... isn't a crackpot? Seriously. Einstein was a historical figure and I don't think anybody thinks he was infallable or 100% right about everything he said. However, many of his works have stood the test of time and he made enormous contributions to physics.
So, what is up with people who are just so vehimently against Einstein? Is it anti-semitism or is it just that many people can't grasp his concepts so, in true crackpot fashion, *he* must be wrong.
Case in point:
http://www.themiracleyear.com/
What's the deal? I find it sickening that so many people who seem to lack an even rudimentary physics education somehow think that they are smarter than one of the greatest minds in history. Is it delusions of grandeur or just idiocy?
- Dave
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Jun 11 2006, 10:40 AM)
... what is up with people who are just so vehemently against Einstein?...
Technically, you're right - but probably by different way, then you're supposing....
Einstein, for example, intuitivelly believed in Aether concept
"...there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only world be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense...."
or in misunderstanding of uncertainty principle of quantum theory
"..God does not play dice with the universe..."
Both these ideas are impeached by mainstream science repeatedly, so I can ask easily: who in fact does have a prejudice against Einstein's ideas by now?
The answer isn't so simple, because Einstein has become a mainstream science icon at the same time.
Most of people are just scrambled.
Technically, you're right - but probably by different way, then you're supposing....
Einstein, for example, intuitivelly believed in Aether concept
"...there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only world be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense...."
or in misunderstanding of uncertainty principle of quantum theory
"..God does not play dice with the universe..."
Both these ideas are impeached by mainstream science repeatedly, so I can ask easily: who in fact does have a prejudice against Einstein's ideas by now?
The answer isn't so simple, because Einstein has become a mainstream science icon at the same time.
Most of people are just scrambled.
In my crackpot case it is curiousity.
I don't think we should be putting the dog down because it shows a sense of curiousity. Give the muggles a go hey. Ignore them where you must.
I don't think we should be putting the dog down because it shows a sense of curiousity. Give the muggles a go hey. Ignore them where you must.
"...there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only world be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense...."
We have no way to know whether he said this on a good day or a bad day. I am no Einstein ( Einstein made the same claim!).. the constant speed of light is such a weird result that maybe he just had a moment of thinking .. HOW .. WHY? etc.
Perhaps on another day I think Einstein did say that he felt spacetime in the absence of mass became meaningless .. I can't find the reference or context so I may be shot down on this. Was he suggesting that a Luminiferous Aether would fall apart just because there was no mass it?
As I start looking into general relativity I get lost as a result of the absence of landmarks .. I have his map and a trail to follow laid by many others before me .. he was making it up as he went along... he might he have got lost for a moment .. is speculation about the meaning of a particular sentence useful?
It is immensely useful to have a reference for all observations based on three solid dimensions and a 'proper' clock .. without such references we would indeed have no yardstick to judge when 'ordinary reality' becomes merely a part of a much larger whole.
As far as I know electromagnetic radiation still 'just happens' (any insights please post ..->) what sort of theory is that .. IT JUST HAPPENS!
I think it was Einstein who famously said something like "If we even understood the electron it would be a start".
As I see it relativity is just a step on the way between believing the Sun revolved around the Earth and a more powerful theory that unites QT and GR into a single credible whole. Maybe there will be a step back before the next step .. maybe not.
-C2.
Incidentally, I don't class Zephir as a muggle..
We have no way to know whether he said this on a good day or a bad day. I am no Einstein ( Einstein made the same claim!).. the constant speed of light is such a weird result that maybe he just had a moment of thinking .. HOW .. WHY? etc.
Perhaps on another day I think Einstein did say that he felt spacetime in the absence of mass became meaningless .. I can't find the reference or context so I may be shot down on this. Was he suggesting that a Luminiferous Aether would fall apart just because there was no mass it?
As I start looking into general relativity I get lost as a result of the absence of landmarks .. I have his map and a trail to follow laid by many others before me .. he was making it up as he went along... he might he have got lost for a moment .. is speculation about the meaning of a particular sentence useful?
It is immensely useful to have a reference for all observations based on three solid dimensions and a 'proper' clock .. without such references we would indeed have no yardstick to judge when 'ordinary reality' becomes merely a part of a much larger whole.
As far as I know electromagnetic radiation still 'just happens' (any insights please post ..->) what sort of theory is that .. IT JUST HAPPENS!
I think it was Einstein who famously said something like "If we even understood the electron it would be a start".
As I see it relativity is just a step on the way between believing the Sun revolved around the Earth and a more powerful theory that unites QT and GR into a single credible whole. Maybe there will be a step back before the next step .. maybe not.
-C2.
Incidentally, I don't class Zephir as a muggle..
No I'm the muggle.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 11 2006, 03:44 PM)
I think it was Einstein who famously said something like "If we even understood the electron it would be a start".
Well, the point is, I'm not saying, Prof. Einstein wasn't honorable and respectable man.
What I'm saying is, it should be respected even more, then until now. Because he was (together with Paul Dirac) the very last physicist, who understood the consequences of his theory from physical point of view.
All these later physicists (including the ingenious Feynman, who was definitely good in practical physic) were rather mathematicians, then real physicists and such of these scrambled by results of theirs computations.
Well, the point is, I'm not saying, Prof. Einstein wasn't honorable and respectable man.
What I'm saying is, it should be respected even more, then until now. Because he was (together with Paul Dirac) the very last physicist, who understood the consequences of his theory from physical point of view.
All these later physicists (including the ingenious Feynman, who was definitely good in practical physic) were rather mathematicians, then real physicists and such of these scrambled by results of theirs computations.
Man was Genius in my book.
Everything is connected just as was stated. There is a binding force.
Now if we could figure out Tesla further...
Everything is connected just as was stated. There is a binding force.
Now if we could figure out Tesla further...
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 11 2006, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Jun 11 2006, 10:40 AM)
... what is up with people who are just so vehemently against Einstein?...
Technically, you're right - but probably by different way, then you're supposing....
Einstein, for example, intuitivelly believed in Aether concept
"...there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only world be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense...."
or in misunderstanding of uncertainty principle of quantum theory
"..God does not play dice with the universe..."
