RECLAIMING PHYSICS

Science > Physics > RECLAIMING PHYSICS

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	""
Date:	07 Dec 2004 12:49:24 PM
Object:	RECLAIMING PHYSICS

| My Groups | Help | Sign out
sci.physics - Start a new topic
The discipline of theoretical physics must be saved from the
mathematicians who have virtually taken it over and turned it into an
arena of fantasy rather than reality.
How did this happen? A conspiracy? Certainly not.
It is just that mathematics is a very important tool for physics --
applied or theoretical --and there was no one to draw the line, so
gradually the mathematical physicists drew ahead of the theoretical
physicists and made their proclamations. The result is a physics that
has slipped over into unreality. This represents going up a blind alley
with real progress left somewhere outside the stream.
The difficulty is that the mathematicians see themselves as physicists
- and in a sense they are - but they are primarily, to one degree
or another, mathematicians. They have a propensity to act as though
mathematics -- and their interpretation of it - is the final word. It
is easy for them to cow the rest of the physics community because of
the respect held for mathematics and also because the average physicist
cannot argue the merits of the mathematics. Even the experts bog down
in controversy at times.
This author has his own personal belief - that the higher the
mathematics the more tenuous is its relationship to reality.
Part of the problem was stated by an observant physicist, one Eric
Prebys, speaking of physicists in general:
They are often "algebraically correct in their proofs, while
fumbling on the interpretation".
Another part of the problem is that there is recognized two parts to
mathematics, applied and "pure". The problem is the line is often
blurred. There have been occasions where mathematics that was thought
to be pure was found to have applications to reality.
By the same token there have been occasions when applied mathematics
has been misinterpreted ( a la Prebys) and the results unreal. Einstein
made one such blunder which shall be described in a footnote.*
Speaking of unreal results, we should keep in mind that after all
physics (originally labeled "natural philosophy") deals with the
p-h-y-s-i-c-a-l.
We are asked to believe that empty space is warped - and that empty
space is not empty.(Although a case can be made that e m radiation
fills all of known space.)
Should we believe in tachyons that never travel below c - and go
faster as energy is withdrawn?
What about wormholes and all the details about black holes? Should we
believe what happened 23 nanoseconds after the big bang?
And then there is "time reversal", virtual photons, gluons, and
gravitons..
We also have "pure" energy, whatever that may be. Energy, kinetic
energy, may be defined as matter in motion. What then is "pure"
energy? If they mean radiant energy, why don't they say so? And the
invention of string theory gives us little bits of energy in string
form (???) Exactly what would that be? Alice in Wonderland never had it
so good.
How real is the Swartzchild Event Horizon? And what proof do we have of
what happened 23 nanoseconds after the Big Bang, etc.?
If all these are mere hypotheses, then it should always be stressed so.
But this not what happens. One mathematical fiction is piled on top of
another as though they were real. This merely compounds the problem.
The biggest Big Daddy of them all is perhaps the Quark. This author
attended a lecture way back in the beginning by Dr. Gell-Mann at
Caltech. He described his search for the common denominators of the
"subatomic zoo". This was a mathematical search involving the
characteristics of the myriad of particles.
He found such common denominators but didn't know what they really
were so he called them "Quarks". He didn't understand their
characteristics so he gave them meaningless names of color. top,
bottom, etc.
The unbelievable part is that physicists have taken this seriously and
are incorporating quarks into the picture of reality. How sad and
misdirected.
The history of physics has always been an interplay of theory and
experiment - each leading the other and each confirming the other -
a sort of hand over hand relationship.
That has more or less gone by the board - and the physics community
has learned to take mathematical divinations as real with little or no
empirical confirmation. As a result physics is in trouble, dead end
trouble.
MANIFESTO
In order to save and reclaim physics,genuine physicists should follow a
path of resolve to not give credence to any wild conclusions brought
about by erudite mathematics.
Mathematical physicists should be made to understand that their wild
fanciful conclusions are being taken with a grain of salt - that
empiricism must confirm their hypotheses before they can become part of
the body of physics, that mathematics is not the sine qua non they tout
it to be.
___________________________________________________
*
We examination the time dilation concept by going to its source --
Einstein's paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We refer to
his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two identical clocks
remains at rest while the other moves away and returns. When Einstein
perceived the difference of the clock readings in his calculations, he
stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". The immediate perception by
the public was that he meant if a clock was "slow by" - it had to
have run slower. He also said the moving clock was "behind" the
inertial clock by ... . These two statements do not mean the same
thing. If one clock is running slower, then it is running slower, and
that has only one meaning.
On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, eg.,the moving clock could have traveled a
shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In
either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for a
shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any
rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus was
born the erroneous concept of time dilation.
It is this concept of time dilation that gave birth to the Twins
Paradox.
As to the moving clock running slower, it would have to do so in its
own coordinate system. Yet special relativity requires the clock to
keep proper time in its own coordinate system. Obviously, the clock
cannot keep dilated time and proper time simultaneously.
Also in an approach mode, according to Einstein's interpretation, the
clock runs slow - but astronomers observe approaching atomic clocks
(radiant bodies) to run fast (Doppler effect).
_____________________________________________________________________
For more information go to http://www.wbabin.net. Click on the pull
down marked "list of authors" - go to Vertner Vergon and you will
find several monographs.
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 01:01:00 PM

<vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message news:1102445364.041075.47240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

vergon_enterprises@highstream.net | My Groups | Help | Sign out

sci.physics - Start a new topic

The discipline of theoretical physics must be saved from the
mathematicians who have virtually taken it over and turned it into an
arena of fantasy rather than reality.

How did this happen? A conspiracy? Certainly not.

Of course it's a conspiracy. You are just ***** because
you are too ignorant to be involved. Did you really think *you*
would get a part in it?
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Tom Potter"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 06:18:03 AM

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:M5ntd.12833$6d4.785524@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

<vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> wrote in message

news:1102445364.041075.47240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Of course it's a conspiracy. You are just ***** because
you are too ignorant to be involved. Did you really think *you*
would get a part in it?

It is interesting to see what Maxwell
( A pretty good mathematician. )
had to say about this.
"The method by which M. Poinsot has rendered the theory more
manageable, is by the liberal introduction of ``appropriate ideas,''
chiefly of a geometrical character, most of which had been rendered
familiar to mathematicians by the writings of Monge, but which then
first became illustrations of this branch of dynamics. If any further
progress is to be made in simplifying and arranging the theory, it
must be by the method which Poinsot has repeatedly pointed out as
the only one which can lead to a true knowledge of the subject,---that
of proceeding from one distinct idea to another instead of trusting to
symbols and equations."
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 04:39:10 PM

***** Van der Poodle, you old S.O.B . How's old Poison Mouth? Haven't
received your benign attention for quite a while and I thought you were
neglecting me. You know I've been trying to figure out where you fit
in. You're not a mathematician -- you're not a physicist -- so what are
you?
Just a piece of flotsam.
.

User: "SkanderH"
Title: Reclaiming physics	09 Dec 2004 09:32:43 AM

As an engineer, with a level of math way below the math used to
describe superstrings and supersymmetry and all that stuff, I feell a
certain frustration evertime I come upon the type of physics and
physics papers vergon is talking about. And of course I got the idea
that mathematical physics has gone way beyond the boundries of reality
and usefulness.
However, your average layman of the 17th or 19th centuries must have
felt the same way about Newton's modelling of celestial mechanics or
Fourrier's description of the behaviour of periodic functions.
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.

User: "AleRabbit"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 04:51:32 PM

It is funny I ran into this post because I was just talking about the
essence of "pure" physics with a friend the other day. My interest in
physics took a nosedive right between Chapter 1 which deals with the
Hydrogen atom and Chapter 2 which introduced "uncertainty". When they
could not find a continuous equation which explains the energy level
from Hydrogen to Helium, they decided to hammer the problem with
probability. (Hence God and the dice). The so-called mathematics
solutions derived for these problems the last 40 years was like going
after a fruit fly with a tatical missile. I believe God has a sense of
humor and the real solutions are simple, elegant and right under our
nose. The more we barrage physical problems with complex mathematics,
the further away from the solution we will get regardless of how
"close" it comes to solving.
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 03:52:17 AM

AleRabbit wrote:

About which book are you talking?

