Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What the LHC Has Not Found - 1/31/12
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 31, 2012, 10:24:36 PM1/31/12
to
RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
So far the LHC has found:
no string/brane exotica,
no sparticles,
no WIMPs,
no supersymmetry exotica,
no extra-dimensions,
no mini-black holes,
no Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.)
no porker Higgsy [so far just mystery
bumps],
no evidence for ADS/CFT duality,
no colorons,
no leptoquarks,
no lazy photons,
and nothing beyond the considerably pre-LHC standard model, which has
26-30 adjustable parameters, and which can say nothing about the dark
matter [i.e., virtually everything].
Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density
crisis.
Then there is the unnatural and theoretically awkward conventional
Planck mass, which bears no resemblance to anything in nature.
The relevant question is: Do we keep adding epicycles to the faltering
aged paradigm, or do we begin the search for a revolutionary new
paradigm?
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
waldofj
Jan 31, 2012, 11:07:44 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 10:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
I like to play devils advocate. My hope is that the LHC is not going
to find anything new or exotic. In that case every theoretical
physicist is going to have to back to the drawing board :-). Start
over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.
wrote:
to find anything new or exotic. In that case every theoretical
physicist is going to have to back to the drawing board :-). Start
over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.
dlzc
Feb 1, 2012, 9:43:42 AM2/1/12
to
Dear Robert L. Oldershaw:
On Jan 31, 8:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
> but is there some serious problem with the
> theoretical side of particle physics?
...
Nature thinks, at these energies, nothing new is required to be
shown. Once we get to the experimental limit, and nothing new shows
up, then we have "revolutionary new" already waiting in the wings.
But it has to agree with experimental results, and not just be some
exercise in magic numbers in the low energy domain.
David A. Smith
On Jan 31, 8:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
> RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious,
Since when?
>
> I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious,
> but is there some serious problem with the
> theoretical side of particle physics?
> The relevant question is: Do we keep adding
> epicycles to the faltering aged paradigm, or
> do we begin the search for a revolutionary new
> paradigm?
The answer is, we make predictions, and see what Nature thinks.
> epicycles to the faltering aged paradigm, or
> do we begin the search for a revolutionary new
> paradigm?
Nature thinks, at these energies, nothing new is required to be
shown. Once we get to the experimental limit, and nothing new shows
up, then we have "revolutionary new" already waiting in the wings.
But it has to agree with experimental results, and not just be some
exercise in magic numbers in the low energy domain.
David A. Smith
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 11:16:08 AM2/1/12
to
On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide quoted text -
> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear waldofj and dlzc,
Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
The game just goes on seemingly forever.
The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
but then blithely ignoring them.
The majority are fully into the "often wrong, never in doubt" mode.
A definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result.
We could try something really new. And by try, I do not mean
immediately smashing it with a sledge hammer, but actually giving it a
fair chance.
RLO
PD
Feb 1, 2012, 12:56:43 PM2/1/12
to
On 1/31/2012 9:24 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
> serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
Why would you think that this marks a problem with the theoretical side
>
> RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
> serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
of physics?
The WHOLE POINT of developing theories is to find a candidate model that
can be tested against observational data. It is perfectly common and
expected that MOST proposed models will find their predictions ruled out
by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
science SHOULD work, and does work.
mpc755
Feb 1, 2012, 1:25:03 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 9:24 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
>
>
> > RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> > I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
> > serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
>
> Why would you think that this marks a problem with the theoretical side
> of physics?
>
> The WHOLE POINT of developing theories is to find a candidate model that
> can be tested against observational data. It is perfectly common and
> expected that MOST proposed models will find their predictions ruled out
> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
> science SHOULD work, and does work.
>
You said,
> On 1/31/2012 9:24 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
>
>
> > RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> > I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
> > serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
>
> Why would you think that this marks a problem with the theoretical side
> of physics?
>
> The WHOLE POINT of developing theories is to find a candidate model that
> can be tested against observational data. It is perfectly common and
> expected that MOST proposed models will find their predictions ruled out
> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
> science SHOULD work, and does work.
>
"No, but what the standard cosmological model says about dwarf
galaxies is not exactly what it says about the universe as a whole."
Changing the underlying structure of the mass which fills the Universe
from a concept of "cold" dark matter which is theorised to have formed
one millionth of a second after the Big Bang to a Universe which may
instead by filled with "warm" dark matter which would have formed up
to minutes later says more about the Universe as a whole than it does
about dwarf galaxies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
"But he believes he has found a solution to the CDM problem. He
proposes that instead of "cold" dark matter that formed within the
first one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe may
instead be filled with warm dark matter (WDM). The WDM would have
formed later, up to minutes after the Big Bang, and is described as
"warm" as the particles would be lighter and more energetic. When
simulations of galaxy formation are run with the later-forming WDM
instead of CDM, the halo of dwarf galaxies has the same structure as
we observe in reality. Simulation of supernovae in dwarf galaxy
formation (Carlos Frenk) Violent supernovae in early dwarf galaxy
formation could be at the heart of the discrepancy The WDM solution is
"remarkably elegant", Prof Frenk said, and it means that "the standard
model is by no means dead"."
Of course the standard model is by no means dead. Give the theory a
generic name like the standard model and when it is wrong change it.
It's disprovable. Whatever the most recent discoveries are which
disprove the standard model do not disprove anything because the model
simply changes to support the new discovery.
What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter
pushes back toward the matter. Displaced aether pushing back toward
matter is gravity.
Aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a
solid; an incompressible fluid.
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet;
analogous to the polar jet of a black hole. Dark energy is the change
in state of the aether emitted into the Universal jet.
When the standard model gets around to the above it will be correct.
eric gisse
Feb 1, 2012, 6:51:35 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:a5c46237-
01be-4674-88c...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
> serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
>
> So far the LHC has found:
>
> no string/brane exotica,
> no sparticles,
> no WIMPs,
> no supersymmetry exotica,
> no extra-dimensions,
> no mini-black holes,
> no Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.)
> no porker Higgsy [so far just mystery
> bumps],
> no evidence for ADS/CFT duality,
> no colorons,
> no leptoquarks,
> no lazy photons,
> and nothing beyond the considerably pre-LHC standard model, which has
> 26-30 adjustable parameters, and which can say nothing about the dark
> matter [i.e., virtually everything].
You are ...upset that standard theory explains what is observed?
You are upset when it does, upset if you think it doesn't. Perhaps you
aren't all that interested in science?
>
> Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density
> crisis.
A sign we need a theory of quantum gravitation.
Why do you keep complaining about that which is well known to be true?
>
> Then there is the unnatural and theoretically awkward conventional
> Planck mass, which bears no resemblance to anything in nature.
The planck scale, like your "theory", is numerology and is not
predictive.
>
> The relevant question is: Do we keep adding epicycles to the faltering
> aged paradigm, or do we begin the search for a revolutionary new
> paradigm?
But I thought you just said that the LHC has found nothing that the
standard model does not predict?
Besides, your numerology has failed every observational test. I don't
think you are in any position to pass judgement.
01be-4674-88c...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> RE: Most recent particle physics conference [1/31/12]
>
> I don’t mean to be overly rude or contentious, but is there some
> serious problem with the theoretical side of particle physics?
>
> So far the LHC has found:
>
> no string/brane exotica,
> no sparticles,
> no WIMPs,
> no supersymmetry exotica,
> no extra-dimensions,
> no mini-black holes,
> no Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.)
> no porker Higgsy [so far just mystery
> bumps],
> no evidence for ADS/CFT duality,
> no colorons,
> no leptoquarks,
> no lazy photons,
> and nothing beyond the considerably pre-LHC standard model, which has
> 26-30 adjustable parameters, and which can say nothing about the dark
> matter [i.e., virtually everything].
You are upset when it does, upset if you think it doesn't. Perhaps you
aren't all that interested in science?
>
> Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density
> crisis.
Why do you keep complaining about that which is well known to be true?
