Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?


"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:448AD584.4080103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 ?

Comments on what? Your original post, or your repost of your own message
here?

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

I havent read it. I assume from this then, that you have submitted it and
had it rejected. I am getting a distinct impression from this thread.

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

What silence?

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 ?

Ok, the frothing begins. Initially I thought you were fairly reasonable and
open to debate.

Are you just another USENET crank desperately seeking attention for an
unsound theory?

Don't bother. I know the answer.

Same here.

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

From this post, I get the feeling that you are dismayed that your lifetimes
work was rejected. Unable to come to terms with any possible errors or
mistakes in your acheivement, you have decided the fault must rest with the
reviewers.

Also unable to accept that a couple of reviewers could share the same
negative opinion on your work, you have come to the conclusion that there is
a "Community" who control each others thoughts and actions and are keeping
your work suppressed.

If I read the PDF will men in dark suits and sunglassess turn up at my door?

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.

I dont know.

Personally I am not sure what it would prove and as you seem resolutely
unwilling to convince anyone as to its value, I suspect never is the answer.

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

Where is the debate ?

I dont know. If you had published the work, it would take place in
Universities. As you are obssesing about your "covert methods" it probably
only takes place in your head.

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.

I haven't. I have found the exact opposite. ( I agree about USENET though)

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.

Well, you arent keeping up with research then.

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

Oh well. Good for you.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ABERRANT HOMOSEXUALITY
    ... I only bash the partisans of heartless parody of debate. ... consider 1 Cor 6:9-10. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Wakefield show - is it happening this year?
    ... >> Where's the debate? ... > speed cameras just drive down driving standards as you have to use half ... You could avoid the stress by just driving within the speed limit in force ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: First Scots asylum seekers go to university - for FREE
    ... That is what Usenet is all about and without it Usenet dies. ... Give me one example where it has exercised the right to 'free speech' by providing original comment. ... I'm pointing out the right thing to do is to leave just enough of the person's post as to allow others to follow the debate. ... That is its strength and to peremptorily snip out the entire text of one side of the debate not only kills it stone dead but means the sniper has also lost the debate by default. ...
    (uk.misc)
  • Re: H Potter spells
    ... nasty-tasting medicine. ... Oh yeah - I remember seeing a Muslim debate show, ... The media doesn't know well enough to weigh in on either side ...
    (uk.religion.pagan)
  • 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)
Loading