Both these ideas are impeached by mainstream science repeatedly, so I can ask easily: who in fact does have a prejudice against Einstein's ideas by now?
The answer isn't so simple, because Einstein has become a mainstream science icon at the same time.
Most of people are just scrambled.
I cannot tell what you answer is here. But your analysis is somewhat off. The Aether concept is alive and well. Some of the most advanced studies of matter and spacetime is in terms of a quantum superfluid. After GR einstein, as you illustrae accepted the Rther concept, just one where there was no preferential frame except for light.
What people fail to realize is that Einstein's theory was a a kinematic theory rather than a dynamical one. He posits gravity not as a force but as a property of the ether or spacetime. He also agreed that matter and electromagnetism were related. He never argued that GR was the final theory, just that it was kinematically correct.
In terms of the quantum uncertainty relation and Einstein's famous quote those are unrelated. The "dice" quote refers to the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction in an objective sense rather than a subjective one. He argued QM was incomplete because it relied purely on probability. The uncertainty relation has to do with the wave-particle duality which einstein helped to develop with his photon theory. Indeed Einstein appears correect here as well, as quantum mechanics is now considered incomplete.
So Einstein was Correct with respect to these issues. I do however, have doubts about his kinematic interpretation and believe that a preferred rest frame may exist in the universe along with absolute time. Indeed quantum theory can made much more classical if we accept those two premises.
The "crackpot" or "shitty" denomination doesn't make the things "shitty" without some proof.
Do you have some relevant argument against AWT concept?
Yes, like it is not validated by any experiment. Is this enough?
The fact that you don't have one equation , just some pretty animations?
The fact that you have been told multiple times by multiple people that you have nothing, is that good enough?
All the animations in the universe won't be of any help if you cannot model anything precisely.
Technically, you're right - but probably by different way, then you're supposing....
Einstein, for example, intuitivelly believed in Aether concept
"...there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only world be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense...."
or in misunderstanding of uncertainty principle of quantum theory
"..God does not play dice with the universe..."
Both these ideas are impeached by mainstream science repeatedly, so I can ask easily: who in fact does have a prejudice against Einstein's ideas by now?
The answer isn't so simple, because Einstein has become a mainstream science icon at the same time.
Most of people are just scrambled.
I cannot tell what you answer is here. But your analysis is somewhat off. The Aether concept is alive and well. Some of the most advanced studies of matter and spacetime is in terms of a quantum superfluid. After GR einstein, as you illustrae accepted the Rther concept, just one where there was no preferential frame except for light.
What people fail to realize is that Einstein's theory was a a kinematic theory rather than a dynamical one. He posits gravity not as a force but as a property of the ether or spacetime. He also agreed that matter and electromagnetism were related. He never argued that GR was the final theory, just that it was kinematically correct.
In terms of the quantum uncertainty relation and Einstein's famous quote those are unrelated. The "dice" quote refers to the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction in an objective sense rather than a subjective one. He argued QM was incomplete because it relied purely on probability. The uncertainty relation has to do with the wave-particle duality which einstein helped to develop with his photon theory. Indeed Einstein appears correect here as well, as quantum mechanics is now considered incomplete.
So Einstein was Correct with respect to these issues. I do however, have doubts about his kinematic interpretation and believe that a preferred rest frame may exist in the universe along with absolute time. Indeed quantum theory can made much more classical if we accept those two premises.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 13 2006, 08:30 AM)
...The Aether concept is alive and well. Some of the most advanced studies of matter and spacetime is in terms of a quantum superfluid...
Maybe from the mine perspective or that of yours...
But the common "mainstream physics" apologists (like yquantum, Good Elf, Confused2 and lot of others here) are supposing the concept of vacuum as massive environment a very proprietary at best, whereas I'm considering it inevitable. I recommend you to read the history of discussion about Aether Wave Theory, as the history of this topic in particular is pretty illuminative.
Maybe from the mine perspective or that of yours...
But the common "mainstream physics" apologists (like yquantum, Good Elf, Confused2 and lot of others here) are supposing the concept of vacuum as massive environment a very proprietary at best, whereas I'm considering it inevitable. I recommend you to read the history of discussion about Aether Wave Theory, as the history of this topic in particular is pretty illuminative.
Science is young; practically brand new in terms of actual time. Einstein was really just a beginning. Hawking talked about an end of physics. But what he didn't see is that it was only his physics that is ending not science itself. Rather vain isn't it? If man will be around for millions if not billions of years ask science then if it has come to an end.
Experiments have proven many of the consequences of relativity, and as usual,
society has difficulty accepting new ideas, especially those that remove solidity and
absoluteness, (the secure features). Looking at the historical trend, it would seem
that it's just another step in the continued refinement process of understanding.
Such egocentric concepts as the earth as the center of the solar system, or the
ideal concepts of the planets contained in perfect 3-d solids, the perfect circle, etc.
don't work. The requirement for invariance of the physical laws in all reference
frames may be another example. The earth is not a 'perfect' sphere, orbits are
not 'perfect' circles etc. Quantum theory proposes "symmety breaking", CPT is
violated for some cases. The essence of this is that reality works in spite of
perfection and there must be a lesson there.
society has difficulty accepting new ideas, especially those that remove solidity and
absoluteness, (the secure features). Looking at the historical trend, it would seem
that it's just another step in the continued refinement process of understanding.
Such egocentric concepts as the earth as the center of the solar system, or the
ideal concepts of the planets contained in perfect 3-d solids, the perfect circle, etc.
don't work. The requirement for invariance of the physical laws in all reference
frames may be another example. The earth is not a 'perfect' sphere, orbits are
not 'perfect' circles etc. Quantum theory proposes "symmety breaking", CPT is
violated for some cases. The essence of this is that reality works in spite of
perfection and there must be a lesson there.