When they could not find a continuous equation

What do you mean with "continuous equation"?

which explains the energy level
from Hydrogen to Helium,

Huh? Energy levels from one element to the other? What on earth
is that supposed to mean?

they decided to hammer the problem with probability.

(Hence God and the dice). The so-called mathematics
solutions derived for these problems the last 40 years

was like going after a fruit fly with a tatical missile.

Do you have a better idea?

I believe God has a sense of
humor and the real solutions are simple, elegant and right under our
nose.

Err, QM *is* elegant - and also simple, formulated in the right
way. It just contradicts common sense.

The more we barrage physical problems with complex mathematics,
the further away from the solution we will get regardless of how
"close" it comes to solving.

And the basis for this claim of yours is what?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 12:05:56 PM

Thanks for showing that you have no clue of the reasons which
led to the development of QM.
Actually, what came first was de Broglie's suggestion that all
particles
have wave properties, which led Schroedinger to propose his famous
equation. In the same time, Heisenberg tried to attack the problem
using only directly observable quantities, leading to his matrix
mechanics. Schroedinger then showed that his wave mechanics and
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics are mathematically equivalent.
Then the question arose what the actual meaning of the wave function
is - and after a discussion of several possibilities by several
people, Born proposed the interpretation as a probability amplitude.
Vergon:
I see that as a mathematical "solution". Can you describe to me the
physical manifestation? I can see the probability of a flipped coin but
what is the probability of an amplitude?
This opened then the way to the development of a formal theory
of QM by Dirac and others, and to the Copenhagen interpretation.
VERGON:
And just how physical is that? What is the *real* meaning of de
Broglie's associated wave? What is the physical explanation of the
wave/particle aspects of the photon?
My personal belief is that if there is no physical description
available then the theory is just that, ethereal theory.
This has nothing to do with your totally ridiculous claims above.

(Hence God and the dice). The so-called mathematics
solutions derived for these problems the last 40 years

Pardon? The solutions are now about 80 years old.
And if you did not notice: already planetary orbits are "mathematical
solutions" to mathematical equations. If you don't like the role
of math in physics, you have to start by attacking Newton, not QM.
Vergon:
Read my post. No one said there was not a liking to the role of math in
physics. Quite the contrary. It is a question of how much -- meaning
how erudite and mathematically top heavy proposals are.
Three aspirin will cure a head ache -- take the bottle and it will kill
you.

was like going after a fruit fly with a tatical missile.

Do you have a better idea?
Vergon:
I do. Read my monograph On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.

I believe God has a sense of
humor and the real solutions are simple, elegant and right under our
nose.

Err, QM *is* elegant - and also simple, formulated in the right
way. It just contradicts common sense.
Vergon:
"Mother, Mother may I go swimming?
Yes, my darling daughter.
Hang your clothes on the drying line
And don't go near the water.
In short, it's "elegant" but non sensical.
Special rlativity sufferes from the same fate. I have written
monographs that cure it.
See the sub footnote in my post.

The more we barrage physical problems with complex mathematics,
the further away from the solution we will get regardless of how
"close" it comes to solving.

And the basis for this claim of yours is what?
Vergon:
Read my post.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 03:12:15 AM

wrote:
Your attributions are *still* mangled. Could you please try
to correct that?

As was already Newton's work on planetary orbits, if you did not
notice.

Can you describe to me the physical manifestation?

If you first clear up what exactly you mean by "physical
manifestation"...

I can see the probability of a flipped coin but
what is the probability of an amplitude?

Err, I did not talk about the probability of an amplitude. I
talked about a probability amplitude. Reading comprehension problems?

