Author 
Message 
Bill Hobba science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:03 am Post subject:
Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.



"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44ACFED9.5040205@sdrodrian.com...
Quote:  Bill Hobba wrote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:1152073626.890445.244790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44AAB880.2040906@sdrodrian.com...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.
The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").
So models have no connection to realty?
Such an absolute statement! ]
It was a question not a statement.
Was it?

Kindergarten English: '?' means question.
Quote: 
Since you are a person
obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
categorical still, for your sake:
"Some models do have a connection to reality, but
not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
those models which use socalled "dimensions."
Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
is a mention):
Then linear programming and operations
research are out and those that make
a living from it selling their expertise are
fooling themselves and their
clients.
If they are using "math shorthand" to expedite
their work they're worth the money. If they are
telling their clients the universe is rules by
supersymmetry or some other such nonsense
then they are thieves... and/or crackers.

If you can't see both are models then  well take up fingerpainting 
science is not for you.
Quote: 
And out goes QM because it uses a Hilbert space
which has  wonder
of wonders  an infinite number of dimensions.
As long as there's an infinite number of them
it's hardly likely to be limited to any number of them
is it! You should really use your noodle, ole boy.
You are obviously ignorant of very basic stuff.
This is true: I've never fried a steak yet that turned out
the way I would have had it turned out!
Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
"conceivable" manifold (or, socalled dimension), then
that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
our socalled threedimensional reality WITHOUT
having to "add anything to it" (to our 3D reality).
"Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
common confusion that arises when we speak of our
reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,
HINT: If it exists inside our 3D reality,
Your proof that our reality (whatever that is)
I thought you wouldn't know what that is!

Sure  I readily admit it and also believe since those that closely study
what it is (philosphers of a certain persuasion) can not agree on it then it
is obvious you don't either.
Quote: 
is 3d and, for example, extra
dimensions are not curled up on a scale
too small to directly perceive is
eagerly awaited. Bill
I'm going to take your word that you tried
to write a cohesive paragraph there, Bill.

I did. But since you obviously have trouble determining what a '?' means
your comment is no surprise.
Bill


Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: Between adjacent gluons, w & z particles, etc ..theoretically.



$$ Between adjacent gluons ..theoretically.
$$ [i.e. BETWEEN adjacent w & z particles, etc ..THEORETiCALLY.]
Bilge wrote: > > guskz@hotmail.com: > > > >Bilge wrote:
Quote:  since the pion mass is 135 MeV, it's a little strange the use
of electric charge force (eV) to determine a stronger and
different force.
eV is a measure of energy (or mass). It has nothing to do with
electric charge.

$$ This is an excellent EXAMPLE of your "professional incompetence".
$$ [Note SI MKSA units of electronvolt, eV > Volt*Amp*sec, energy].
=
Re: Why don't protons attract due to gluons and only with neutrons?.
Re: [What's THEORETiCALLY between ADjACENT gluons at ANY distance?].
Re: [What's THEORETiCALLY between w & z particles at ANY distance?].
Re: [Between adjacent gluons, w & z particles, etc ..theoretically].
$$ <Readjust crotch and snicker>. 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Where is the flaw?



Quote:  The proper time is the elapsaed time along a world line
as measured by a clock traversing that world line.
$$ 
$$ And ONLY that clock is at THAT pointintime AT ONCE, dimwit.
$$ [This, WHY any GR"clock" & "various TiME" are GRoxyMORONs].
=SNiP=
Quote:  Your concept of ``real time'' must obviously be different from the
rest of us who use the standard timepieces manufactured on this
planet as a measure of time. [There ARE various GR"timeZONEs".]
=
Anyone who follows your explanation will certainly not understand
the lorentz transforms. [Likewise for ANY COHERENT "explanation".]
Lorentz Transform violates the Principle of Simultaneity.
There is no such thing as the ``Principle of Simultaneity.''
Simultaneity in relativity is _defined_ by the poincare transforms
(of which the lorentz transforms are a [albeit, previouslyDECLARED
by yourself, Bilge, to be UNreachable viaPOiNCARE ..duh] subset).
=
SR is actually the study of inertial reference frames = =

$$ REST (inertial) frames are *BARYCENTERcentred* ..NOT Galilean;
$$ M1 & m1 in Newton's G*M1*m1, are *moving* RESTmass magnitudes.
$$ M1 has acceleration to barycentre; m1 has another acceleration.
$$ There is NO COHERENT way to see M1 & m1 .. EACH from the OTHER.
$$ [The Newton context here is a threedimensional SPACE in TiME].
$$ [There is NO COHERENT way to see m1, from M1 ..mathematically].
$$ [There is NO COHERENT way to see M1, from m1 ..mathematically].
Quote:  The hyperbolic Lagrangian remains invariant under Lorentz
transformations, which are actually hyperbolic rotations.