No need to ask Einstein. If aether or binding force really exist, try this experiments by your selves
BACK TO EXPERIMENTATION AND THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS
Read NOW
Do the fallowing experiments
1- take one pack of cigarettes, or a box of similar size. I recommend something that one can hold easily, not too heavy because you will use your hands perceptive powers. OK
2- Seat next to your dinner table, as if playing cards. Hold the box with thumb and fingers, not too hard, you want them relaxed. Now slowly approach the box parallel to the tables surface. Hold the box 1/2 an inch from the table s surface WAIT about one minute. Slowly move the box down and around. You should now be feeling a repulsive OR attractive force and its direction. The last is felt as you slowly move the box around. The Binding Force will lead you.
3- If 2 is true, explore vertically to the point you felt rejection. Do it slowly. Perhaps you will have to stand, remember that one is not obliged to sense the force seating. As you fallow the up ward thrust it will suddenly disappear. Don't worry, if you continue way up you will find it again (wider & stronger). BUT if you remain in the area you lost it, you will feel a DOWNWARD pull, and the box will feel a LOT heavier. Now you know that there are layers of attractive-repulsive force. I modified my tester and I get - (minus) readings in the repulsive areas and none in the attractive.
4- If 2 and 3 are true you know that gravity and magnetism are manifestations of the binding force force, long confused and poorly identified.
Now, dear friends you have to be sure. Every time you approach two or more objects, the Binding force will be there in this dual quality each occupying its own space. (don't use polarity).Approach your hand to a wall SLOWLY and you will feel it. THE KEY WORDS are distance and time. Now, bear in mind that distance is the relation between two or more points and the time it takes to go from A to B (motion) and this holds true in other areas.
There is another simple way to check this. Take a glass jar, or a flower pot with a 2-3 inches wide opening. Now build a simple pendulum made of a piece of string and a weight, any one will do (keep your sense of proportion), metallic, non metallic. magnetic, ferrous, diamagnetic, it does not matter. Find the center of the jar and SLOWLY introduce the pendulum. It jumps, shakes, vibrates. Try to SLOWLY touch the inner surface of the jar with the hanging thing. The string will give you the angle of the rejecting force. Easy to calculate with simple instruments, as can be done with the attractive-rejective more elusive you found with the box. As you repeat this part you will acquire finesse and detect that the almost close volume of space (the jar) is divided in smaller layers of the same granules (empty space my guts), and wonder that perhaps there are finer layers that keep the space we call glass.
You will also notice that as you pull the pendulum out of the jar (SLOWLY) you will feel rejection close to an imaginary lid. You are not finished yet. Take the pendulum out and try to touch the OUTSIDE of the jar and you will fell attraction. Instead of holding the pendulum hang it from a steady fixing point and slowly move the jar. The same, trust your feelings or better, senses.; after all no computer is better than brain power and the sensitive probes we came with.
If you repeat this experiment with a silver or gold ring as weight and a brass or cooper container the two will reject in the inside and attract outside. With this experiments you will conclude that the classification of matter in ferromagnetic, diamagnetic, paramagnetic is wrong and misleading and understand that quanta levels are useful but philosophically wrong. Because attraction and rejection are manifestations of a single force in which all mater exist. Even more, the so called atomic structure of the periodic table( not to be confused with the Table of Commandments) is given by the particular density of the granules in a given space and how it is structured. It is far easier to understand the diversity of molecules in this light than with the chaotic free electrons, ions, free radicals, so many oxygen atoms and other fictional exceptions to THE LAWS.
If you continue to think in this wise, certainly magnets will show its confusing head. But first let us consider their MYSTERY. It has been claimed that magnets defy the principle of energy conservation since they do not loose power even if they donate its magnetic power to ferrous metal..
Think that matter is constantly interacting with the binding force in its granular mode to keep its structure and density. Now, if another material “invades” its area it will reject the unnecessary energy. That is why you feel rejection or attraction. In such a case every and all matter is an antenna (aerial), as you have pr oven with these experiments, therefore magnets are the best antennas, so good that they give the illusion of never running out of power.
OK let us try another revealing experiment:
Place a small magnet within an essay tube. Close the tube with a thin membrane (household plastic film will do). Take another magnet and run it along the tube and watch the film. As you move the magnet towards the film it will expand and if moved contrary wise the film will be sucked in. Is the air responding to magnetic forces???. Is it charged with static?. Is the magnet pushing some unknown substance?.Can that unknown substance be called aether, granules?, does not matter it is there for you to measure.Now take the magnet out of the tube and repeat. You will have the same results.
It is FUN to play with magnets within an essay tube. Place a small magnet inside and then use another magnet outside, bring the outside one almost touching the inside and WAIT. Turn the outside one clockwise, as if screwing. Do you feel strong torsion against the clockwise force you are applying?. Push the outside magnet nearer the one inside. Has the rejection increased??????. Perhaps you can levitate the inner one easily. Do it with a little piece of cooper, brass, etc inside and the same thing will happen.
Now you know that the so called polarity changes in proportion to TIME AND DISTANCE.
Have FUN my friends and write again.
I do have a lot of fun thinking of how simple things are and how we humans complicate things.
BACK TO EXPERIMENTATION AND THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS
Read NOW
Do the fallowing experiments
1- take one pack of cigarettes, or a box of similar size. I recommend something that one can hold easily, not too heavy because you will use your hands perceptive powers. OK
2- Seat next to your dinner table, as if playing cards. Hold the box with thumb and fingers, not too hard, you want them relaxed. Now slowly approach the box parallel to the tables surface. Hold the box 1/2 an inch from the table s surface WAIT about one minute. Slowly move the box down and around. You should now be feeling a repulsive OR attractive force and its direction. The last is felt as you slowly move the box around. The Binding Force will lead you.
3- If 2 is true, explore vertically to the point you felt rejection. Do it slowly. Perhaps you will have to stand, remember that one is not obliged to sense the force seating. As you fallow the up ward thrust it will suddenly disappear. Don't worry, if you continue way up you will find it again (wider & stronger). BUT if you remain in the area you lost it, you will feel a DOWNWARD pull, and the box will feel a LOT heavier. Now you know that there are layers of attractive-repulsive force. I modified my tester and I get - (minus) readings in the repulsive areas and none in the attractive.
