Re: Basics series proposed

ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 10/16/04 

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:48:08 -0700

Androcles wrote:
>
> <ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:416F4731.AFF@attglobal.net...
> > Paul Draper wrote:
> >>
> >> Since these are the three most active s.p. newsgroups, and also the
> >> forum for the highest concentration of misguided souls, I propose that
> >> we start a series of threads on fundamentals. It should be aimed at
> >> the "tripping points", the places where it's easy to get confused or
> >> misdirected, or where modern ideas confront popular but incorrect
> >> preconceptions. As far as possible, the lead articles should be
> >> accessible to laypeople and non-mathematical. Mathematical development
> >> of the ideas can be expanded further in each thread. The aim of the
> >> lead article is to carefully define terms, elucidate core concepts,
> >> and specifically drill at misconceptions or things that apparently
> >> defy "common sense". The lead articles would be done Wikipedia-style,
> >> with volunteers titling a new thread from one of the topics listed
> >> below with a "(Basics)" prefix in the the title.
> >>
> >> The purpose of this series is to establish reference articles both to
> >> educate the interested and to explain where misguided proposals go
> >> wrong. In essence, it is a "positive force" in the n.g., some signal
> >> above the noise, a proactive rather than a reactive approach.
> >>
> >> In the "table of contents" below, I've marked ones with * that have
> >> posted recently. If good articles on some of the other topics have
> >> already been posted, then please amend the list appropriately. The
> >> list is not intended to more strategic than comprehensive, but if
> >> there is a topic that needs attention, feel free to propose it. Each
> >> article would be posted to all three newsgroups. The topics listed are
> >> those that would be of value to all three groups.
> >>
> >> - How to tell if a theory is a good one *
> >> - How to tell if an experiment is a good one
> >> - The role of math with physics (*?)
> >> - What things are said to be "conserved"?
> >> - The connection between conservation laws and symmetry
> >> - The four "fundamental" interactions and why they appear distinct
> >> from each other (at accessible energies)
> >> - Why length is not an inherent property *
> >> - Why time elapsed is not an inherent property between events
> >> - Why simultaneity is not an inherent relation between events
> >> - What is really changing in a Lorentz transformation?
> >> - How curvature can be detected by creatures living in that space
> >> - What is wave-particle duality, and is light a wave or a particle?
> >> - What is symmetry breaking?
> >> - What does the cosmological constant mean and where might it come
> >> from?
> >> - What is the anthropic principle?
> >> - How does a massless particle behave differently than a massive
> >> particle?
> >> - What is a virtual particle? *
> >> - What is a field?
> >> - What does it mean to quantize a theory?
> >>
> >> PD
> >
> > Don't you think that correct explanations of these things have
> > been posted over the years in this group?
> >
> > Do you think that the cranks accept them?
> >
> > What is the FAQ supposed to be for?
>
> Cranks like Koks, who can't count to 14, and you, of course.
> "correct explanations" indeed!.... LOL.

Just because you don't or won't understand the explanations
doesn't mean that they don't resolve the objections that you
have.

Physics is based on experiment. Show us an experiment that
disproves relativity. And then address the responses.

Show us that relativity theory is inconsistent. And then
address the responses.

John Anderson

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basics series proposed
    ... >> Don't you think that correct explanations of these things have ... > Cranks like Koks, who can't count to 14, and you, of course. ... disproves relativity. ... And then address the responses. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Basics series proposed
    ... >> Don't you think that correct explanations of these things have ... > Cranks like Koks, who can't count to 14, and you, of course. ... disproves relativity. ... And then address the responses. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)