Re: Definition of A Field

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:41:03 GMT

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cnt7so$mt3$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> > news:cnq57q$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*.

It is quantative because it includes SR/GR and SM as subsets.
>
>
> > 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.

No it is you who don't understand the principle. The correct ether says that
the UP is due to the absolute motion of the detector.
>
>
> > 2. the rotational curves of the galaxies.
>
> Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

ROTFLOL.....MM posits a dark matter in the form of free S-Particles.
>
>
> > 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.

You forgot that the CRE force in combination with the atrtractive force due
to the neighboring galaxies are moving in the same directions is what causes
gravity. The combination of these two forces will fit the actual
observations of the acceleration of the universe.
>
>
> > 4. the anomalous motion of Pioneer 10.
>
> Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

The dark matter posited by MM explains the anomalous moiton of Pioneer 10.
>
>
> > 5. action at a distance.
>
> Is already explained *quantitatively* by QFT.

But QFT can't explain gravity.:-)
>
>
> > 6. what is electric charge.
>
> Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

MM descibes the electric charge does not reside within the particle and
that's why the dubious procedure of renormaliztion works.
>
> > 7. a new theory of gravity.
>
> Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

It is described quantitatively in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
>
> > 8.unifying all the forces of nature.
>
> Again, nothing quantitative. Mere handwaving.

No hand waving.
>
>
> > 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.

NO. There is no such experiments carried out.The only valid experiment that
could falsify SR are as follows:
1. Do an OWLS experiment with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks.
2. Do the experiment described in the following link:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
>
> > 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.

Ken Seto

Quantcast