4- If 2 and 3 are true you know that gravity and magnetism are manifestations of the binding force force, long confused and poorly identified.
Now, dear friends you have to be sure. Every time you approach two or more objects, the Binding force will be there in this dual quality each occupying its own space. (don't use polarity).Approach your hand to a wall SLOWLY and you will feel it. THE KEY WORDS are distance and time. Now, bear in mind that distance is the relation between two or more points and the time it takes to go from A to B (motion) and this holds true in other areas.
There is another simple way to check this. Take a glass jar, or a flower pot with a 2-3 inches wide opening. Now build a simple pendulum made of a piece of string and a weight, any one will do (keep your sense of proportion), metallic, non metallic. magnetic, ferrous, diamagnetic, it does not matter. Find the center of the jar and SLOWLY introduce the pendulum. It jumps, shakes, vibrates. Try to SLOWLY touch the inner surface of the jar with the hanging thing. The string will give you the angle of the rejecting force. Easy to calculate with simple instruments, as can be done with the attractive-rejective more elusive you found with the box. As you repeat this part you will acquire finesse and detect that the almost close volume of space (the jar) is divided in smaller layers of the same granules (empty space my guts), and wonder that perhaps there are finer layers that keep the space we call glass.
You will also notice that as you pull the pendulum out of the jar (SLOWLY) you will feel rejection close to an imaginary lid. You are not finished yet. Take the pendulum out and try to touch the OUTSIDE of the jar and you will fell attraction. Instead of holding the pendulum hang it from a steady fixing point and slowly move the jar. The same, trust your feelings or better, senses.; after all no computer is better than brain power and the sensitive probes we came with.
If you repeat this experiment with a silver or gold ring as weight and a brass or cooper container the two will reject in the inside and attract outside. With this experiments you will conclude that the classification of matter in ferromagnetic, diamagnetic, paramagnetic is wrong and misleading and understand that quanta levels are useful but philosophically wrong. Because attraction and rejection are manifestations of a single force in which all mater exist. Even more, the so called atomic structure of the periodic table( not to be confused with the Table of Commandments) is given by the particular density of the granules in a given space and how it is structured. It is far easier to understand the diversity of molecules in this light than with the chaotic free electrons, ions, free radicals, so many oxygen atoms and other fictional exceptions to THE LAWS.
If you continue to think in this wise, certainly magnets will show its confusing head. But first let us consider their MYSTERY. It has been claimed that magnets defy the principle of energy conservation since they do not loose power even if they donate its magnetic power to ferrous metal..
Think that matter is constantly interacting with the binding force in its granular mode to keep its structure and density. Now, if another material “invades” its area it will reject the unnecessary energy. That is why you feel rejection or attraction. In such a case every and all matter is an antenna (aerial), as you have pr oven with these experiments, therefore magnets are the best antennas, so good that they give the illusion of never running out of power.
OK let us try another revealing experiment:
Place a small magnet within an essay tube. Close the tube with a thin membrane (household plastic film will do). Take another magnet and run it along the tube and watch the film. As you move the magnet towards the film it will expand and if moved contrary wise the film will be sucked in. Is the air responding to magnetic forces???. Is it charged with static?. Is the magnet pushing some unknown substance?.Can that unknown substance be called aether, granules?, does not matter it is there for you to measure.Now take the magnet out of the tube and repeat. You will have the same results.
It is FUN to play with magnets within an essay tube. Place a small magnet inside and then use another magnet outside, bring the outside one almost touching the inside and WAIT. Turn the outside one clockwise, as if screwing. Do you feel strong torsion against the clockwise force you are applying?. Push the outside magnet nearer the one inside. Has the rejection increased??????. Perhaps you can levitate the inner one easily. Do it with a little piece of cooper, brass, etc inside and the same thing will happen.
Now you know that the so called polarity changes in proportion to TIME AND DISTANCE.
Have FUN my friends and write again.
I do have a lot of fun thinking of how simple things are and how we humans complicate things.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 13 2006, 11:07 AM)
Maybe from the mine perspective or that of yours...
But the common "mainstream physics" apologists (like yquantum, Good Elf, Confused2 and lot of others here) are supposing the concept of vacuum as massive environment a very proprietary at best, whereas I'm considering it inevitable. I recommend you to read the history of discussion about Aether Wave Theory, as the history of this topic in particular is pretty illuminative.
Here goes a crackpot with an ax to grind (a personal shitty "theory of aether")
But the common "mainstream physics" apologists (like yquantum, Good Elf, Confused2 and lot of others here) are supposing the concept of vacuum as massive environment a very proprietary at best, whereas I'm considering it inevitable. I recommend you to read the history of discussion about Aether Wave Theory, as the history of this topic in particular is pretty illuminative.
Here goes a crackpot with an ax to grind (a personal shitty "theory of aether")
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jun 28 2006, 06:38 AM)
Here goes a crackpot with an ax to grind (a personal shitty "theory of aether")
The "crackpot" or "shitty" denomination doesn't make the things "shitty" without some proof.
Do you have some relevant argument against AWT concept?
The "crackpot" or "shitty" denomination doesn't make the things "shitty" without some proof.
Do you have some relevant argument against AWT concept?
QUOTE (Zephir+)
The "crackpot" or "shitty" denomination doesn't make the things "shitty" without some proof.
Do you have some relevant argument against AWT concept?
Yes, like it is not validated by any experiment. Is this enough?
The fact that you don't have one equation , just some pretty animations?
The fact that you have been told multiple times by multiple people that you have nothing, is that good enough?
QUOTE
The fact that you don't have one equation
Is that true Zephir? If your (or whoever's it is) theory is totally devoid of maths then it has no predictive power at all. Sure, it might make for some good logical deductions or pretty animations but without mathematics you cannot ask the theory to predict anything, even the simplest things like electron scattering or how it reduces tro Newtonian gravity.All the animations in the universe won't be of any help if you cannot model anything precisely.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 4 2006, 06:19 AM)
Yes, like it is not validated by any experiment. Is this enough?