>
> Then there is the unnatural and theoretically awkward conventional
> Planck mass, which bears no resemblance to anything in nature.
predictive.
>
> The relevant question is: Do we keep adding epicycles to the faltering
> aged paradigm, or do we begin the search for a revolutionary new
> paradigm?
standard model does not predict?
Besides, your numerology has failed every observational test. I don't
think you are in any position to pass judgement.
eric gisse
Feb 1, 2012, 6:55:06 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:89f60d50-ef18-4c6e...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
>> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide
>> quo
> ted text -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear waldofj and dlzc,
>
> Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
> true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
> nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
> The game just goes on seemingly forever.
aspect...
What was that you were saying about the observational evidence for your
numerolgoy? Just around the corner? In the next few weeks/months/years?
>
> The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
> rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
> but then blithely ignoring them.
them, as you are incapable of doing independent research.
>
> The majority are fully into the "often wrong, never in doubt" mode.
>
> A definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and
> expecting a different result.
>
> We could try something really new. And by try, I do not mean
> immediately smashing it with a sledge hammer, but actually giving it a
> fair chance.
>
> RLO
threw observation at it.
If you want to play in the deep end of the pool, you better learn how to
swim. Because right now you remind me of a kid who talks shit while
wearing floaters.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 1, 2012, 8:37:01 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 3:51 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:a5c46237-
> 01be-4674-88ce-60debe533...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> > Discrete Scale Relativity- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now how do you find the subatomic and how do you measure more than one
property?
Nano is a pipe dream too..
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:a5c46237-
> 01be-4674-88ce-60debe533...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now how do you find the subatomic and how do you measure more than one
property?
Nano is a pipe dream too..
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 9:27:21 PM2/1/12
to
> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
> science SHOULD work, and does work.
--------------------------------------
> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
> science SHOULD work, and does work.
But if FAILED tests are ignored, the scientific process is short-
circuited. Duh!
How many times does nature have to say "NO!" before the
pseudoscientists give up on the ad hoc "WIMP" rubbish? 100 times,
1000 times, 100,000 times, ...?
String theory is not even a formal theory and has never made a single
definitive prediction. It is untestable pseudoscience.
You speak of science, but you do not understand what keeps science
from devolving into Ptolemaic pseudoscience.
You are being treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed
bullshit. Wake up!
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 9:32:21 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 6:51 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density
> > crisis.
>
> A sign we need a theory of quantum gravitation.
-------------------------------------------
>
> > Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density
> > crisis.
>
> A sign we need a theory of quantum gravitation.
And for how many more decades will we put up with continual failure
before we consider the obvious answer to how gravitation works in the
microcosm?
The answer to the VED crisis is simple and natural and has already
been posted to arxiv.org.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 9:33:35 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 8:37 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com"
sigh
>
> Now how do you find the subatomic and how do you measure more than one
> property?
>
> Nano is a pipe dream too
-------------------------------------
> Now how do you find the subatomic and how do you measure more than one
> property?
>
> Nano is a pipe dream too
sigh
mpc755
Feb 1, 2012, 9:45:08 PM2/1/12
to
> You are ...upset that standard theory explains what is observed?
>
The standard model failed.
>
PD
Feb 1, 2012, 9:53:10 PM2/1/12
to
On 2/1/2012 8:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:56 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
>> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
>> science SHOULD work, and does work.
> --------------------------------------
>
> But if FAILED tests are ignored, the scientific process is short-
> circuited. Duh!
Can you give me an example of corroborated test results that have been
> On Feb 1, 12:56 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
>> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
>> science SHOULD work, and does work.
> --------------------------------------
>
> But if FAILED tests are ignored, the scientific process is short-
> circuited. Duh!
ignored?
Please note that corroboration by independent investigators is the norm
in experimental physics. You know the reason why?
>
> How many times does nature have to say "NO!" before the
> pseudoscientists give up on the ad hoc "WIMP" rubbish? 100 times,
> 1000 times, 100,000 times, ...?
>
> String theory is not even a formal theory and has never made a single
> definitive prediction. It is untestable pseudoscience.
a while before a theory is developed enough to make predictions. There
are other theorists who say that there is sufficient work under the belt
to know that definitive predictions are in fact hopeless in string
theory. That's why there is a steady stream of physicists moving away
from string theory presently.
So?
PD
Feb 1, 2012, 9:54:29 PM2/1/12
to
in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
would like.
mpc755
Feb 1, 2012, 9:55:58 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 9:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 8:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:56 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
> >> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
> >> science SHOULD work, and does work.
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > But if FAILED tests are ignored, the scientific process is short-
> > circuited. Duh!
>
> Can you give me an example of corroborated test results that have been
> ignored?
>
Ignored in terms of causing the theory to fail.
> On 2/1/2012 8:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:56 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> by experiment. Most of science is systematic process of elimination of
> >> various possibilities. What you think is a problem is precisely how
> >> science SHOULD work, and does work.
> > --------------------------------------
>
> > But if FAILED tests are ignored, the scientific process is short-
> > circuited. Duh!
>
> Can you give me an example of corroborated test results that have been
> ignored?
>
You said,
"No, but what the standard cosmological model says about dwarf
galaxies is not exactly what it says about the universe as a whole."
mpc755
Feb 1, 2012, 9:59:43 PM2/1/12
to
theories in order to not investigate a number of alternative theories.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 10:03:34 PM2/1/12
to
> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong thing
> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
> would like.
--------------------------------------------
> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
> would like.
Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
Everything beyond the heuristic standard model is rubbish. If you
like eating rubbish, be my guest.
Androcles
Feb 1, 2012, 10:08:52 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:9990c2a8-cd76-4a20...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
Phuckwit Duck eating rubbish?
When the shit hits the fan he'll be the first to to jump in the cesspit.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 10:15:38 PM2/1/12
to rlold...@amherst.edu
On Feb 1, 6:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,..."
Woofy is a world-class expert on repetitive behaviors, having
obsessively bitten off half of his fur, and having been recognized in
the Guinness Book of Records as having the world record for continuous
barking by a dog - about 5 years, I think.
Note also that the sycophantic doggie does not address any of the
substantive information presented in the original post, but rather
sticks to ad hominem barking and dis-information.
>
> "bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,..."
Woofy is a world-class expert on repetitive behaviors, having
obsessively bitten off half of his fur, and having been recognized in
the Guinness Book of Records as having the world record for continuous
barking by a dog - about 5 years, I think.
Note also that the sycophantic doggie does not address any of the
substantive information presented in the original post, but rather
sticks to ad hominem barking and dis-information.
mpc755
Feb 1, 2012, 10:02:15 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 6:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote innews:89f60d50-ef18-4c6e...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
> >> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide
> >> quo
> > ted text -
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Dear waldofj and dlzc,
>
> > Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
> > true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
> > nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
> > The game just goes on seemingly forever.
>
> This is an oddly familiar game. Not just the psychological projection
> aspect...
>
> What was that you were saying about the observational evidence for your
> numerolgoy? Just around the corner? In the next few weeks/months/years?
>
>
>
> > The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
> > rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
> > but then blithely ignoring them.
>
> If they are truly 'swept under the rug' then you wouldn't know about
> them, as you are incapable of doing independent research.
>
Why would mainstream physics need to sweep under the rug evidence
>
> > On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
> >> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide
> >> quo
> > ted text -
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Dear waldofj and dlzc,
>
> > Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
> > true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
> > nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
> > The game just goes on seemingly forever.
>
> This is an oddly familiar game. Not just the psychological projection
> aspect...
>
> What was that you were saying about the observational evidence for your
> numerolgoy? Just around the corner? In the next few weeks/months/years?
>
>
>
> > The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
> > rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
> > but then blithely ignoring them.
>
> If they are truly 'swept under the rug' then you wouldn't know about
> them, as you are incapable of doing independent research.
