Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 01/11/05
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Previous message: pierre.c: "Re: Single photon double slit expe interpretation"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: Ranando King: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:05:54 +0100
David Thomson wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:crtu22$33n$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>David Thomson wrote:
>>
>>>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
>>>news:cre1m1$fu1$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>David Thomson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course Newtonian gravitation did not predict the time difference.
>>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>>because it has nothing to do with gravity. It is due to the folding
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>Aether via the strong force binding of subatomic particles.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know this? Can this explanation provide the right
>>>>predictions for the results of the experiment?
>>>
>>>I have developed a perfected equation for the binding of an electron and
>>>proton to make a neutron.
>>
>>Err, how do you explain that all three particles have spin
>>1/2? How do you explain the measured charge density of the
>>neutron? How do you explain Bjorken scaling?
>
>
> Do you see a pattern here? I answer your questions, you ask more questions.
Yes. Hint: the reason for that is that you keep claiming that
your model can replace the Standard Model.
> It never stops.
It will stop as soon as you have backed up your claim that
your model can replace the SM. By actually addressing the
data, e.g. the things I mentioned above.
> At some point you need to actually look at what I'm saying
> and give a true scientific analysis of the theory.
Err, asking how the theory explains the data *is*
a true scientific analysis.
> It's not science to just
> keep piling on questions, one after another, until someone runs out of time
> to answer them all.
Ridiculous straw man.
>>I asked for experimental verifications of your explanations.
>>Was it ever experimentally verified that a neutron consists
>>of a proton and an electron? Would be news to me.
>
>
> Yes, a beta decay demonstrates that a neutron consists of a proton and an
> electron and anti-neutrino.
How does the fact that a neutron decays into these
demonstrate that it consists of them?
> You start out with an isotope with x number of
> neutrons and y number of protons and end up with x-1 neutrons and y+1
> protons with an electron flying away and the angular momentum of the
> anti-neutrino to account for. I'm sure you must have read about this at
> some point in your life.
Yes. But how does that support your assertion?
>>>I have developed an equation for predicting within 5% every 1s orbital
>>>electron binding energy, with near perfect predictions for many atoms.
>>
>>With how many free parameters?
Hello?
[snip]
>>>Notice, unlike the SM, my equations are designed to predict the binding
>>>energies for ALL isotopes, not just hydrogen.
>>
>>Err, standard physics also addresses binding energies for all isotopes,
>>not just hydrogen.
>
>
> No they don't.
Yes they do.
> Go ahead, make my day and point out how standard physics
> addresses nuclear binding energies.
There is a huge literature on that. Try browsing through
Physical Review C and Nuclear Physics A and B, for starters.
> I'll blow that amu crap out of the water, too.
What do you mean?
>>>So even if the equations are off, coming in the ballpark is still a
>>>significant step in the right direction.
>>
>>There are literally hundreds of crackpots on the net who
>>have managed to come up with a lot of predictions which
>>are "in the ballpark". Why should we listen to you and
>>not to them?
>
>
> That's your choice. You need to make that decision on your own.
Done. I chose not to buy your book, as long as your posts
stay on this low level.
>>>As for writing an equation involving the Aether to replace the GR
>>>equation, I haven't taken the time to work on it yet. I need a clean
>>>data set and a couple days to develop the equations.
>>
>>What data do you need, specifically?
>
>
> Actual measurements of the degree of light bending a given distance from a
> given body mass.
Why don't you look up Eddington's article?
> I also need to see how Einstein derived G=8piT.
Why don't you look up his original article?
>>>It's one of my goals, after getting recognition for the work I have
>>>already done, to work with national labs to rework several areas of
>>>physics including electrodynamics, particle collisions, nuclear physics,
>>>nanotechnology, and chemistry.
>>
>>Man, you are really full of yourself.
>
>
> Better than being full of someone else, I guess.
No. Why should that be better?
> At least I have a
> foundation for my goals. What foundation do you have for doubting me?
Your errors and straw men.
>>>>>>>And what good
>>>>>>>is GR if it only produces the right answers, but not with the right
>>>>>>>physics?
>>>>
>>>>How do you know that the physics of GR is not right?
>>>
>>>
>>>If it was right, Newton's law would work.
>>
>>How on earth does that follow???
>
>
> There is only one law of gravitation and Newton had it.
How do you know?
>>>I can clearly show that the strong force is directly proportional to the
>>>gravitational force
>>
>>How do you show that?
>
>
> It's in the book. It comes from this equation:
>
> e.emax^2 = h * Cd
>
> But you would have to understand the Aether and its structure to understand
> the equation.