*cough* STRING THEORY *cough*
*cough* STRING THEORY *cough*
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 4 2006, 09:19 AM)
Yes, like it is not validated by any experiment. Is this enough?
No modern physical theory like the LQG or super string theory (with honor exception of Heim's theory) wasn't validated by the any experiment yet, too. Does it means, they're craps, too? I don't think so.
And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old... So I can wait for some 40 years of experimental verification at the case of Aether Wave theory without problem, too.
No modern physical theory like the LQG or super string theory (with honor exception of Heim's theory) wasn't validated by the any experiment yet, too. Does it means, they're craps, too? I don't think so.
And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old...
So I can wait for some 40 years of experimental verification at the case of Aether Wave theory without problem, too.QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 4 2006, 09:19 AM)
The fact that you don't have one equation, just some pretty animations?
Does it means, the Darwin theory with no equation isn't theory? Such argument would be good tidbit for many creationists, so be more careful with it... But it's invalid, because the Aether Wave theory is solely based on the rigid math model of recursive wave equation. The contemporary math formalism is just not able to work with such kind of implicit functions, like the PDE in infinite dimensions.
But the solution can be approximated numerically without difficulty. After all, most of PDE has no analytic solution even for most trivial cases, like the Navier-Stokes equation, which must be solved numerically.
Does it means, the Darwin theory with no equation isn't theory? Such argument would be good tidbit for many creationists, so be more careful with it...
But it's invalid, because the Aether Wave theory is solely based on the rigid math model of recursive wave equation. The contemporary math formalism is just not able to work with such kind of implicit functions, like the PDE in infinite dimensions. But the solution can be approximated numerically without difficulty. After all, most of PDE has no analytic solution even for most trivial cases, like the Navier-Stokes equation, which must be solved numerically.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 4 2006, 12:25 PM)
.. it might make for some good logical deductions or pretty animations but without mathematics you cannot ask the theory to predict anything
The binary logic is part of math as well and is able to make binary predictions. For example, as the Darwin theory has no math at all, does it mean, the theory of evolution is some bullsh*t too, after than? Of course, the Aether Wave theory can be and should be formalized for some approximative cases, but for practical purposes, just the numerical solution can be of some importance, like at the case of fluid motion equations, which nobody will solve analytically. Nobody is prohibited in participating on it, of course, as the final theory cannot be one man show.
The binary logic is part of math as well and is able to make binary predictions. For example, as the Darwin theory has no math at all, does it mean, the theory of evolution is some bullsh*t too, after than? Of course, the Aether Wave theory can be and should be formalized for some approximative cases, but for practical purposes, just the numerical solution can be of some importance, like at the case of fluid motion equations, which nobody will solve analytically. Nobody is prohibited in participating on it, of course, as the final theory cannot be one man show.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 4 2006, 12:25 PM)
.. All the animations in the universe won't be of any help if you cannot model anything precisely...
These animation should help you in decision, such model is vital&viable - no less, no more. I can use it in explanation of many contemporary problems and opened questions of physic by simple and intuitive way. This is a luxury, which no one other mainstream theory supplies: simple, easy logic for kids. After all, most of people can feel, the fundamental model of universe can be pretty simple, but nobody has proposed some relevant idea. So I'm just offering some tangible model for testing of such hypothesis - no less, no more. The recursive wave equation is interesting system even from pure math view, like fractals. If u interested about, you even can try to analyze it just for pleasure, without any connection to reality. The math is full of abstract functions, which were analyzed thoroughly, although they're have no obvious connection to something useful at this moment.
If you think, such model isn't able to describe the whole reality, you're not required to participate on it, of course. If you're sure, such model isn't relevant to reality at all, you can even prove it - from my point of view it would be great help too, as I'll lose a reason to deal and waste my time with it... Be perfectly honest, I've a lotta other interesting things to do, as the physic is just one of my hobbies.
But if you don't want to do anything, then the objections of yours are solely irrelevant for me. You can't know, whether this model is valid by the same way, like me. So your stance is based on the same belief, like the stance of mine.
These animation should help you in decision, such model is vital&viable - no less, no more. I can use it in explanation of many contemporary problems and opened questions of physic by simple and intuitive way. This is a luxury, which no one other mainstream theory supplies: simple, easy logic for kids. After all, most of people can feel, the fundamental model of universe can be pretty simple, but nobody has proposed some relevant idea. So I'm just offering some tangible model for testing of such hypothesis - no less, no more. The recursive wave equation is interesting system even from pure math view, like fractals. If u interested about, you even can try to analyze it just for pleasure, without any connection to reality. The math is full of abstract functions, which were analyzed thoroughly, although they're have no obvious connection to something useful at this moment.
If you think, such model isn't able to describe the whole reality, you're not required to participate on it, of course. If you're sure, such model isn't relevant to reality at all, you can even prove it - from my point of view it would be great help too, as I'll lose a reason to deal and waste my time with it...
Be perfectly honest, I've a lotta other interesting things to do, as the physic is just one of my hobbies.But if you don't want to do anything, then the objections of yours are solely irrelevant for me. You can't know, whether this model is valid by the same way, like me. So your stance is based on the same belief, like the stance of mine.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 5 2006, 09:04 AM)
No modern physical theory like the LQG or super string theory (with honor exception of Heim's theory) isn't validated by the any experiment yet, too. Does it means, they're craps, too?
And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old...
Superstring theory is 20 years old and I recently heard something aboutt QLG coming up with an experiment.
And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old...
Superstring theory is 20 years old and I recently heard something aboutt QLG coming up with an experiment.
QUOTE
Does it means, the Darwin theory with no equation isn't theory?
But Darwin's theory is biology, it's not about building precision equipment correct to one part in a million, or even billion based on precise predictions and models. Quantum mechanics and relativity is about getting numbers back for prediction. How fast, how high, how big, how hot?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does it means, the Darwin theory with no equation isn't theory? |
But Darwin's theory is biology, it's not about building precision equipment correct to one part in a million, or even billion based on precise predictions and models. Quantum mechanics and relativity is about getting numbers back for prediction. How fast, how high, how big, how hot?
