Re: Definition of A Field

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:12 +0100

kenseto wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:cnq57q$ont$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>news:307fniF2pgmbtU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So Einstein's gedankens are not speculations?
>>>>
>>>>Which led to -real- experiments which in fact supported the theory. A
>>>>gedanken is just a test of concept, not a corroberation of theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>But in his 1905 paper he had no experimental support.
>>
>>He had. His theory explained experimental observations which were done
>>before (MMX etc.).
>
>
> So does my thoery.

Try to understand the difference between hand waving and explaining.
For starters, in physics an explanation should be *quantitative*.

> In fact my theory explains a lot more than SR/GR and QM
> combined. It explains:
> 1. the uncertainty principle.

No, it doesn't. You don't even understand the principle.

> 2. the rotational curves of the galaxies.

Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

> 3. the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Your theory says that there is a repulsive force which obeys
an inverse square law. That does *not* fit the actual observations of
the acceleration of the universe.

> 4. the anomalous motion of Pioneer 10.

Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

> 5. action at a distance.

Is already explained *quantitatively* by QFT.

> 6. what is electric charge.

Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

> 7. a new theory of gravity.

Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

> 8.unifying all the forces of nature.

Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

> etc.....

Yes, there is indeed a lot more hand waving in your so-called "theory".

>>Nevertheless, his theory was only widely accepted
>>after *further* experimental support came in.
>
>
> But never the right experiment that could falsify SR.

There were quite a lot of experiments attempted to falsify SR.

> For example:
> 1. do an OWLS experiment with two spatially separated and synchronized
> clcoks.
> 2. Do the experiment in the following link:
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

Nice.

>>>All he had was his gedankens
>>
>>Wrong.
>
> Not wrong.

Wrong.

>>>and yet you think that's the greatest paper ever written.
>>
>>It was a great paper because it presented a new, unifying approach to
>>several open problems of physics.
>
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes, it did.

>>>Is this
>>>double standard?
>>>BWT in my paper I have a very doable experiment that can falsify my
>>>theory. That's more than what Einstein has in his paper.
>>
>>Einstein made several theoretical predictions in his paper. By
>>checking these predictions, it is possible to falsify SR.
>
>
> The ether theory made the same predictions.

I have not seen you make even *one* *quantitative* prediction
so far.

> In fact SR math is based on LET
> math and LET math came before SR math.

Part of the LET math came before SR, part came afterwards.

Bye,
Bjoern