This opened then the way to the development of a formal theory
of QM by Dirac and others, and to the Copenhagen interpretation.

VERGON:
And just how physical is that?

Depends on what exactly you mean by "physical".
Cranks always seem to think "if it is not deterministic and
not easily understandable without math, it is not physical".

What is the *real* meaning of de Broglie's associated wave?

It gives the probability amplitude density to find the particle.
If you don't consider that "physical" or to be not a "real"
meaning, that's entirely your problem. Not the one of physics.

What is the physical explanation of the
wave/particle aspects of the photon?

What, exactly, do you want to have explained?

My personal belief is that if there is no physical description
available then the theory is just that, ethereal theory.

What, exactly, would you consider to be a "physical description"?

This has nothing to do with your totally ridiculous claims above.

(Hence God and the dice). The so-called mathematics
solutions derived for these problems the last 40 years

I did. You did not address the argument I raised above there.
The only thing you did there was showing your abysmal ignorance
about modern physics.

No one said there was not a liking to the role of math in
physics. Quite the contrary. It is a question of how much -- meaning
how erudite and mathematically top heavy proposals are.

And that hasn't changed much since Newton.

Three aspirin will cure a head ache -- take the bottle and it will kill
you.

was like going after a fruit fly with a tatical missile.

Do you have a better idea?

Vergon:
I do. Read my monograph On the Quantum as a Physical Entity.

Do you make quantitative predictions agreeing with the observations
there? E.g. can you explain the double-slit experiment results
*quantitatively* without using QM?

I believe God has a sense of
humor and the real solutions are simple, elegant and right under our
nose.

A ridiculously false analogy.

In short, it's "elegant" but non sensical.

As I said: it contradicts *common* sense. That does not imply
that it's nonsensical.

Special rlativity sufferes from the same fate. I have written
monographs that cure it.

Suggestion: first learn and try to understand it.

See the sub footnote in my post.

The more we barrage physical problems with complex mathematics,
the further away from the solution we will get regardless of how
"close" it comes to solving.

And the basis for this claim of yours is what?
Vergon:

Read my post.

I did. You did not support your claims there in any way. It is
just a bunch of assertions.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "almostawake"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 01:23:08 AM

AleRabbit your not so special, many generations of introductory physics
students have felt the same, however, not one of them has ever been
able to find the simple solution of which you speak. Go look at group
theory, and see why it is so complicated.
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 09:54:42 AM

In article <1102459891.985967.207550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
AleRabbit <brendan.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

The physics is simple, the fundamental equation is E|psi>=H|psi>. What's
so hard about that? It gets complicated when you try to solve it for a
particular problem, but that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics in
itself. That's true of any problem. E.g. find the electric field created
by a capacitor consisting of two parallel disks. Find the temperature
versus position and time on a square plate of metal with a small heat
source somewhere on it. In both cases the fundamental physics is quite
simple. There is no solution to those problems that isn't messy, but
that's because the electric field and the temperature field themselves
look that way. They are what they are, and if you find a simpler result
it will be wrong. For even more fun, calculate the trajectory of a
falling leaf. Drop it a few times and you can see immediately that the
solution had better be complicated because the motion itself is
complicated, but you know it all reduces somewhere to F=ma.
Quantum mechanics is just another wave mechanics, and the mathematics are
really not more complicated than that used in, say, acoustics. Try
determining the response to an off-center impact on a drum head. You've
been spoiled in your sections on classical mechanics because you haven't
been asked to solve difficult problems. I just think it's a shame that
mathematical methods of continuum mechanics and field theory are usually
introduced to the student simultaneously with a whole new paradigm of
quantum mechanics or relativistic quantum mechanics. The student winds up
unable to separate the physics from "just math".
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 04:21:58 AM

In article <cp7842$dc4$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
<snip>

The physics is simple, the fundamental equation is E|psi>=H|psi>. What's
so hard about that?

