Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

srp a écrit :
T Wake a écrit :

[snip]


What other verification would you require?

That light photon trajectories deflected by galactic masses on their
way here do not use up some energy changing direction.

[snip]

This has been tested for and does not match the observed phenomena.

The required test has never been carried out, or else I would know
about it.

[snip]


Yet, you dont think this is sufficent and think "some other cause" should be considered.

Yes. Definitely. The Pioneer axial spin so-called anomaly directly hints
at the problem. My model directly predicted such spin slow down for
precisely that cause.

[snip]

And I am not suggesting we search for some unexplained phenomenon that
we cannot create here on Earth. I suggested verifying a perfectly and
very easily explainable phenomenon that can be clarified only by
a very simple experiment being carried out in deep space.

Very simple 2nd thermodynamics law application.

What is the experiment then?

To send a heavy wheel deep in space, far from any large body, set it
in rotation and observe if whether or not it will gradually slow down.

It seems to me that theory says that it will rotate forever. My model
says it will gradually slow down and in time, completely stop rotating.

[snip]

But, if the theory is sound, it will receive formal publication eventually.

If something new and groundbreaking is found then it gets publically debated - despite the best wishes of those who disagree. If a theory is sound, it will survive anything its detractors throw at it. (For example the H. florensis debate)

Until you publish, no one will know it.

Surely the experiment required to validate the model does not require acceptance of the model prior to the experiment though?

Ok, this isnt quite true though. The internal structure of nucleons has been determined for quite some time (and predicted for longer).

Not that long ago. Quarks up and down were detected only in the second half of the 1960's.

What about the internal structures changes the way things scale up?

SR was developped 100 years ago, defining rest mass based on the notion
that nucleon rest mass was invariant. Never was adapted to take into
account that nucleon inertia would vary with proximity of large quantities of matter due to coulomb interaction.

How does this answer the "pioneer anomaly" better than any other reason?

Simply because the effective mass of the Pioneer crafts can only be
slightly larger in deep space than measurable at Earth's surface.

You refer to the "scientific community" as a single organism, so I am using the same descriptor when I say you need them (it) to read it and get on board with your ideas.

Scientists can be recruited to a theory based on successful (reproducible) experimental data, or a very sound mathematical model.

Despite what is often alluded to on USENET, there is not a conspiracy to keep scientific advances hidden

So, mister reviewer, what are your comments ?

What is mathematically unsound in my little pdf paper for it to
be rejected with no comments by formal journals ?

What is the reason for your very predictable silence on my pdf ?

Or are you feeling at long last the community held leash that
forbids you from discussing (and maybe even thinking) of any new
promising idea publicly ?

Don't bother. I know the answer.

Looks like the community systematically fails to pass my little
validation tests.

You said that "the experiment required to validate the model does
not require acceptance of the model prior to the experiment though?"

Tell me when my little wheel experiment is going to be carried out.

You said "If something new and groundbreaking is found then it gets
publically debated "

Where is the debate ?

I have found only utter and total intellectual silence in the
community for any new ideas for the past half century in the
community and on all public newsgroups since the Internet came
on line.

The last time I saw the type of courage required for reviewers
to really stick their heads out and let new ideas through to
formal publication dates back to the Bohm paper 50 years ago.

My conclusion has been that there is not going to be a repeat
any time soon, hence my decision.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... way here do not use up some energy changing direction. ... Initially I thought you were fairly reasonable and open to debate. ... you have come to the conclusion that there is a "Community" who control each others thoughts and actions and are keeping your work suppressed. ... formal publication dates back to the Bohm paper 50 years ago. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... I am fairly reasonable and open to debate. ... Yet you seem convinced there is a "community held leash." ... information means that without peer review and publication, ... formal publication dates back to the Bohm paper 50 years ago. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... open to debate. ... a "Community" who control each others thoughts and actions and are keeping ... formal publication dates back to the Bohm paper 50 years ago. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... claims, and his responses to criticism, this seems an oddly ill- ... mock you for blathering on about critical thinking and rational debate ... publication. ... Appeal to an "established" authority is a fallacy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WHAT A BOLT IS, AND HOW IT WORKS
    ... Publication of that exchange doesn't bother me at all, ... at a site that's suppose to focus on helping people fix their Honda cars. ... for the posting of a debate between you and me (not rendering my position ... I agree the pulley bolt discussion has borne fruit. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.honda)
Loading