>
which causes a theory to fail when it simply alters the failed theory
to support the new evidence which caused it to fail?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 9:18:24 PM2/1/12
to
"bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,..."
------------------------------------------
One can note that Woofy is a world-class expert on repetitive
behavior.
He has scratched off half his fur in obsessive frustration and is
recognized by the Guinness Book of Records as having the record for
the longest continuous barking for any dog - 5 years, give or take.
Note also that the sycophantic doggie avoids confronting the
substantive information of my post, preferring ad hominem innuendo and
dis-information.
Bark on, Woofy, you defender of the One True Faith.
inertial
Feb 1, 2012, 10:19:32 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:9990c2a8-cd76-4a20...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
news:9990c2a8-cd76-4a20...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 9:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong thing
>> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
>> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
>> would like.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
>
> My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
> that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
> its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
I think you described your own nonsense.
>>
>> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong thing
>> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
>> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
>> would like.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
>
> My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
> that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
> its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
inertial
Feb 1, 2012, 10:20:14 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:6084b572-7e90-46ac...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
There wasn't anything substantive to address.
news:6084b572-7e90-46ac...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 11:22:20 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 10:19 pm, "inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> I think you described
----------------------------------
Is it possible that you suffer from excessive inertia?
>
> I think you described
----------------------------------
Is it possible that you suffer from excessive inertia?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 1, 2012, 11:19:57 PM2/1/12
to rlold...@amherst.edu
On Feb 1, 10:20 pm, "inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
nada
---------------------------------------------------
Here is a better comment and a reply:
Anonymous:
>” It's only when the old theory cannot be tweaked to match the data
> anymore that alternatives are seriously considered. “
-----------------------------------------------------------
RLO:
Quite right, and amply backed up by centuries
of well-documented science history.
Thomas Kuhn discussed most of the relevant
issues involved in paradigms and paradigm
changes in his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.
The various conflicting motives and
justifications for questioning older ideas
or promoting new ideas are no secret given
human psychology and the primary influence
of the self-interests of all parties.
There are pro forma arguments for preserving
the older ideas which have served us well and
are the basis for the status of the overwhelming
majority of the scientific community, and for
resisting the threats to the status quo posed
by alternative ideas.
Here is a list some of the standard arguments.
(1) The older ideas have passed nearly all
empirical tests and the new ideas represent
a step backwards.
(2) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof". This reasoning is often applied very
selectively and with ever-moving goal posts
for the alternative ideas.
(3) The majority of scientists, and the leaders
of the community, favor the older ideas.
(4) The older ideas have much more empirical
support and the newer ideas will never match that.
(5) The new ideas conflict with the older ideas,
which are scientifically proven [except when
they are not].
(6) The new ideas would upset everything,
and no one wants that.
(7) The new ideas are foolish because they
conflict with any rationally based intuition.
They feel wrong.
The transition from Newtonian physics to the
relativistic paradigm involved all of these
arguments, and more.
New ideas must run a very tough gauntlet.
Since only a few new ideas actually represent
major advances, this is as it must be. However,
this sensible conservatism can be pushed too far,
and sometimes way too far.
RLO
nada
---------------------------------------------------
Here is a better comment and a reply:
Anonymous:
>” It's only when the old theory cannot be tweaked to match the data
> anymore that alternatives are seriously considered. “
-----------------------------------------------------------
RLO:
Quite right, and amply backed up by centuries
of well-documented science history.
Thomas Kuhn discussed most of the relevant
issues involved in paradigms and paradigm
changes in his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions.
The various conflicting motives and
justifications for questioning older ideas
or promoting new ideas are no secret given
human psychology and the primary influence
of the self-interests of all parties.
There are pro forma arguments for preserving
the older ideas which have served us well and
are the basis for the status of the overwhelming
majority of the scientific community, and for
resisting the threats to the status quo posed
by alternative ideas.
Here is a list some of the standard arguments.
(1) The older ideas have passed nearly all
empirical tests and the new ideas represent
a step backwards.
(2) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof". This reasoning is often applied very
selectively and with ever-moving goal posts
for the alternative ideas.
(3) The majority of scientists, and the leaders
of the community, favor the older ideas.
(4) The older ideas have much more empirical
support and the newer ideas will never match that.
(5) The new ideas conflict with the older ideas,
which are scientifically proven [except when
they are not].
(6) The new ideas would upset everything,
and no one wants that.
(7) The new ideas are foolish because they
conflict with any rationally based intuition.
They feel wrong.
The transition from Newtonian physics to the
relativistic paradigm involved all of these
arguments, and more.
New ideas must run a very tough gauntlet.
Since only a few new ideas actually represent
major advances, this is as it must be. However,
this sensible conservatism can be pushed too far,
and sometimes way too far.
RLO
inertial
Feb 1, 2012, 11:37:29 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:584ffba1-92ff-440b...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
STFU moron
[snip load of crap from moron ROL]
inertial
Feb 1, 2012, 11:38:05 PM2/1/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:bf39f825-18e4-4edb...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
Feb 2, 2012, 4:15:39 AM2/2/12
to
news:bf39f825-18e4-4edb...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
===================================
Yeah, his brain stopped altogether -- totally inert.
Yeah, his brain stopped altogether -- totally inert.
eric gisse
Feb 2, 2012, 6:56:51 AM2/2/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:9990c2a8-
cd76-4a20-985...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 1, 9:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong
thing
>> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the
one
>> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
>> would like.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
>
> My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
> that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
> its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
So, if we put your numerology and the standard model side by side, which
would have more failures of observation?
>
> Everything beyond the heuristic standard model is rubbish. If you
> like eating rubbish, be my guest.
>
>
But wasn't one of your points in the OP that the LHC has not found
anything that invalidates the standard model?
I'm still not sure how you turn that around into an attack on science,
but that was the complaint.
cd76-4a20-985...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 1, 9:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong
thing
>> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the
one
>> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
>> would like.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
>
> My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
> that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
> its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
would have more failures of observation?
>
> Everything beyond the heuristic standard model is rubbish. If you
> like eating rubbish, be my guest.
>
>
anything that invalidates the standard model?
I'm still not sure how you turn that around into an attack on science,
but that was the complaint.
eric gisse
Feb 2, 2012, 7:02:54 AM2/2/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:6084b572-
7e90-46ac-963...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
Other things RLO says when he doesn't know how to respond to an argument:
"Yes, this is how I want to respond to my critics. Why do you keep asking
if I like to make myself look like a braying jackass?"
"Yes, I want to be taken seriously. Why do you ask?"
"What do you mean I complained about repetitive behavior and then posted
the same thing twice?"
7e90-46ac-963...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
"Yes, this is how I want to respond to my critics. Why do you keep asking
if I like to make myself look like a braying jackass?"
"Yes, I want to be taken seriously. Why do you ask?"
"What do you mean I complained about repetitive behavior and then posted
the same thing twice?"
mpc755
Feb 2, 2012, 9:11:33 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 7:02 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:6084b572-
> 7e90-46ac-9632-329ec4381...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
If it wasn't the 'standard model' then discovering dark matter is not
clumped within dwarf galaxies and is distributed smoothly would have
caused any other theory to be considered a failure.
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:6084b572-
> 7e90-46ac-9632-329ec4381...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
clumped within dwarf galaxies and is distributed smoothly would have
caused any other theory to be considered a failure.
PD
Feb 2, 2012, 12:13:30 PM2/2/12
to
On 2/1/2012 9:03 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:54 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong thing
>> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
>> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
>> would like.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
>
> My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
> that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
> its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
What "old paradigm"? What you listed is a whole list of *different*
> On Feb 1, 9:54 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I gather your complaint is not that science is doing the wrong thing
>> in investigating a number of alternative theories, but only that the one
>> you've got particular interest in isn't receiving the attention you
>> would like.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Sigh, yet another unwarranted assumption involving pretzel logic.
