Re: Q-basic program for the at theory.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Nov 2005 16:34:51 -0800
In <dmjici$ed0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ilja Schmelzer <q6867...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> ecrit:
> . . .
O'Barr wrote:
>> . . . . If a unification
>> between A and B were to be done, then with
>> that unification, one could start with A, and by
>> staying with A, he would be able to end up with B.
>> And also, by starting with B, he can end up with
>> A. So why not believe that this is possible?
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>I have thought enough about that problem to know
>that for quantum theory this is not possible.
O'Barr comments:
I hear you, but this just does not sound like
Ilja!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Until you try it, you have no scientific reasons
>> to ignore it!
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>Of course I have any right to ignore a proposal
>which does not have any chance.
O'Barr comments:
Just as you have a right to make a fool out of
yourself. As I said, it just does not sound like
you, Ilja!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Let us be more clear. I was wrong if I said that
>> the at theory has already done all of this.
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>Fine. To reach this was the aim of my posting.
O'Barr comments:
Then why didn't you just ask?
O'Barr wrote:
> I should have said, and I hope that all I did say,
>was that it is my belief that it was going to be
>able to do this.
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>Feel free to hope. I don't. But I can tell you you
>have no chance to find such a unification without
>learning quantum theory. Which is hard math.
O'Barr comments:
The math might be hard. But the physics is very
simple in the at theory. Although the at theory is
not the TOE, it does present to us several physical
features that do exist in QM. And this cannot be
denied, no matter how well I do or do not know
anything, or how hard the math might be.
<deletes>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>To state my problem I would have to give you a
>basic course in quantum theory. I will not do this
>for free. How much do you pay me for such a course?
O'Barr comments:
Sounds like I would need a lawyer to talk to you.
Why would you be interested in teaching me?
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>To obtain quantum theory you have to define a
>wave function (or a replacement for the wave
>function).
O'Barr comments:
Make up your mind, Ilja. If you don't really know
which, why do you think you can teach it? And is
this wave a physical wave? Is it a wave in space or
in the ether? Does it have any reality to it, or is
it just a math function that has no meaning to it at
all?
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> You mentioned gravity. And of course Newtonian
>> gravity is not perfect, and in QM, if you use
>> imaginary gravitons, you can mathematically mimic
>> Newtonian gravity. So what?
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>So what? It is simply false. Newtonian gravity may
>be incorporated into classical Schrödinger theory
>without any gravitons. Simply as a force. Again,
>this shows that you have no idea about the problem.
>It's quite probable that somebody who does not even
>understand the problem is unable to find the answer.
O'Barr comments:
Such deep thoughts you have, Ilja. All things
sure have their probabilities!
<deletes by O'Barr>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>Its typical for people who have no idea about math
>to think that "non-linear math" is something very
>strange and complex, almost mysterious. But already
>the old Greeks have computed square roots. And some
>very complex equations of quantum theory, that
>complex that we are unable to solve them even on
>modern supercomputers, are nonetheless linear.
>
>Thus, your claim shows that you have no idea about
>modern math.
O'Barr comments:
However you wish, Ilja. I am willing to be just
as dumb as you seem to want me to be. But why do you
want me to be dumb? Wouldn't it just be easier to
just show where my thoughts are wrong?
The fact that something is linear or non-linear
was not inferring the difficulty of the math, but the
results that can come from such a situation. When
your math is linear, such as it is in collisions
between particles that bounce, no net attractive
forces can be obtained under full conservation and
full symmetry. The effective pressure on a wall, or
on a particle, is just as equal whether the particles
hitting that wall came from a wall opposite of that
wall, or came from hits with other particles between
those walls. And for such reasons, LeSage could not
obtain gravity with his mechanics. His equations
were linear.
But when you have non-linear relationships, the
net effects do not return to zero, and net effects
remain, and thus if you can obtain the correct net
effects, you can obtain what appears to be space
reaching forces for bodies that are experiencing
these non-linear effects. I am sorry that you got
confused in all this. I thought it was obvious.
<deletes by O'Barr>
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>You have not shown anything interesting. Because
>you simply don't know what is interesting for
>scientists. So it is ok, from scientific point of
>view, to ignore you.
O'Barr comments:
Then why did you post in the first place? No one
asked you to respond. And you have not been
scientifically helpful. All you have done have been
to complain, and to misread what was actually going
on.
Thanks anyway!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Q-basic program for the at theory.
- From: Ilja Schmelzer
- Re: Q-basic program for the at theory.
- Prev by Date: Re: A little challenge for relativists.
- Next by Date: Re: Eotvos.
- Previous by thread: Every now and then...
- Next by thread: Re: Q-basic program for the at theory.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
