Re: Implicit expressions of speed of gravity within Newtonian mechanics

On Jan 30, 12:43 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 30, 11:33 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 4:46 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 10:01 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 8:51 am, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 1:56 am, Albertshito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 c_p, of a matter wave, is

        c_p = E/p,

where
E is Newtonian total energy, and
p is Newtonian momentum

so,

        E = mc^2 + mv^2/2

And moreover, this expression does not agree with experiment.

Umm, no again. There is no mc^2 in Newtonian mechanics. Albertshito,
want another "chancie" to play again? :-)

Well, I was talking about theoretical derivations, not
of experiments or observations. So, you want to talk
about observations and experiments, eh?  Good, start
a thread with that topic. Have you ever started a
thread in any forum, or are you so reactionary as
always?

Why yes, yes, I have. But I get some measure of satisfaction in
responding to posts like yours.

I don't know whether I have to be proud of being the source of
your satisfaction :-)

If you find that reactions to your
original posts are tiresome, then I suggest that you don't post to an
unmoderated newsgroup, and that you post to your own free blog where
you can control responses.

I love unmoderated newsgroups like this, because the more one thinks
correctly the more he is insulted and humiliated by brain-washed
reactionaries, and that is evidence that the thinker is doing it
right :-)

Do you know how predictable this self-rationalization is? It's, like,
the birdcall of cranks.

"If I were wrong, they'd ignore me and not respond at all. Since they
respond and tell me I'm wrong, this means I'm right, and they're just
trying to protect their religion."

If I recall, you say you are young. If so, then know that you are well
on your way, sharing the same birdcall as aged cranks who've been
posting the same nonsense for fifteen or twenty years before they kick
the bucket. Nice to see you've started your decline early! That way
you might get a good 40 or 50 years of crankiness in before you freeze
to death on a sidewalk someday.

But continuing on the point, "theoretical derivations" are a dime a
dozen. Only the ones that make predictions that are in agreement with
experiment are of any value whatsoever.

I don't agree.

Of course you don't. That's because you don't know the first thing
about science.

Theoretical physics, firstly builts and discuss
formalisms
within a theory, then and only then experimentalists test that theory
or any hypothesis within that theory. How many predictions do string
theories make?

Three comments on this:
- String theory is based on quantum field theories that match
experiment. It is not an ab initio, clean-slate venture.
- String theory is rightfully criticized as not really being something
that can be called a theory yet, precisely because it doesn't make
good predictions. Sting theories are a *conjecture* and at the present
moment, about a dime a dozen.
- However, one of the things that distinguishes your conjecture from
the string "theories" is that string theories do not make predictions
that obviously *disagree* with experiment. Yours does, as noted.

Two comnents:

1. Are you aware that you love to discuss more
   about humanism than about science? You fit
   more into a humanist than into a scientist.

Hmm... that's interesting. Science is a human endeavor, and
encompasses a human activity with certain key parts. Including
experimentation. Indispensable, actually.


2. Have you found "my conjeture" interesting? ;-)

Since certain parts of the conjecture are in conflict with known
measurements, not especially.

I wouldn't find interesting your "conjecture" that there is a seam of
gold under the paved playground in your neighborhood either. But feel
free to dig. Let me know how that works for ya.

PD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Implicit expressions of speed of gravity within Newtonian mechanics
    ... p is Newtonian momentum ... responding to posts like yours. ... How many predictions do string ... String theory is based on quantum field theories that match ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Implicit expressions of speed of gravity within Newtonian mechanics
    ... responding to posts like yours. ... How many predictions do string ... String theory is based on quantum field theories that match ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
    ... be represented by a longer length of string. ... Although the predictions ... perfection here, just a basis for picking a hypothesis of random vs. ... All that is left then is inductive reasoning from what limited ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
    ... equivalent to making the string longer since all additional data could ... be represented by a longer length of string. ... Although the predictions ... an algorithm that has perfectly predicted a finite portion of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: floyd problem
    ... " Check your trem edges and posts. ... next to the string tree is the locking ... "posts" that you'll see embeded into your guitar near the bridge. ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)