Nobody is prohibited in participating on it, of course
Nobody is prohibited in participating on it, of course
True, but one thing I would ask is that you don't bring up the theory in every thread about quantum mechanics or relativity. If someone comes here and asks a question because they didn't understand one of their lecture courses, it doesn't help them if you present a totally different theory to them, when what they asked for was clarification on current theories (ones they'll be examined on perhaps). Sure, starting a new thread about it now and again, but total blanket advertising gets somewhat boring and repetative after a while, that's all.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 5 2006, 11:52 AM)
Superstring theory is 20 years old and I recently heard something about QLG coming up with an experiment.
The QLG experiment wasn't carried out till now, because no supernovae has appeared yet, to test such the prediction of this theory. I can say easily, we can wait to some black hole, which will enable to test some of predictions of AWT.
The history of superstring theory is somewhat more classical, then you're probably believe. Well, the time passes quickly...
Three particle theorists independently realize that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. This marks the official birth of string theory.
The QLG experiment wasn't carried out till now, because no supernovae has appeared yet, to test such the prediction of this theory. I can say easily, we can wait to some black hole, which will enable to test some of predictions of AWT.
The history of superstring theory is somewhat more classical, then you're probably believe. Well, the time passes quickly...
Three particle theorists independently realize that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. This marks the official birth of string theory.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 5 2006, 11:52 AM)
but one thing I would ask is that you don't bring up the theory in every thread about quantum mechanics or relativity
I'm using an AWT concept whenever it's able to illustrate or explain something. Nobody prohibits you in using of any other theory by the same way. Please consider, the super-string or LQG theory isn't validated by the same way, as AWT, they're just a more elaborated. But who and how can decide, which theory is more valid, then another one? Just the ability of theory to explain different aspects of reality by the easy, consistent and natural way can serve as a measure of its relevancy.
So if you believe in some other mainstream theory, nobody prohibits you to use it for explanation instead of me. It's no my problem, here's an obvious lack of experts, which are able to explain things using such theories by more easy way. But why I should use a more difficult explanation, if it exists some more easy one? Did you heard about Occam's razor?
I'm using an AWT concept whenever it's able to illustrate or explain something. Nobody prohibits you in using of any other theory by the same way. Please consider, the super-string or LQG theory isn't validated by the same way, as AWT, they're just a more elaborated. But who and how can decide, which theory is more valid, then another one? Just the ability of theory to explain different aspects of reality by the easy, consistent and natural way can serve as a measure of its relevancy.
So if you believe in some other mainstream theory, nobody prohibits you to use it for explanation instead of me. It's no my problem, here's an obvious lack of experts, which are able to explain things using such theories by more easy way. But why I should use a more difficult explanation, if it exists some more easy one? Did you heard about Occam's razor?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 5 2006, 09:58 AM)
The history of superstring theory is somewhat more classical, then you're probably believe. Well, the time passes quickly...
Three particle theorists independently realize that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. This marks the official birth of string theory.
That's string theory. Superstring theory didn't come along till about the mid 80s when fermions were included into the models.
Three particle theorists independently realize that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. This marks the official birth of string theory.
That's string theory. Superstring theory didn't come along till about the mid 80s when fermions were included into the models.
QUOTE
Please consider, the super-string or LQG theory isn't validated by the same way, as AWT, they're just a more elaborated.
This is true, but considering most questions here relate to relativity or quantum mechanics, well established theories with evidence, rather than tentative ideas like string theory, coming in with an AWT version of things doesn't always help matters. It would definitely be a valid point of view (if somewhat underdeveloped) in a thread on 'The next big theory' or similar, but when someone asks about time dilation in relativity, an animation of a boat and waves coming off it's bow from AWT doesn't help them.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please consider, the super-string or LQG theory isn't validated by the same way, as AWT, they're just a more elaborated. |
This is true, but considering most questions here relate to relativity or quantum mechanics, well established theories with evidence, rather than tentative ideas like string theory, coming in with an AWT version of things doesn't always help matters. It would definitely be a valid point of view (if somewhat underdeveloped) in a thread on 'The next big theory' or similar, but when someone asks about time dilation in relativity, an animation of a boat and waves coming off it's bow from AWT doesn't help them.
But why I should use a more difficult explanation, if it exists some more easy one? Did you heard about Occam's razor?
But why I should use a more difficult explanation, if it exists some more easy one? Did you heard about Occam's razor?
Occams razor is definitely a useful philosophy to go by, particularly in physics. However, because your AWT theory is more description than maths, you (or anyone else) haven't 'ironed out the problems' or 'dotted the i's and crossed the t's' (yes, I'm full of analogies today ). How do you know that when you get down to doing the maths you don't run into huge numbers of problems?
String theory is based on a nice concept 'Instead of point particles, just strings!'. That ended up leading to a 26 dimensional theory, then 5 10 dimensional theories, tachyons, compactified dimensions etc all of which were not evidence until someone got stuck into the maths.
Occams razor might say 'AWT is more simplistic than string theory' right now, but that's because AWT lacks any depth right now. Until it is developed to a similar level of description as string theory, you cannot really compare them using Occams razor. Besides, Occam's razor isn't a blunt tool to always be used. Otherwise we'd accept "God did it" instead of evolution, which is much more complicated, but far more useful.
). How do you know that when you get down to doing the maths you don't run into huge numbers of problems? String theory is based on a nice concept 'Instead of point particles, just strings!'. That ended up leading to a 26 dimensional theory, then 5 10 dimensional theories, tachyons, compactified dimensions etc all of which were not evidence until someone got stuck into the maths.
Occams razor might say 'AWT is more simplistic than string theory' right now, but that's because AWT lacks any depth right now. Until it is developed to a similar level of description as string theory, you cannot really compare them using Occams razor. Besides, Occam's razor isn't a blunt tool to always be used. Otherwise we'd accept "God did it" instead of evolution, which is much more complicated, but far more useful.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 4 2006, 09:25 AM)
Is that true Zephir? If your (or whoever's it is) theory is totally devoid of maths then it has no predictive power at all. Sure, it might make for some good logical deductions or pretty animations but without mathematics you cannot ask the theory to predict anything, even the simplest things like electron scattering or how it reduces tro Newtonian gravity.