$$ But, are *NOT* "invarient" in the REST frame of the BARYCENTRE.
Quote:  What is hyperbolic Lagrangian?
A lagrangian extremized by a metric for a hyperolic space.

$$ Define (explain) "extremized" in BOTH near&farfield context?
$$ General Universal EquationofState System (GUESS iSS) ANALYSiS:
$$ Classical OLD Lagrangian:  The Classical OLD Hamiltonian:
$$ L = H  2*eP  H = L + 2*eP
$$ = eK  eP  = eK + eP
$$ = eK  Potential;  = eK + Potential (energy) eP;
$$ in GUESS = eK  Volt*A*sec  = eK + eM ..as per ADDENDUM;
$$ = eK  eV ..energy  = L + Gibb's eG .. " " "
$$ = eM  Helmholtz eF  = eK + iNTRiNSiC REST eM " " "
$$ = E  Gibb's eG.  = GUESS iSS ENTHALPY energy E.
$$
$ COMPLETELY combines all CHEMiSTRY equationsofstate, COHERENTLY. 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:23 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims



Randy Poe writes Henri Wilson:
Quote:  On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 0700, "Randy Poe" wrote:
[=SNiP=] (the GRcorrected rate) [=SNiP=] results.

$$ Show GRgamma in ANY "GRcorrected" GPS equation ..dimwit.
$$
$$ We'll tolerate 1 or 2 jpg's ..or are you SiMPLY trolling?.
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims. End of POST. 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:57 am Post subject:
Re: It's all Soooo Amusing!



Tom Roberts wrote: > > Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:  Many SRians here refer to 'movement through time'.
You are mistaken. Many cranks and idiots say that, not people
knowledgeable about SR or the use of the English language.
As I said before, this is not any sort of "movement" at all.
You are reading too much into a _metaphor_ (spacetime as a
geometrical manifold).
The questions I'm asking are: How is movement through time
assessed?
It isn't.
$$ <snicker>. 
Quote:  A human being, and a clock, and any other object, experience
elapsed proper time, and perhaps that's what you are thinking
of. This is not "movement", this is _time_elapsing_. <shrug
$$ <adjust crotch 
$$ The "_time_elapsing_" without "movement" is TiME at REST in GR;
$$ [So "movement" without "_time_elapsing_" is @ REST in SR & GR].
$$ <snicker adjusting crotch again>
$$ That's WHY some scientists claim "NOTHiNG moves, in SPACEtime.
$$ [REST mass is at REST in TiME as well as SPACE ..in SR and GR].
Quote:  What are the dimensions of the answer?
To any specific observer, clock, or object, time elapses at a rate
of 1 second per second. How could it be otherwise? > > Tom Roberts.

Re: WHY GRcoup, E=m*c^2, does NOT equate with Einstein's, m = E/c^2:
Re: [WHY a "moving" RESTmass is the *VELOCiTYiNCREASED* RESTmass].
Re: [This is because RESTmass is "mass" which iNCREASEs with SPEED].
Re: [ANY SR & GR REST mass is at REST in TiME ..as well as in SPACE].
Re: [COUNTLESS smasher experiments confirm an *iNCREASED* RESTmass].
Re: The GR coup ..after Einstein died, REVERTED to "invariant" mass].
Re: It's all Soooo Amusing! <lingering bow> End of POST. 

Back to top 


Henri Wilson science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:56 am Post subject:
Re: It's all Soooo Amusing!



On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:57:19 GMT, brian a m stuckless <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
Quote:  Tom Roberts wrote: > > Henri Wilson wrote:
Many SRians here refer to 'movement through time'.
You are mistaken. Many cranks and idiots say that, not people
knowledgeable about SR or the use of the English language.
As I said before, this is not any sort of "movement" at all.
You are reading too much into a _metaphor_ (spacetime as a
geometrical manifold).
The questions I'm asking are: How is movement through time
assessed?
It isn't.
$$ <snicker>.
A human being, and a clock, and any other object, experience
elapsed proper time, and perhaps that's what you are thinking
of. This is not "movement", this is _time_elapsing_. <shrug
$$ <adjust crotch
$$ The "_time_elapsing_" without "movement" is TiME at REST in GR;
$$ [So "movement" without "_time_elapsing_" is @ REST in SR & GR].
$$ <snicker adjusting crotch again
$$ That's WHY some scientists claim "NOTHiNG moves, in SPACEtime.
$$ [REST mass is at REST in TiME as well as SPACE ..in SR and GR].
What are the dimensions of the answer?
To any specific observer, clock, or object, time elapses at a rate
of 1 second per second. How could it be otherwise? > > Tom Roberts.
Re: WHY GRcoup, E=m*c^2, does NOT equate with Einstein's, m = E/c^2:
Re: [WHY a "moving" RESTmass is the *VELOCiTYiNCREASED* RESTmass].
Re: [This is because RESTmass is "mass" which iNCREASEs with SPEED].
Re: [ANY SR & GR REST mass is at REST in TiME ..as well as in SPACE].
Re: [COUNTLESS smasher experiments confirm an *iNCREASED* RESTmass].