>
> My original post concerns the near-religious faith in the old paradigm
> that is falling apart because the observations and testing contradict
> its guesses, assumptions and occasional pseudo-predictions.
models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
come in. You lump them all together as though they were all one single
thing, which they are not.
mpc755
Feb 2, 2012, 12:38:06 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What you listed is a whole list of *different*
> models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
> come in.
Exactly. Experimental results which directly refute an underlying
>
> What you listed is a whole list of *different*
> models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
> come in.
principle of a theory causes the theory to fail and be eliminated.
Oh right, I forgot. Unless, of course, it is the theory generally
accepted by mainstream physics. Then no matter how much evidence
refutes the theory the theory just morphs itself to support the
evidence which caused it to fail.
PD
Feb 2, 2012, 1:20:12 PM2/2/12
to
*additions* and *extensions* to the SM. If one or both of them are
falsified, this does not falsify the standard model. It just constrains
which *extension* to the standard model should be pursued.
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Feb 2, 2012, 1:56:08 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 1:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The standard model includes neither CDM or WDM. Both are proposed
> *additions* and *extensions* to the SM. If one or both of them are
> falsified, this does not falsify the standard model. It just constrains
> which *extension* to the standard model should be pursued.
>
You must have missed the following quote.
>
> The standard model includes neither CDM or WDM. Both are proposed
> *additions* and *extensions* to the SM. If one or both of them are
> falsified, this does not falsify the standard model. It just constrains
> which *extension* to the standard model should be pursued.
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
"But he believes he has found a solution to the CDM problem. He
proposes that instead of "cold" dark matter that formed within the
first one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe may
instead be filled with warm dark matter (WDM). The WDM would have
formed later, up to minutes after the Big Bang, and is described as
"warm" as the particles would be lighter and more energetic. When
simulations of galaxy formation are run with the later-forming WDM
instead of CDM, the halo of dwarf galaxies has the same structure as
we observe in reality. Simulation of supernovae in dwarf galaxy
formation (Carlos Frenk) Violent supernovae in early dwarf galaxy
formation could be at the heart of the discrepancy The WDM solution is
"remarkably elegant", Prof Frenk said, and it means that "the standard
model is by no means dead"."
Of course the standard model is by no means dead. Give the theory a
generic name like the standard model and when it is wrong change it.
It's disprovable. Whatever the most recent discoveries are which
disprove the standard model do not disprove anything because the model
simply changes to support the new discovery.
PD
Feb 2, 2012, 3:01:20 PM2/2/12
to
>> The standard model includes neither CDM or WDM. Both are proposed
>> *additions* and *extensions* to the SM. If one or both of them are
>> falsified, this does not falsify the standard model. It just constrains
>> which *extension* to the standard model should be pursued.
>>
>
>> *additions* and *extensions* to the SM. If one or both of them are
>> falsified, this does not falsify the standard model. It just constrains
>> which *extension* to the standard model should be pursued.
>>
>
> You must have missed the following quote.
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
>
> "An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
> and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
> and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
>
Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
>
> "An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
> and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
> and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
>
write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
gravel stones that they are.
Nice rock collection you have there.
mpc755
Feb 2, 2012, 3:18:28 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> gravel stones that they are.
>
Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
>
> Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> gravel stones that they are.
>
http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~csf/
"Professor Carlos S. Frenk is Director of the Institute for
Computational Cosmology, Durham University's world-renowned
theoretical cosmology research group. Along with collaborators from
all over the world, he builds model universes in state-of-the-art
supercomputers, trying to understand how the structures in our
Universe evolved from simple beginnings to the complex structures
composed of stars and galaxies that we see today."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"Leading cosmologist Carlos Frenk spoke of the "disturbing"
developments at the British Science Festival in Bradford."
"An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
"But he believes he has found a solution to the CDM problem. He
proposes that instead of "cold" dark matter that formed within the
first one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe may
instead be filled with warm dark matter (WDM). The WDM would have
formed later, up to minutes after the Big Bang, and is described as
"warm" as the particles would be lighter and more energetic. When
simulations of galaxy formation are run with the later-forming WDM
instead of CDM, the halo of dwarf galaxies has the same structure as
we observe in reality. Simulation of supernovae in dwarf galaxy
formation (Carlos Frenk) Violent supernovae in early dwarf galaxy
formation could be at the heart of the discrepancy The WDM solution is
"remarkably elegant", Prof Frenk said, and it means that "the standard
model is by no means dead"."
Of course the standard model is by no means dead. Give the theory a
generic name like the standard model and when it is wrong change it.
It's disprovable. Whatever the most recent discoveries are which
disprove the standard model do not disprove anything because the model
simply changes to support the new discovery.
proposes that instead of "cold" dark matter that formed within the
first one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe may
instead be filled with warm dark matter (WDM). The WDM would have
formed later, up to minutes after the Big Bang, and is described as
"warm" as the particles would be lighter and more energetic. When
simulations of galaxy formation are run with the later-forming WDM
instead of CDM, the halo of dwarf galaxies has the same structure as
we observe in reality. Simulation of supernovae in dwarf galaxy
formation (Carlos Frenk) Violent supernovae in early dwarf galaxy
formation could be at the heart of the discrepancy The WDM solution is
"remarkably elegant", Prof Frenk said, and it means that "the standard
model is by no means dead"."
Of course the standard model is by no means dead. Give the theory a
generic name like the standard model and when it is wrong change it.
It's disprovable. Whatever the most recent discoveries are which
disprove the standard model do not disprove anything because the model
simply changes to support the new discovery.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 2, 2012, 6:19:03 PM2/2/12
to
> What "old paradigm"? What you listed is a whole list of *different*
> models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
> come in. You lump them all together as though they were all one single
> thing, which they are not.
----------------------------------------------------
> models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
> come in. You lump them all together as though they were all one single
> thing, which they are not.
If you go to:
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/1236795/Towards_A_New_Paradigm
you will find a reasonably brief paper that identifies and discusses
the different fundamental principles and assumptions of the old
paradigm and a new fractal paradigm.
The comparison includes a Table that summarizes the differences.
A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
Thomas Heger
Feb 3, 2012, 12:45:50 AM2/3/12
to
Am 01.02.2012 17:16, schrieb Robert L. Oldershaw:
> On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj<wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
>> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide quoted text -
> On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj<wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear waldofj and dlzc,
>
> Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
> true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
> nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
> The game just goes on seemingly forever.
>
>
> Dear waldofj and dlzc,
>
> Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
> true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
> nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
> The game just goes on seemingly forever.
>
> The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
> rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
> but then blithely ignoring them.
>
> The majority are fully into the "often wrong, never in doubt" mode.
> rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
> but then blithely ignoring them.
>
My 'working assumption' is, that theoretical physics is kind of a big
fat hoax, where one part is just stupid enough to believe and one part
in actively complicit in creating a monster of flaws.
It's not just little errors, but a real sick scheme, where many must
have taken part and know how to distinguish right from wrong.
A great deal of others just follow the usual trails and believe, what is
told.
The characteristics of sickness are the 'denial schemes'. There is
evidence for mistakes and the authorities endless nod 'no, no, no!'
The access to scientific media is blocked and what has actually passed,
that is strictly censored to support the current believes.
If critics show up and present something new, than the choir chants 'no,
no, NO! no, no, NO!'.
There are also clowns and puppets all over the place, apparently paid to
spread nonsense or disrupt discussions.
But still a few dissidents withstand, mainly because they are too bored
or don't know what else to do with their ideas. Some are too ignorant
about the mechanics of academia and some try to destroy that scheme.
It just doesn't work. The castle in the sky still stands.
So, in the end people had to make up their own mind. I would guess, that
new devices would convince people more, than certain discussions about
theoretical concepts.