All the animations in the universe won't be of any help if you cannot model anything precisely.
Michael Faraday did not have a grasp of 'math'.
He brought us, by his brilliant deductive ability and recorded in meticulously documented experiments that are the foundation of modern scientific theory and methodology into the modern age of physics.
Mr Faraday's work was later noticed by a young brilliant mathematics student who was not bound by the popular theories of the time, who chose to express them mathematically...named James Clerk Maxwell
Perhaps Zepher has not met his James Clerk Maxwell... yet. And for every Michael Faraday and James Maxwell there are ten thousand mediocre minds who call themselves scientists, however, there is no mention of them in history.
All the animations in the universe won't be of any help if you cannot model anything precisely.
Michael Faraday did not have a grasp of 'math'.
He brought us, by his brilliant deductive ability and recorded in meticulously documented experiments that are the foundation of modern scientific theory and methodology into the modern age of physics.
Mr Faraday's work was later noticed by a young brilliant mathematics student who was not bound by the popular theories of the time, who chose to express them mathematically...named James Clerk Maxwell
Perhaps Zepher has not met his James Clerk Maxwell... yet. And for every Michael Faraday and James Maxwell there are ten thousand mediocre minds who call themselves scientists, however, there is no mention of them in history.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 5 2006, 12:40 PM)
That's string theory. Superstring theory didn't come along till about the mid 80s when fermions were included into the models.
Please consider, whole official String Theory web site uses the denomination "String Theory" as the synonym of "SuperString Theory"...
Despite of this, by the (Super)string theory development example, my theory has more than 20 - 40 years for it's experimental verification and development of formal model. From this point of view the AWT is the same little baby, as the (super)String Theory at the end of sixties...
Furthermore, I'm trying to extend and generalize the Aether Wave theory as a model of inertial processes to the entropic ones, thus forming some kind of Aether Super-Wave theory by the same way, as bosonic string theory to fermions. It's evident, not just inertial waves, but the diffusion waves can exist too. The unitary model of both the waves is more general, then just model of wave equations, as it's able to explain the origin of time and inertia too.
Maybe I should start to distinguish a Aether Wave Theory based on pure wave equation from "Aether SuperWave Theory", which is using an diffusional waves and gradients too.
You can wait a lifetime and it will not happen. Peddling it all over the internet, on all the threads, whether it is applicable or not (most instances it isn't) doesn't do anything in terms of promoting it. Quite the opposite.
You can wait a lifetime and it will not happen. Peddling it all over the internet, on all the threads, whether it is applicable or not (most instances it isn't) doesn't do anything in terms of promoting it. Quite the opposite.
Does it means, the Darwin theory with no equation isn't theory?
This is supposed to be physics, remember?
But it's invalid, because the Aether Wave theory is solely based on the rigid math model of recursive wave equation. The contemporary math formalism is just not able to work with such kind of implicit functions, like the PDE in infinite dimensions.
What you wrote above is called "word salad".
What you wrote above is called "word salad".
But the solution can be approximated numerically without difficulty. After all, most of PDE has no analytic solution even for most trivial cases, like the Navier-Stokes equation, which must be solved numerically.
More word salad, try to write some math, would you? Literature dosn't cut it as physics.
These animation should help you in decision, such model is vital&viable - no less, no more.
Yes, they sure did. They help me reject it on the spot.
Yes, they sure did. They help me reject it on the spot.
Be perfectly honest, I've a lotta other interesting things to do, as the physic is just one of my hobbies.
Stick to your other hobbies then. Physics is not something that can be treated as a hobby.
But if you don't want to do anything, then the objections of yours are solely irrelevant for me. You can't know, whether this model is valid by the same way, like me. So your stance is based on the same belief, like the stance of mine.
There is a big difference: your stance is based on something called "crackpottery".
Crackpottery is the persistence in generating theories without any experimental nor theoretical foundation and in pushing such theories in the face of universal rejection and of universal disproval.
Crackpottery is the persistence in generating theories without any experimental nor theoretical foundation and in pushing such theories in the face of universal rejection and of universal disproval.
Please consider, whole official String Theory web site uses the denomination "String Theory" as the synonym of "SuperString Theory"...
Despite of this, by the (Super)string theory development example, my theory has more than 20 - 40 years for it's experimental verification and development of formal model. From this point of view the AWT is the same little baby, as the (super)String Theory at the end of sixties...
Furthermore, I'm trying to extend and generalize the Aether Wave theory as a model of inertial processes to the entropic ones, thus forming some kind of Aether Super-Wave theory by the same way, as bosonic string theory to fermions. It's evident, not just inertial waves, but the diffusion waves can exist too. The unitary model of both the waves is more general, then just model of wave equations, as it's able to explain the origin of time and inertia too.
Maybe I should start to distinguish a Aether Wave Theory based on pure wave equation from "Aether SuperWave Theory", which is using an diffusional waves and gradients too.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 5 2006, 12:40 PM)
..are ten thousand mediocre minds who call themselves scientists, however, there is no mention of them in history...
The Aether denomination is meant as the tribute for thousands of scientists (not just the Faraday or Maxwell), which have believed in Aether theory, although the mainstream science has ignored them. I can use a different more "politically correct" denomination for Aether, like the "space-time fabric", or something else with probably more success - but I just want to respect the scientific priority of the concept of inertial environment, the origin of which has begun in Huygens and Descartes times. I'll always respect all these less or more anonymous "mediocre", but intuitive minds, because of my respect of scientific truth. And don't forget, between atherist were the names like Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, Dirac, Schrodinger and other ingenial minds, including the Einstein at his later age.
The Aether denomination is meant as the tribute for thousands of scientists (not just the Faraday or Maxwell), which have believed in Aether theory, although the mainstream science has ignored them. I can use a different more "politically correct" denomination for Aether, like the "space-time fabric", or something else with probably more success - but I just want to respect the scientific priority of the concept of inertial environment, the origin of which has begun in Huygens and Descartes times. I'll always respect all these less or more anonymous "mediocre", but intuitive minds, because of my respect of scientific truth. And don't forget, between atherist were the names like Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, Dirac, Schrodinger and other ingenial minds, including the Einstein at his later age.