No they don't. They show that a large amount energy is stored in the 'reverse
field bubble' around a fast moving charge.
Quote:  Re: The GR coup ..after Einstein died, REVERTED to "invariant" mass].
Re: It's all Soooo Amusing! <lingering bow> End of POST.

What's it feel like to be a genuine eccentric?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:48 am Post subject:
Vu=10*("e")*Volt = POTENTiAL @ UNiT LENGTH from "UNiT CHARGE".



 Bilge wrote: > > guskz@hotmail.com: > >Bilge wrote:
=SNiP=
Quote:  eV means electron volt, which is defined as the change in
the energy of an electron when accelerated through a potential
difference of 1 volt. [10*("e")*{e}*Volt = Hartree energy eH.]
1 eV = 1.6 x 10^19 Joules. [Where, Hartree eH = Vu*{e} Joules.]

$$ [Bilge forgets the "SPECiFiC" DUALiTY of eV.]
$$
$$ 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^19 Joule = SI STANDARD "electronvolt", energy.
$$
$$ 1.6 x 10^19 Joule
$$ 1 eV =  = SI Quantum CHARGE {e} > SI Amp*sec.
$$ SI unit Volt
$$
$$ This is BECAUSE the SI icon eV is ALSO the GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec.
$$
$$ The SI (Giorgi) System including a GENERAL, has a TRiNiTY of eV.
$$ The OTHER two "GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec energy" & SI "electronvolt".
$$ One of them is SI STANDARD electromagnetic "QUANTUM CHARGE {e}".
$$ [Vu=10*("e")*Volt = POTENTiAL @ UNiT LENGTH from "UNiT CHARGE"]. 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject:
Re: Why don't protons attract due to gluons and only with neutrons?



 Bilge wrote: > > guskz@hotmail.com: > >Bilge wrote:
=SNiP=
Quote:  eV means electron volt, which is defined as the change in
the energy of an electron when accelerated through a potential
difference of 1 volt. [10*("e")*{e}*Volt = Hartree energy eH.]
1 eV = 1.6 x 10^19 Joules. [Where, Hartree eH = Vu*{e} Joules.]

$$ [Bilge forgets the "SPECiFiC" DUALiTY of eV.]
$$
$$ 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^19 Joule = SI STANDARD "electronvolt", energy.
$$
$$ 1.6 x 10^19 Joule
$$ 1 eV =  = SI Quantum CHARGE {e} > SI Amp*sec.
$$ SI unit Volt
$$
$$ This is BECAUSE the SI icon eV is ALSO the GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec.
$$
$$ The SI (Giorgi) System including a GENERAL, has a TRiNiTY of eV.
$$ The OTHER two "GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec energy" & SI "electronvolt".
$$ One of them is SI STANDARD electromagnetic "QUANTUM CHARGE {e}".
$$ [Vu=10*("e")*Volt = POTENTiAL @ UNiT LENGTH from "UNiT CHARGE"]. 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:27 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims



Henri Wilson wrote: > > On 10 Jul 2006 19:49:49 0700, "Randy Poe"
=SNiP=
Quote:  Andersen once claimed they are accurate to 4.6 parts
in 10^[]10 to better than 1%. [That's 4.6*10^10.]

$$ SHOW gamma asapplied for GPS Orbit/Surface air RATiO 4.6*10^10.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1(v/c)^2}="gamma", asapplied for, N_gps = 4.6*10^10.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1(v/c)^2}="gamma", asapplied for N_gps = ppm_A/ppm_3.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1(v/c)^2}="gamma", asapplied in Orbital/STP, density.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1(v/c)^2}="gamma" in a GPS atomic clock PREset factor.
$$ There is NO "gamma" term incorporated in any GR GPS "prediction".
$$ [SHOW "gamma" *EXACTLY* incorporated ..in a GR GPS "prediction"].


Back to top 


ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org science forum beginner
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 16

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:
Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.



S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
Quote:  Repeat after me: IF A ONEDIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3DIMENSIONAL ANY
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.
[...] 
A oneline syllogism cannot exist.
A threeline syllogism is three times as impossible as a oneline
syllogism.
Therefore a threeline syllogism cannot exist.
fathom that
cordially
Y.T.

Remove YourClothes before you email me. 

Back to top 


Phineas T Puddleduck science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject:
Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.