TH
Androcles
Feb 3, 2012, 4:50:36 AM2/3/12
to
"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
news:9p1akl...@mid.individual.net...
| Am 01.02.2012 17:16, schrieb Robert L. Oldershaw:
| > On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj<wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
| >
| >> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
| >> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide
quoted text -
| > ---------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > Dear waldofj and dlzc,
| >
| > Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
| > true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
| > nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
| > The game just goes on seemingly forever.
| >
| > The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
| > rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
| > but then blithely ignoring them.
| >
| > The majority are fully into the "often wrong, never in doubt" mode.
|
| My 'working assumption' is,
Heger is a shithead.
| > On Jan 31, 11:07 pm, waldofj<wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
| >
| >> over from scratch. But, keep in mind the machine is not even up to
| >> full power yet. That's at least a year from now, so be patient.- Hide
quoted text -
| > ---------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > Dear waldofj and dlzc,
| >
| > Yes, but that is what string dreamers, SUSY hype specialists, WIMP
| > true believers, etc have been saying for 3-4 decades. "Be patient,
| > nirvana is just around the next upgrade". Except that it never is.
| > The game just goes on seemingly forever.
| >
| > The theoretical physics community also sweeps major flaws under the
| > rug where they are not seen directly, acknowledging problematic lumps
| > but then blithely ignoring them.
| >
| > The majority are fully into the "often wrong, never in doubt" mode.
|
| My 'working assumption' is,
mpc755
Feb 3, 2012, 10:16:40 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 4:50 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
Q. What waves in a double slit experiment?
A. The aether.
>
> [snip]
>
Q. What waves in a double slit experiment?
A. The aether.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 3, 2012, 5:34:04 PM2/3/12
to
detect.
mpc755
Feb 3, 2012, 7:33:51 PM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
holog
Feb 3, 2012, 7:44:32 PM2/3/12
to
> > You could call that the sin aether wave of energy or mass that we
> > detect.
>
> Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
holog
mpc755
Feb 3, 2012, 7:49:02 PM2/3/12
to
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 3, 2012, 11:11:10 PM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 7:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 4:50 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > Q. What waves in a double slit experiment?
>
> > > A. The aether.
>
> > You could call that the sin aether wave of energy or mass that we
> > detect.
>
> Aether has mass.
There is still aether for points of energy in the flow of time.
> On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 7:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 3, 4:50 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
>
> > > Q. What waves in a double slit experiment?
>
> > > A. The aether.
>
> > You could call that the sin aether wave of energy or mass that we
> > detect.
>
> Aether has mass.
mpc755
Feb 3, 2012, 11:12:39 PM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 11:11 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
wrote:
>
> [snip]
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Thomas Heger
Feb 4, 2012, 4:35:35 AM2/4/12
to
theoretical physics is the 'corner stone' of science. And that is 'stolen'.
The foundation of modern science is basically fraud on the expense of
the general public and this is maintained by power and violence.
It had started so long ago, that we can't see it, but the fraud is so
deep entrenched and those will not give up their bastions, because you
demand that.
I personally think, that e.g. quaternions were a good thing to use and
they were used, but replaced, seemingly to better the results of
Maxwell. Instead his work got crippled to being almost useless.
Significant inventions were swept under the rug and even the inventors
got silenced.
The discussions are never carried out in an objective way, but under the
restriction, that there is profit in maintaining them (for the own side).
Than we have tons and tons of useless crap, that seems to be
intentionally rewarded, to spoil the environment even more. And we have
apparently 'disinformation agents' that bark and shout at everyone, that
is not complicit in their agenda.
The academical education is actually brainwashing under economic force.
Since this system is doomed to fail, it is useful to replace it with
better ideas. This will not find applause from the 'military industrial
complex', but it will find acceptance from the other sciences. These
other sciences are actually those, that pay the price for wrong
theories, since they depend on plausible and valid understanding of nature.
We have engineering, medicine, geology, metallurgy, chemistry,
electronics and so forth, that could be enhanced with better ideas from
physics. If these models are a better match to what we find in nature,
our use of such phenomena would be greatly enhanced.
TH
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 10:34:11 AM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 4:35 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>
> We have engineering, medicine, geology, metallurgy, chemistry,
> electronics and so forth, that could be enhanced with better ideas from
> physics. If these models are a better match to what we find in nature,
> our use of such phenomena would be greatly enhanced.
>
> TH
The better ides is understanding aether has mass, aether physically
>
> We have engineering, medicine, geology, metallurgy, chemistry,
> electronics and so forth, that could be enhanced with better ideas from
> physics. If these models are a better match to what we find in nature,
> our use of such phenomena would be greatly enhanced.
>
> TH
occupies three dimensional space, aether is physically displaced by
matter and aether is not at rest when displaced.
With this simple and correct understanding of the physics of nature
are simple and correct understandings of gravity and what occurs
physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is
the state of displacement of the aether.
This coincides with de Broglie's understanding of the aether.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
The hidden medium is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state
of displacement of the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
'We' are not going to make any progress against the mainstream
nonsense until 'we' agree on some basics as to what occurs physically
in nature to cause gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit
experiment.
Aether displacement is the most correct theory to date.
holog
Feb 4, 2012, 11:08:03 AM2/4/12
to
the lhc collides protons y or n?
what if the higgs bozon is a part of the neutron , then what?
holog
what if the higgs bozon is a part of the neutron , then what?
holog
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 12:44:38 PM2/4/12
to
"The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle that is
predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. The
Higgs field is a hypothetical, ubiquitous quantum field that has a non-
zero value in its ground state. This non-zero value explains why
fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The
Higgs boson is an elementary excitation of the Higgs field above its
ground state."
The Higgs field is just another label for the aether.
The Higgs boson represents aether condensing into matter.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether
has mass.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
PD
Feb 4, 2012, 2:53:30 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 2, 5:19 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
MANY DIFFERENT models together into one "old paradigm".
Moreover, the characteristics of what you tabulate do not apply to
most of the models you have inappropriately lumped together.
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What "old paradigm"? What you listed is a whole list of *different*
> > models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
> > come in. You lump them all together as though they were all one single
> > thing, which they are not.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> If you go to:
>
> http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers/1236795/Towar...
>
> > What "old paradigm"? What you listed is a whole list of *different*
> > models, which are being tested and eliminated as experimental results
> > come in. You lump them all together as though they were all one single
> > thing, which they are not.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> If you go to:
>
>
> you will find a reasonably brief paper that identifies and discusses
> the different fundamental principles and assumptions of the old
> paradigm and a new fractal paradigm.
>
> The comparison includes a Table that summarizes the differences.
And once again, I will point out to you that you are lumping together
> you will find a reasonably brief paper that identifies and discusses
> the different fundamental principles and assumptions of the old
> paradigm and a new fractal paradigm.
>
> The comparison includes a Table that summarizes the differences.
MANY DIFFERENT models together into one "old paradigm".
Moreover, the characteristics of what you tabulate do not apply to
most of the models you have inappropriately lumped together.
PD
Feb 4, 2012, 2:56:42 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 2, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> > write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> > to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> > public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> > nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> > gravel stones that they are.
>
> Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
No, Leila Battison is a non-expert. She is the author of the article
> On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> > write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> > to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> > public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> > nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> > gravel stones that they are.
>
> Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
you quote. Please note the differences between the things that Leila
Battison says and the things that Carlos Frenk actually is quoted as
saying in the article.
This is the risk you face when you choose your reading materials less
than carefully
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 3:05:29 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 3, 8:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 11:11 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [snip]
>
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> Aether has mass.
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
> EINSTEINhttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
> On Feb 3, 11:11 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [snip]
>
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
>
> Aether has mass.
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
> longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
> as aether.
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
> matter is energy.
>
> Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
>
> When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
> evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
Where there is matter or light there is aether flowing inside...
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
> longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
> as aether.
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
> matter is energy.
>
> Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
>
> When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
> evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 3:42:20 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 3:05 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>
> Where there is matter or light there is aether flowing inside...
Where there is matter there is aether displaced by the matter.
> Where there is matter or light there is aether flowing inside...
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 3:41:04 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> > > write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> > > to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> > > public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> > > nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> > > gravel stones that they are.