QUOTE
No modern physical theory like the LQG or super string theory (with honor exception of Heim's theory) wasn't validated by the any experiment yet, too. Does it means, they're craps, too? I don't think so.
And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old... So I can wait for some 40 years of experimental verification at the case of Aether Wave theory without problem, too.
And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old...
So I can wait for some 40 years of experimental verification at the case of Aether Wave theory without problem, too. You can wait a lifetime and it will not happen. Peddling it all over the internet, on all the threads, whether it is applicable or not (most instances it isn't) doesn't do anything in terms of promoting it. Quite the opposite.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No modern physical theory like the LQG or super string theory (with honor exception of Heim's theory) wasn't validated by the any experiment yet, too. Does it means, they're craps, too? I don't think so. And hey, the superstring theory is nearly 40 years old... So I can wait for some 40 years of experimental verification at the case of Aether Wave theory without problem, too. |
You can wait a lifetime and it will not happen. Peddling it all over the internet, on all the threads, whether it is applicable or not (most instances it isn't) doesn't do anything in terms of promoting it. Quite the opposite.
Does it means, the Darwin theory with no equation isn't theory?
This is supposed to be physics, remember?
QUOTE
But it's invalid, because the Aether Wave theory is solely based on the rigid math model of recursive wave equation. The contemporary math formalism is just not able to work with such kind of implicit functions, like the PDE in infinite dimensions.
What you wrote above is called "word salad".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But it's invalid, because the Aether Wave theory is solely based on the rigid math model of recursive wave equation. The contemporary math formalism is just not able to work with such kind of implicit functions, like the PDE in infinite dimensions. |
What you wrote above is called "word salad".
But the solution can be approximated numerically without difficulty. After all, most of PDE has no analytic solution even for most trivial cases, like the Navier-Stokes equation, which must be solved numerically.
More word salad, try to write some math, would you? Literature dosn't cut it as physics.
QUOTE
These animation should help you in decision, such model is vital&viable - no less, no more.
Yes, they sure did. They help me reject it on the spot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
These animation should help you in decision, such model is vital&viable - no less, no more. |
Yes, they sure did. They help me reject it on the spot.
Be perfectly honest, I've a lotta other interesting things to do, as the physic is just one of my hobbies.
Stick to your other hobbies then. Physics is not something that can be treated as a hobby.
QUOTE
But if you don't want to do anything, then the objections of yours are solely irrelevant for me. You can't know, whether this model is valid by the same way, like me. So your stance is based on the same belief, like the stance of mine.
There is a big difference: your stance is based on something called "crackpottery".
Crackpottery is the persistence in generating theories without any experimental nor theoretical foundation and in pushing such theories in the face of universal rejection and of universal disproval.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 6 2006, 05:09 PM)
Stick to your other hobbies then. Physics is not something that can be treated as a hobby.
Please, let me decide, what I can and what I can't.
It's just you, who wastes time here.
Please, let me decide, what I can and what I can't.
It's just you, who wastes time here.
QUOTE
Please, let me decide, what I can and what I can't.
Crackpottery is the persistence in generating theories without any experimental nor theoretical foundation and in pushing such theories in the face of universal rejection and of universal disproval.
Any theory no matter how provisional when taken too far is crackpot. 
Look at Richard Feynmann. He did physics for the fun of it!
Look at Richard Feynmann. He did physics for the fun of it!
most people is against Einstein because they do not get it
they have no İQ big enough to get relativity
Einstein prepare the ground for A-Temporal Physics, he called it NOW
they have no İQ big enough to get relativity
Einstein prepare the ground for A-Temporal Physics, he called it NOW
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 6 2006, 02:09 PM)
What you wrote above is called "word salad".
I still can't stop laughing! "Word salad", Beautiful!
I still can't stop laughing! "Word salad", Beautiful!
95 % of physicists do not understand SR and GR
they just think that they understand it
but GR is not only about thinking, it is also about NOW
read Einstein and Godel book
Universe Without Time
they just think that they understand it
but GR is not only about thinking, it is also about NOW
read Einstein and Godel book
Universe Without Time
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 5 2006, 08:04 AM)
But the solution can be approximated numerically without difficulty. After all, most of PDE has no analytic solution even for most trivial cases, like the Navier-Stokes equation, which must be solved numerically.
Funnily-enough, an elegant solution to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations does exist. I'm currently writing this up in my PhD research findings.
The solution is then 'probed' in high-resolution numerical simulations... All turns out to be rather simple, in the end analysis.
The underlying reason why many pde's do not have analytic solutions is that we often have not formed a full picture of the physics. Numeric analysis & computational mathematics is a wonderful playground to probe & test analytic theories. Once we form a better perspective of the governing physics, then the pde's don't look so daunting.
Funnily-enough, an elegant solution to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations does exist. I'm currently writing this up in my PhD research findings.
The solution is then 'probed' in high-resolution numerical simulations... All turns out to be rather simple, in the end analysis.
The underlying reason why many pde's do not have analytic solutions is that we often have not formed a full picture of the physics. Numeric analysis & computational mathematics is a wonderful playground to probe & test analytic theories. Once we form a better perspective of the governing physics, then the pde's don't look so daunting.
haha i cant even BELIEVE you brought up the theory of evolution here!
i mean, i'm a stupid 15 year old kid who doesnt really know anything, but come on...
do you REALLY not get why thats stupid???
i mean, i'm a stupid 15 year old kid who doesnt really know anything, but come on...
do you REALLY not get why thats stupid???
Solid State Universe's Hotson paper just makes Dave Grossman's point.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161130
Hotson's work does however have a bit more coherence than the usual revolutionary paper by physics outsider. I recommend reading it for a good stretch.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161130
Hotson's work does however have a bit more coherence than the usual revolutionary paper by physics outsider. I recommend reading it for a good stretch.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.