Well, so you can derive this mathematically. How does that
prove anything? One can do lots of things with math which
have nothing to do with the real world.
>>>and explain how an incorrect use of gravity can still give the correct
>>>answer for a strong force problem.
>>
>>What exactly do you mean by "a strong force problem", and
>>what is an incorrect use of gravity?
>
>
> Using gravity to explain the effects of the strong force is a strong force
> problem and the incorrect use of gravity.
How do you know that the orbit of Mercury has anything
to do with the strong force?
>>>I can also show through an equation for the binding of an electron to a
>>>proton that the model for folded Aether works.
>>
>>How can an equation show that?
>
>
> The model is discrete
What is this supposed to mean?
> and can be graphically rendered.
What has a graphical rendering to due with an equation?
>>>All that remains is to quantify the folding of the Aether for nuclear
>>>binding.
>>
>>What do that mean?
>
>
> Exactly what I said.
Well, obviously I did not understand. So could you please
try to rephrase this? What did you mean by "quantify",
for starters?
[snip]
>>>I worded my statement poorly. I was saying that GR says gravity is the
>>>cause of bent light and space-time.
>>
>>Still wrong. GR does not say that gravity is the cause
>>of bent space-time. See directly below.
Did you get it this time? Apparently not, since you
repeat this straw man below.
>>>or the bending of light.
>>
>>Then how is light bend at the sun, if not due to gravity?
>
>
> Light doesn't bend. Space-time is what bends.
How does that explain the observations of light bending?
> And gravity cannot bend space-time.
No one said it can. Could you please stop attacking
straw men?
> Space-time is pinched due to nuclear binding.
How do you know? How could one test this claim?
> The apparent
> bending of light is due to light passing straight through bent space-time,
So far, this is exactly what GR says...
> which is pulled toward the center of mass due to folding of Aether in
> nuclear binding processes.
How do you know? How could one test this claim?
> Gravity has nothing to do with it.
How do you know? How could one test this claim?
> The gravitational law requires two masses.
*Newton's* gravitational law requires that. Not GR.
> (real masses, not the E=m nonsense)
Fortunately, that is not nonsense.
> Space-time has no mass for the gravitational law to act on.
No one ever claimed it has. Could you please stop attacking
straw men?
> In fact, space-time is the source of gravity.
How do you know? How could one test this claim?
> Gravity does not act on itself.
No one ever claimed it does. Could you please stop attacking
straw men?
>>>Gravity is the weakest force in the Universe by a huge order of
>>>difference. It takes the whole planet Earth just to keep you from
>>>floating off into space, and that's if you are standing on its surface.
>>>There's no way that a body the size of the Sun is going to pull
>>>space-time or light in with gravity,
>>
>>1) No one says that the sun "pulls in" space-time. What on earth are you
>>talking about?
>>2) Why can't the sun bend light with gravity? You *do* know
>>that the mass of the sun is quite big, don't you?
>
>
> You *do* know that the mass of light is zero, don't you?
You *do* know the difference between rest mass and
relativistic mass, don't you? Hint: only the first is zero
for light.
>>>and there is no way that a curved space-time can cause gravity without
>>>also causing the strong force and electrostatic force.
>>
>>How on earth does that follow?
>
>
> It's in the book. Don't forget, I claim to unify all the forces.
Perhaps you should first try to actually understand what
standard physics says...
>>>If the Sun were capable of bending light with gravity, then light from
>>>the Sun to the Earth would be heavily red shifted.
>>
>>How on earth does that follow?
>
>
> If the Sun can graviationally bend star light passing near it, then it would
> also have a gravitational effect on the light it emits.
And it indeed does. Light coming from the sun is indeed
red shifted. This is *observed*. And the amount of red shift
is exactly the one predicted by GR...
> Light leaving the
> Sun would not be able to travel at the speed of light
> and would be slightly slower,
Total non sequitur.
> thus producing a red shift.
> in the apparent frequency of the light.
See above. A red shift *is seen*.
And now please explain why you think that the light should
be ***HEAVILY*** red shifted.
> Or if you think that sunlight starts off at a slow speed and then speeds up
> as it gets away from the Sun, then you would need the physics to back that
> up.
Why should I believe such nonsense? The speed of light
is always the same.
> How do you account for the Sun being able to bend light from a distant star
> but not being able to act on the light the Sun, itself, emits?
But it *does* act on the light. A red shift *is* observed.
So you don't even know such crucial data as this, but nevertheless keep
claiming that you agree with the data. Don't you see a problem
here?
Bye.
Bjoern
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Previous message: pierre.c: "Re: Single photon double slit expe interpretation"
- In reply to: David Thomson: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: Ranando King: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