>
> > Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
>
> No, Leila Battison is a non-expert. She is the author of the article
> you quote. Please note the differences between the things that Leila
> Battison says and the things that Carlos Frenk actually is quoted as
> saying in the article.
>
> This is the risk you face when you choose your reading materials less
> than carefully
>
Frenk is quoted as saying he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
> On Feb 2, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> > > write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> > > to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> > > public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> > > nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> > > gravel stones that they are.
>
> > Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
>
> No, Leila Battison is a non-expert. She is the author of the article
> you quote. Please note the differences between the things that Leila
> Battison says and the things that Carlos Frenk actually is quoted as
> saying in the article.
>
> This is the risk you face when you choose your reading materials less
> than carefully
>
simulations. Frenk spoke of the "disturbing" developments at the
British Science Festival in Bradford.
There was a problem with the existing standard model where dark matter
was CDM and clumped in the center of dwarf galaxies. The experimental
evidence to date shows the aether in the center of dwarf galaxies to
be smoothly distributed. Prof. Frenk believes he has figure out an
alternative explanation to the CDM problem. The standard model
consisted of CDM which has been shown to be incorrect. Now, there is
the new explanation of WDM.
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
universe itself than what exists in the centers of dwarf galaxies?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"Leading cosmologist Carlos Frenk spoke of the "disturbing"
developments at the British Science Festival in Bradford."
"An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
"But he believes he has found a solution to the CDM problem. He
proposes that instead of "cold" dark matter that formed within the
first one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe may
instead be filled with warm dark matter (WDM). The WDM would have
formed later, up to minutes after the Big Bang, and is described as
"warm" as the particles would be lighter and more energetic. When
simulations of galaxy formation are run with the later-forming WDM
instead of CDM, the halo of dwarf galaxies has the same structure as
we observe in reality. Simulation of supernovae in dwarf galaxy
formation (Carlos Frenk) Violent supernovae in early dwarf galaxy
formation could be at the heart of the discrepancy The WDM solution is
"remarkably elegant", Prof Frenk said, and it means that "the standard
model is by no means dead"."
Of course the standard model is by no means dead. Give the theory a
PD
Feb 4, 2012, 3:56:15 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 2:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> > > > write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> > > > to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> > > > public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> > > > nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> > > > gravel stones that they are.
>
> > > Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
>
> > No, Leila Battison is a non-expert. She is the author of the article
> > you quote. Please note the differences between the things that Leila
> > Battison says and the things that Carlos Frenk actually is quoted as
> > saying in the article.
>
> > This is the risk you face when you choose your reading materials less
> > than carefully
>
> Frenk is quoted as saying he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
> simulations. Frenk spoke of the "disturbing" developments at the
> British Science Festival in Bradford.
Yes, that's right. That's what he is quoted as saying.
> On Feb 4, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 2:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 3:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, you're fond of quoting journalists and nonexperts attempting to
> > > > write about science. You also sometimes quote scientists who are trying
> > > > to say things loosely so as to capture the interest of the untrained
> > > > public. And when they say things unclearly or inaccurately, you
> > > > nevertheless pile them away as being valuable gems rather than the dull
> > > > gravel stones that they are.
>
> > > Carlos Frenk is a non-expert?
>
> > No, Leila Battison is a non-expert. She is the author of the article
> > you quote. Please note the differences between the things that Leila
> > Battison says and the things that Carlos Frenk actually is quoted as
> > saying in the article.
>
> > This is the risk you face when you choose your reading materials less
> > than carefully
>
> Frenk is quoted as saying he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
> simulations. Frenk spoke of the "disturbing" developments at the
> British Science Festival in Bradford.
Now only a loon would take those snippets and extrapolate to where
you've taken this to mean that CDM and WDM are part of the Standard
Model and that a failure of either represents a failure of the
standard model. Only a loon sees whatever fantasy world he wants to
see and is willing to claim support from teeny little snippets like
that.
Oh, that's right. You're a loon. Never mind.
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 4:49:23 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's right. That's what he is quoted as saying.
>
> Now only a loon would take those snippets and extrapolate to where
> you've taken this to mean that CDM and WDM are part of the Standard
> Model and that a failure of either represents a failure of the
> standard model. Only a loon sees whatever fantasy world he wants to
> see and is willing to claim support from teeny little snippets like
> that.
>
> Oh, that's right. You're a loon. Never mind.
The chronology of events is the following.
>
> Yes, that's right. That's what he is quoted as saying.
>
> Now only a loon would take those snippets and extrapolate to where
> you've taken this to mean that CDM and WDM are part of the Standard
> Model and that a failure of either represents a failure of the
> standard model. Only a loon sees whatever fantasy world he wants to
> see and is willing to claim support from teeny little snippets like
> that.
>
> Oh, that's right. You're a loon. Never mind.
- Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
- The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
center of dwarf galaxies.
- The experimental evidence is dark matter is not clumped in the
center of dwarf galaxies.
- This caused Prof Frenk to postulate that cold dark matter did not
form within the first one millionth of second after the big bang and
it is warm dark matter which was created up to minutes after the big
bang which fills the universe.
- Prof Frenk is quoted as saying "the standard model is by no means
dead".
Of course the standard model is by no means dead. You can't kill a
theory which simply changes when experimental evidence shows it to be
incorrect.
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
universe itself than what exists in the centers of dwarf galaxies?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
developments at the British Science Festival in Bradford."
"An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
simulations."
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 4:54:31 PM2/4/12
to
everything. Such is every point of space that is filled.
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 5:35:06 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 4:54 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I didn't say anything about three dimensional space.
Where there is matter there is aether connected to and neighbouring
the matter which has been displaced by the matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
wrote:
Where there is matter there is aether connected to and neighbouring
the matter which has been displaced by the matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
eric gisse
Feb 4, 2012, 5:47:33 PM2/4/12
to
Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote in
news:9p4cff...@mid.individual.net:
[...]
> The academical education is actually brainwashing under economic
> force.
[...]
PD
Feb 4, 2012, 5:29:43 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 3:49 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, that's right. That's what he is quoted as saying.
>
> > Now only a loon would take those snippets and extrapolate to where
> > you've taken this to mean that CDM and WDM are part of the Standard
> > Model and that a failure of either represents a failure of the
> > standard model. Only a loon sees whatever fantasy world he wants to
> > see and is willing to claim support from teeny little snippets like
> > that.
>
> > Oh, that's right. You're a loon. Never mind.
>
> The chronology of events is the following.
>
> - Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
> - The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
> center of dwarf galaxies.
Cold dark matter is not a part of the standard model. Cold dark matter
> On Feb 4, 3:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, that's right. That's what he is quoted as saying.
>
> > Now only a loon would take those snippets and extrapolate to where
> > you've taken this to mean that CDM and WDM are part of the Standard
> > Model and that a failure of either represents a failure of the
> > standard model. Only a loon sees whatever fantasy world he wants to
> > see and is willing to claim support from teeny little snippets like
> > that.
>
> > Oh, that's right. You're a loon. Never mind.
>
> The chronology of events is the following.
>
> - Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
> - The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
> center of dwarf galaxies.
is an *extension* of the standard model.
I believe I already said that. You apparently took the fact that he
"lost sleep" to mean that cold dark matter is a part of the standard
model, or you interpreted what a non-expert journalist had to say on
the matter to conclude that.
You're a loon.
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 6:12:47 PM2/4/12
to
Space does not move.
Frames are places of their own and cannot move space.
Mitchell Raemsch
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 6:36:49 PM2/4/12
to
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 6:35:13 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 5:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The chronology of events is the following.
>
> > - Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
> > - The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
> > center of dwarf galaxies.
>
> Cold dark matter is not a part of the standard model. Cold dark matter
> is an *extension* of the standard model.
> I believe I already said that. You apparently took the fact that he
> "lost sleep" to mean that cold dark matter is a part of the standard
> model, or you interpreted what a non-expert journalist had to say on
> the matter to conclude that.