In article <1152660639.169171.304930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
<ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org> wrote:
Quote:  S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
Repeat after me: IF A ONEDIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3DIMENSIONAL ANY
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.
[...]
A oneline syllogism cannot exist.
A threeline syllogism is three times as impossible as a oneline
syllogism.
Therefore a threeline syllogism cannot exist.
fathom that
cordially
Y.T.

Poor Rodrian has been divorced from sanity for a long while. I hear it
was a messy separation too.

Relf's Law? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity  Einstein's general relativity  is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Back to top 


sdr science forum addict
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject:
Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.



ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org wrote:
Quote:  S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
Repeat after me: IF A ONEDIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3DIMENSIONAL ANY
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.
[...]
A oneline syllogism cannot exist.
A threeline syllogism is three times as impossible as a oneline
syllogism.
Therefore a threeline syllogism cannot exist.
fathom that
cordially
Y.T.

DID: If A SINGLE BEACH BALL CANNOT EXIST....
Quote:  Remove YourClothes before you email me.

DID. Now my existence in this house is in question!
Darn,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com 

Back to top 


brian a m stuckless science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:18 am Post subject:
Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution?



RePOST:
Quote:  IOW: this discussion is not in a vacuum, it is in the context of GR

$$ Any SPACE with "discussion" going on in it, clearly isN'T EMPTY.
Quote:  Do you "suspend your belief" that 1+1=2? Why ask me to "suspend
belief" for a concept equally well established?

$$ That BOTH (ALL) ones are identical is an ARBiTRARY *assumption*.
$$ [That 1+1=2, is a totally ARBiTRARY *ANTHROPOLOGiCAL* STANDARD].
$$ [Argument against SI (international) ARBiTRARY STANDARDs apply].
$$ [No MORE arbitrary to ASSUME SI than ASSUME all ONEs are EXACT].
$$ ASSUMPTiON that ALL ONEs are EXACT ..totally a HUMAN convention.
$$ [NATURE has no such LAW saying, "All ONEs _must_ be iDENTiCAL"].
$$ <adjust crotch>
Quote:  And you agreed that:
"In general relativity, above an event horizon of a black hole,
an object falling freely from REST at infinity passes each
altitude at a directly measured velocity equal to the escape
velocity there."
Yes. Given my other caveats.
[#] Relative to the succession of locally inertial frames
I discussed before. They only exist for r>2M.
In the region r>2M, escape velocity is always < c [Even for light].

$$ Mathematically in GR, the concept, (escape velocity)^2 is, 2*v1^2.
$$ Mathematically in GUESS iSS, (escape velocity)^2 = 2*(n  1)*v1^2.
$$ [Where escape velocity, vesc, equals orbit velocity, v1, @ n=3/2].
$$
$$ There is NO iNERTiAL (REST) frame AT iNFiNiTY for a GR Black Hole.
$$ There can be nothing EXTERiOR to a GR Black Hole ..on a TiMEline.
$$
$$ You have STARTED CONTRADiCTiNG YOURSELF ..in the SAME essay, Tom!.
REPLY to:
 You don't seem to realize that there are _TWO_SET_ of Schwarzschild
 coordinates. One set is valid for r>2M and the other is valid for
 r<2M. They have no intersection. Yes, the exterior coordinates are
 not valid in the region r<2M. <shrug>  Tom Roberts.
$$ You have BEGUN to CONTRADiCT YOURSELF ..*per essay*, lately, Tom!.
Re: A Flaw of General Relativity, a New Metric and Cosmological Imps. 

Back to top 


gaiawars@webtv.net science forum beginner
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 3

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:
Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.



sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com wrote:
Quote:  ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org wrote:
S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
Repeat after me: IF A ONEDIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3DIMENSIONAL ANY
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.
[...]
A oneline syllogism cannot exist.
A threeline syllogism is three times as impossible as a oneline
syllogism.
Therefore a threeline syllogism cannot exist.
fathom that
cordially
Y.T.
DID: If A SINGLE BEACH BALL CANNOT EXIST....
Remove YourClothes before you email me.
DID. Now my existence in this house is in question!
Darn,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

are you familiar, Rodrian, with current weather control technology?
Energetics is what the Russians call it. Do you understand the
bioelectromagnetics of changing a vine into a tree? If you can honestly
say yes and discourse on the associations between the two then you are
credible. If not, your detractors are credible.
Gaiawar the Echosyn 

Back to top 


sdr science forum addict
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject:
Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.



Echosyn wrote:
Quote:  are you familiar, Rodrian, with current weather control technology?
Energetics is what the Russians call it. Do you understand the
bioelectromagnetics of changing a vine into a tree? If you can honestly
say yes and discourse on the associations between the two then you are
credible. If not, your detractors are credible. Gaiawar the Echosyn

Thank Goodness!
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:52 pm  All times are GMT

