the idea that this is taken seriously? Just because some dude said it, doesn't mean it is correct. Or taken seriously. > > (3) Physicists in the last few decades who have won Nobel Prizes, and > who have expressed dismay at various forms of intellectial and > personal arrogance, as well as non-scientific attitudes, being > accepted within the physics community, would include R. Feynman, S. > Glashow and P. Anderson. Oh no, some people are - according to someone with a big axe to grind - non- specifically unhappy about something in physics. Alert the presses. > > Feel free to ask or details, > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Jul 2010 18:22 On Jul 28, 4:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I am Buford T. Justice, in pursuit of the bandit. -------------------------------------------------- Interesting! But I think I prefer the barking to the HOWLING. When you put your bold new ideas about "cosmic shear" into the public domain, will Woofy's Canine Inquisition bite itself? By that I mean: Will you start barking at yourself? Sort of a mental auto-immune disorder? I can hardly wait to see Woofy barking at himself!
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 18:25 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 28, 4:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I am Buford T. Justice, in pursuit of the bandit. > -------------------------------------------------- > > Interesting! But I think I prefer the barking to the HOWLING. > > When you put your bold new ideas about "cosmic shear" into the public > domain, will Woofy's Canine Inquisition bite itself? > > By that I mean: Will you start barking at yourself? > > Sort of a mental auto-immune disorder? > > I can hardly wait to see Woofy barking at himself! Robert if you have nothing to say, just don't respond. Like in the other thread where I show your error analysis to be nonsense - just don't reply. It isn't hard.
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 18:40
On Jul 28, 7:12 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 5:17 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > > > Oh dear, "high-energy" physicists cannot seem to find another piece of > > > > their Ptolemaic puzzle. > > > > > Before it was, ta-da, the mythical "magnetic monopoles". TOTAL NO > > > > SHOW. > > > > No aspect of modern physics predicts magnetic monopoles. > > > > Stop making things up. > > > > > And of course there was the, ta-da, mythical "free quarks". TOTAL NO > > > > SHOW. > > > > QCD does not predict free quarks. > > > > Stop making things up. > > > > > Now after searching high and low all over the barnyard, the mythical > > > > "Higgsy pig" is nowhere to be found. Well maybe Higgsy pig is hiding > > > > under the, ahhh, mud in the pig sty. > > > > > See:http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3073#comments, > > > > or search on "Higgs Bozo". > > > > > An interesting question is whether the devotees of the Substandard > > > > Model would ever dare to question the basic assumptions of their > > > > faith. Or is the search for the mythical particles an endless fool's > > > > errand? > > > > Continued childish behavior towards a scientific theory noted. Grow the hell > > > up, Robert. > > > > [snip rest] > > > The Higgs particle is science's excuse for a creation of mass that > > can only come from God at the beginning of time. God does not need a > > phenomenon to create. > > But can God create something so heavy that even he cannot lift it?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. God neither exists nor does not exist. Mitch Raemsch |