>
> You're a loon.
>
> > The chronology of events is the following.
>
> > - Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
> > - The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
> > center of dwarf galaxies.
>
> Cold dark matter is not a part of the standard model. Cold dark matter
> is an *extension* of the standard model.
> I believe I already said that. You apparently took the fact that he
> "lost sleep" to mean that cold dark matter is a part of the standard
> model, or you interpreted what a non-expert journalist had to say on
> the matter to conclude that.
>
> You're a loon.
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
Prof Frenk worked for 35 years on the predictions of the standard
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
Prof Frenk lost sleep and found the evidence aether is distributed
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
So, Prof Frenk does what every mainstream physicists does today when
what they have been working with for 35 years fails. They change their
model.
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
universe itself than what exists in the centers of dwarf galaxies?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"Leading cosmologist Carlos Frenk spoke of the "disturbing"
developments at the British Science Festival in Bradford."
"An alternative cause for the discrepancies between the modelled data
and what we observe is much more fundamental: that CDM does not exist,
and the predictions of the standard model relating to it are false."
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 7:31:21 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 3:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dis-place?
> > Space does not move.
> > Frames are places of their own and cannot move space.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> I didn't say anything about three dimensional space.
There is no 3 dimensional space without an aether...
> On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dis-place?
> > Space does not move.
> > Frames are places of their own and cannot move space.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> I didn't say anything about three dimensional space.
Everything that takes up space; or the unified field that is in it; is
also floating in its own aether. I refer to light and atom.
I see you would like to argue for your own ego.
Let's argue truth?
Mitchell Raemsch
holog
Feb 4, 2012, 8:56:48 PM2/4/12
to
> Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
> Aether is physically displaced by matter.
holog
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 7:43:14 PM2/4/12
to
On Feb 4, 7:31 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
has mass.
Aether exists where particles of matter do not.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure
toward the matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.
wrote:
> On Feb 4, 3:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Dis-place?
> > > Space does not move.
> > > Frames are places of their own and cannot move space.
>
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> > I didn't say anything about three dimensional space.
>
> There is no 3 dimensional space without an aether...
> Everything that takes up space; or the unified field that is in it; is
> also floating in its own aether. I refer to light and atom.
>
> I see you would like to argue for your own ego.
> Let's argue truth?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>
Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether
>
> > On Feb 4, 6:12 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Dis-place?
> > > Space does not move.
> > > Frames are places of their own and cannot move space.
>
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> > I didn't say anything about three dimensional space.
>
> There is no 3 dimensional space without an aether...
> Everything that takes up space; or the unified field that is in it; is
> also floating in its own aether. I refer to light and atom.
>
> I see you would like to argue for your own ego.
> Let's argue truth?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>
has mass.
Aether exists where particles of matter do not.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure
toward the matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.
holog
Feb 4, 2012, 9:03:46 PM2/4/12
to
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
holog
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 9:49:57 PM2/4/12
to
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 9:52:00 PM2/4/12
to
Material is that which has mass.
Aether and matter have mass.
Matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.
Thomas Heger
Feb 4, 2012, 9:54:06 PM2/4/12
to
TH
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 10:05:24 PM2/4/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am glad that you can't argue with the truth.
holog
Feb 4, 2012, 10:12:05 PM2/4/12
to
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
> matter is energy.
>
holog
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 10:32:41 PM2/4/12
to
holog
Feb 4, 2012, 10:37:25 PM2/4/12
to
>
> Energy is the lower concept not to be confused with aether math.
holog
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 10:35:28 PM2/4/12
to
holog
Feb 4, 2012, 11:00:01 PM2/4/12
to
> > > matter is energy.
>
> > what form of energy is this?
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
i presume you mean electromagnetic energy, if not what?
holog
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 4, 2012, 11:17:55 PM2/4/12
to
The electron bonds to the atom by electric energy.
For the dual forces of light there is electric energy
but no energy from the aether magnetic.
The electric energy from its wave shares magnetism
but magnetic force of itself is pure aether and is
energyless.
mpc755
Feb 4, 2012, 11:18:33 PM2/4/12
to
When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The mass
which is associated with the matter changes state as it evaporates
PD
Feb 5, 2012, 12:47:08 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 4, 5:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The chronology of events is the following.
>
> > > - Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
> > > - The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
> > > center of dwarf galaxies.
>
> > Cold dark matter is not a part of the standard model. Cold dark matter
> > is an *extension* of the standard model.
> > I believe I already said that. You apparently took the fact that he
> > "lost sleep" to mean that cold dark matter is a part of the standard
> > model, or you interpreted what a non-expert journalist had to say on
> > the matter to conclude that.
>
> > You're a loon.
>
> "Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
> of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
> simulations."
That's the part that's written by a nonexpert journalist. You just
> On Feb 4, 5:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The chronology of events is the following.
>
> > > - Prof Frenk has been working with the standard model for 35 years.
> > > - The standard model predicts cold dark matter is clumped in the
> > > center of dwarf galaxies.
>
> > Cold dark matter is not a part of the standard model. Cold dark matter
> > is an *extension* of the standard model.
> > I believe I already said that. You apparently took the fact that he
> > "lost sleep" to mean that cold dark matter is a part of the standard
> > model, or you interpreted what a non-expert journalist had to say on
> > the matter to conclude that.
>
> > You're a loon.
>
> "Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
> of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
> simulations."
don't get it, do you?
Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
the Standard Model if you wish.
Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
who get things muddied up.
Androcles
Feb 5, 2012, 1:23:13 AM2/5/12
to
"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
news:9p69ak...@mid.individual.net...
Not mathematics, that's for sure.
Still, Gisse got himself booted out of college, I'll grant you are
a lot smarter than he is.
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Feb 5, 2012, 10:30:29 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 12:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's the part that's written by a nonexpert journalist. You just
> don't get it, do you?
> Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
> the Standard Model if you wish.
> Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
> who get things muddied up.
>
'The haloes of bright satellite galaxies in a warm dark matter
>
> That's the part that's written by a nonexpert journalist. You just
> don't get it, do you?
> Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
> the Standard Model if you wish.
> Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
> who get things muddied up.
>
universe'
Mark R. Lovell1⋆, Vincent Eke1, Carlos S. Frenk1, Liang Gao2,1, Adrian
Jenkins1, Tom Theuns1,3, Jie Wang1, Simon D. M. White4, Alexey
Boyarsky5,6, and Oleg Ruchayskiy7
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.2929v2.pdf
"Measurements of temperature anisotropies in the microwave background
radiation (e.g. Komatsu et al. 2011), of galaxy clustering on large
scales (e.g. Cole et al. 2005), and of the currently accelerated
expansion of the Universe (e.g Clocchiatti et al. 2006; Guy et al.
2010) have confirmed the “Lambda cold dark matter” (CDM) model, first
explored theoretically 25 years ago (Davis et al. 1985), as the
standard model of cosmogony."
"High resolution N-body simulations of galactic cold dark matter
haloes indicate that we should expect to find a few satellite galaxies
around the Milky Way whose haloes have a maximum circular velocity in
excess of 40 kms−1. Yet, with the exception of the Magellanic Clouds
and the Sagittarius dwarf, which likely reside in subhaloes with
significantly larger velocities than this, the bright satellites of
the Milky Way all appear to reside in subhaloes with maximum circular
velocities below 40 kms−1. As recently highlighted by Boylan-Kolchin
et al., this discrepancy implies that the majority of the most massive
subhaloes within a cold dark matter galactic halo are too concentrated
to be consistent with the kinematic data for the bright Milky Way
satellites. Here we show that no such discrepancy exists if haloes are
made of warm, rather than cold dark matter because these haloes are
less concentrated on account of their typically later formation
epochs. Warm dark matter is one of several possible explanations for
the observed kinematics of the satellites."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
Prof Frenk worked for 35 years on the predictions of the standard
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
Prof Frenk lost sleep and found the evidence aether is distributed
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
Prof Frenk does what every mainstream physicist does today when the
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
model they have been working with for 35 years fails, they change
their model.
