Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:57:38 -0800

David Thomson wrote:
>
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cqnen1$t5$4@titan.btinternet.com...
> >> > Actually we call them Green's functions. As I said, it's a
> >> > perturbative
> >> > expansion of the fully interacting quantum field theory. They don't
> >> > appear in non-perturbative treatments. Virtual particles are an
> >> > interpretation. What's the objection to that?
> >>
> >> My theory is far more discrete. I show how dark matter can be absorbed
> >> into
> >> the Aether via the strong force law, which is a correction of the Casimir
> >> equation.
> > The point you seem to
> > be answering is not about dark matter, but about virtual particles and
> > Green's functions.
> > Have you heard about the latter?
>
> I've heard of Green's functions. They are a purely mathematical calculus
> intuitively applied to real world observations.

Idiot. Green's function is an exact explicit statement of the far
field value of a set of summed delta sources. "Intuitive" is
bull***.

> I'm talking about discrete equations which are dimensional from beginning to
> end and represent specific laws of physics.

Zero information content. Dimensionless constants are much more
valuable for not being background-dependent. Not only are you wrong,
you are exactly 180-degree wrong.

> And I'm also saying that dark
> matter is directly related to the production of what you call "virtual
> particles."

Bull***. Virtual interactions are predicted and consonantely
measured: Casmir effect, Lamb shift, electron anomalous g-value,
vacuum Rabi oscillations...

> I'm also saying that if you investigate the structure of the
> Aether,

Bull***.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
 No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
Michelson-Morley experiments
Kennedy-Thorndike experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiments
Hughes-Drever experiments
 No Lorentz violation

Hey stooopid - do you know what Lorentz invariance is?

> you will devise your measuring equipment and data output such that
> Fourier and Gabor transforms are completely unnecessary. Because of the
> modern view of physics, the subatomic realm, which is five dimensional, is
> measured in four dimensional perspective. The reason Fourier and Gabor
> transforms and Green's functions work is because the data is screwed up to
> begin with. These functions merely reverse the error of the data, or finish
> the correct interpretation of the data.

The Standard Model is accurate to 14 decimal places, jackass, theory
vs. measurement. General Relativity is accurate to the extreme limits
of observational uncertainty, without exception in all cases,

<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
 Experimental constraints on General Relativity

<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
 Relativity in the GPS system

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
 Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

[snip further crap]

You have nothing. You are irremediably stooopid at face value and
psychotic in your delusions persistent against observed reality. 

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Quantcast