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
universe itself than what exists in the centers of dwarf galaxies?
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
mpc755
Feb 6, 2012, 4:27:16 PM2/6/12
to
> That's the part that's written by a nonexpert journalist. You just
> don't get it, do you?
> Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
> the Standard Model if you wish.
> Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
> who get things muddied up.
>
'The standard model of cosmogony'
> don't get it, do you?
> Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
> the Standard Model if you wish.
> Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
> who get things muddied up.
>
Speaker: Prof. Carlos S. Frenk, Director of the Institute for
Computational Cosmology, Durham University, England
http://www.h-its.org/english/events/colloquia.php?we_objectID=776
"The standard model of cosmology, "Lambda cold dark matter,'' or LCDM,
has been remarkably successful in accounting for a large body of
observational data, spanning a wide range of physical and temporal
scales. Yet, the model is based on a number of fundamental assumptions
for which there is no direct evidence, for example, that the dark
matter is made up of some form of cold collisionless elementary
particle. I will first review the current state of the LCDM model and
the data that have earned it the status of "standard model of
cosmogony.'' I will then discuss ways in which its fundamental
assumptions can be tested, focusing on the nature of the dark matter.
I will show how we can learn about this from studies of our own galaxy
and assess the prospects for detecting cold dark matter in the Milky
Way."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
Prof Frenk worked for 35 years on the predictions of the standard
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
Prof Frenk lost sleep and found the evidence aether is distributed
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
Prof Frenk does what every mainstream physicist does today when the
model they have been working with for 35 years fails, they change
their model.
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
universe itself than what exists in the centers of dwarf galaxies?
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
eric gisse
Feb 7, 2012, 11:10:24 AM2/7/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:fcee667c-6e09-4c3c...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
> gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
> This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
> paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
> organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
Too bad it has failed every observational test.
news:fcee667c-6e09-4c3c...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
> gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
> This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
> paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
> organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
Too bad it has failed every observational test.
mpc755
Feb 7, 2012, 1:24:09 PM2/7/12
to
> That's the part that's written by a nonexpert journalist. You just
> don't get it, do you?
> Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
> the Standard Model if you wish.
> Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
> who get things muddied up.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
> don't get it, do you?
> Cold dark matter is not part of the Standard Model. You can look up
> the Standard Model if you wish.
> Or you can read half-assed articles written by nonexpert journalists,
> who get things muddied up.
>
"ΛCDM or Lambda-CDM is an abbreviation for Lambda-Cold Dark Matter,
which is also known as the cold dark matter model with dark energy. It
is frequently referred to as the standard model of big bang cosmology"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
"Prof Frenk said that after working for 35 years with the predictions
of the standard model, he is "losing sleep" over the results of the
simulations."
Prof Frenk worked for 35 years on the predictions of the standard
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
model, including those which predicted dark matter clumped in the
centers of dwarf galaxies.
Prof Frenk lost sleep and found the evidence aether is distributed
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
smoothly throughout the dwarf galaxies disturbing because the
experimental evidence is not what was predicted by the standard model.
Prof Frenk does what every mainstream physicist does today when the
model they have been working with for 35 years fails, they change
their model.
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
universe itself than what exists in the centers of dwarf galaxies?
Have you figured out yet that CDM which formed within the first one
millionth of a second after the big bang which fills the universe
changing to WDM which formed up to minutes later says more about the
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 3:23:13 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 8:10 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
That doesn't mean the idea isn't wrong though.
Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote innews:fcee667c-6e09-4c3c...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
> [...]
>
> > A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
> > gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
> > This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
> > paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
> > organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
>
> Too bad it has failed every observational test.
Our tests are rediculously inefficient...
>
> [...]
>
> > A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
> > gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
> > This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
> > paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
> > organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
>
> Too bad it has failed every observational test.
That doesn't mean the idea isn't wrong though.
Mitchell Raemsch; the dual prize
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 7, 2012, 9:31:27 PM2/7/12
to rlold...@amherst.edu
On Feb 7, 11:10 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
> > gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
> > This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
> > paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
> > organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
>
> Too bad it has failed every observational test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
> > gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
> > This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the new
> > paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand the
> > organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
>
> Too bad it has failed every observational test.
The new fractal paradigm:
1. Predicted pulsar-planets several years before they were discovered.
2. Predicted a vast population of unbound planetary-mass objects
throughout the Galaxy decades before there was solid evidence for them
[Sumi et al, Nature, May 2011].
I point this out in the interest of accuracy, knowing full well that
it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
eric gisse
Feb 7, 2012, 9:57:32 PM2/7/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:35322a44-640c-4a60...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 7, 11:10 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A key difference is that the new fractal paradigm proposes that the
>> > gravitational interaction scales in a discrete self-similar manner.
>> > This has never been adequately considered before the advent of the
>> > new paradigm. It offers a profoundly different way to understand
>> > the organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
>>
>> Too bad it has failed every observational test.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> The new fractal paradigm:
>
> 1. Predicted pulsar-planets several years before they were discovered.
>
> 2. Predicted a vast population of unbound planetary-mass objects
> throughout the Galaxy decades before there was solid evidence for them
> [Sumi et al, Nature, May 2011].
both know that the Sumi discovery while important is not only
extrapolated across the entire galaxy from a small sample size but also
that the population hardly scratches the mass required to fill the dark
matter mass budget.
We also know there's a large volume of microlensing surveys that you have
no technical argument against which conclusively disprove your
numerology.
Additionally, you have predicted none of the quantitative details of the
discovered putative population. You just take the population and start
shouting 'SEE? SEE!!!' without actually doing any of the legwork.
If you were capable of doing the legwork, you wouldn't be tilting at
windmills on USENET.
>
> I point this out in the interest of accuracy, knowing full well that
> it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.
How quickly you forget how all the definitive predictions in your 1987
paper were shown to be false...
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
>
Larry
Feb 13, 2012, 1:20:08 PM2/13/12
to
In article <06ec4754-d2cc-4666-b836-f88b27beed32
@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
> The Higgs field is just another label for the aether.
>
> The Higgs boson represents aether condensing into matter.
> http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
associate it with the "lumeniferous ether" that was a failed hypothesis in
the 19th century. The more common term in use today is "space-time." If you
just stated clearly that mass is a property of space-time, you wouldn't get
much argument. Everybody accepts that. The question is: How?
@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
> The Higgs field is just another label for the aether.
>
> The Higgs boson represents aether condensing into matter.
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether
> has mass.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Aether
> has mass.
>
> http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
> EINSTEIN
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
> longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
> as aether.
>
> Matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
> EINSTEIN
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
> longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
> as aether.
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
> matter is energy.
>
> As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
> The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
>
> When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
> When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
> evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
>
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
You would do better to abandon the term "aether." People automatically
associate it with the "lumeniferous ether" that was a failed hypothesis in
the 19th century. The more common term in use today is "space-time." If you
just stated clearly that mass is a property of space-time, you wouldn't get
much argument. Everybody accepts that. The question is: How?
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Feb 13, 2012, 1:36:40 PM2/13/12
to
refutes an aether which is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with
properties of a solid; the state of which neighboring and connected to
the Earth is its state of displacement.
'Missing dark matter located - Inter-galactic space is filled with
dark matter'
http://www.ipmu.jp/node/1222
"Galaxies have no definite "edges", the new research concludes.
Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to
their nearby galaxies; the inter-galactic space is not empty but
filled with dark matter."
It's called aether and it has mass.
Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional
space, devoid of mass.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
holog
Feb 13, 2012, 8:39:55 PM2/13/12
to
> When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
> evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
>
> A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
holog
mpc755
Feb 13, 2012, 11:07:53 PM2/13/12
to
how the evaporation is energy, and how mass is conserved.
0 new messages