Just a guess...but the textbooks that I need to learn for
each character? ;-)

.. It gets complicated when you try to solve it for a
particular problem, but that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics in
itself. That's true of any problem. E.g. find the electric field created
by a capacitor consisting of two parallel disks. Find the temperature
versus position and time on a square plate of metal with a small heat
source somewhere on it. In both cases the fundamental physics is quite
simple. There is no solution to those problems that isn't messy, but
that's because the electric field and the temperature field themselves
look that way. They are what they are, and if you find a simpler result
it will be wrong. For even more fun, calculate the trajectory of a
falling leaf. Drop it a few times and you can see immediately that the
solution had better be complicated because the motion itself is
complicated, but you know it all reduces somewhere to F=ma.

Quantum mechanics is just another wave mechanics, and the mathematics are
really not more complicated than that used in, say, acoustics. Try
determining the response to an off-center impact on a drum head. You've
been spoiled in your sections on classical mechanics because you haven't
been asked to solve difficult problems. I just think it's a shame that
mathematical methods of continuum mechanics and field theory are usually
introduced to the student simultaneously with a whole new paradigm of
quantum mechanics or relativistic quantum mechanics. The student winds up
unable to separate the physics from "just math".

That sounds like a wonderful item to put on your list of things to
do when you don't have anything else to do.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.

User: "Maleki"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 10:50:57 AM

On Thu, 09 Dec 04 10:21:58 GMT,

wrote:

Quantum mechanics is just another wave mechanics, and the mathematics are
really not more complicated than that used in, say, acoustics. Try
determining the response to an off-center impact on a drum head.

Hehe :) acoustics _was_ the toughest course we had in the
undergraduate school (in Tehran). The book was two inches
thick and its author was himself teaching it. He chewed us
up in the name of science. In just a four credit hour
course! And guess what. He was a musician with his own
contributions and additions to Iranian music theories. So no
wonder.

You've
been spoiled in your sections on classical mechanics because you haven't
been asked to solve difficult problems. I just think it's a shame that
mathematical methods of continuum mechanics and field theory are usually
introduced to the student simultaneously with a whole new paradigm of
quantum mechanics or relativistic quantum mechanics. The student winds up
unable to separate the physics from "just math".

That sounds like a wonderful item to put on your list of things to
do when you don't have anything else to do.

Bahciv, you make me notice yet more uses an Iranian could
have with you. Right now I'm thinking how appropriate it
would be, to delegate to you, the job of Ariyanization of
your neighborhood. Oh boy you're made for it. Raw material
screaming to be processed. It's kind of sexy too. Hoohh!
--
che kas dAde budat namAyandegi
ke az ghowle mellat mozakhraf begi
"Hadi Khorsandi"
.

User: "Creighton Hogg"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 12:58:03 PM

On 7 Dec 2004,

wrote:

The biggest Big Daddy of them all is perhaps the Quark. This author
attended a lecture way back in the beginning by Dr. Gell-Mann at
Caltech. He described his search for the common denominators of the
"subatomic zoo". This was a mathematical search involving the
characteristics of the myriad of particles.

He found such common denominators but didn't know what they really
were so he called them "Quarks". He didn't understand their
characteristics so he gave them meaningless names of color. top,
bottom, etc.

The unbelievable part is that physicists have taken this seriously and
are incorporating quarks into the picture of reality. How sad and
misdirected.

So what's your explanation for bjorken scaling, jets, the hadron spectrum,
three jet events, and the wealth of deep inelastic scattering data
measuring parton distributions?
.

User: "Tom Potter"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 06:14:53 AM

"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412071255500.31104-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...

On 7 Dec 2004,

wrote:

So what's your explanation for bjorken scaling, jets, the hadron spectrum,
three jet events, and the wealth of deep inelastic scattering data
measuring parton distributions?

What percentage of "jet events"
and "deep inelastic scattering"
indicate one, two, three, etc. points?
This situation could be like the three blind men
describing an elephant.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.

User: "Creighton Hogg"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 07:50:40 AM

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:

"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412071255500.31104-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...

On 7 Dec 2004,

wrote:

So what's your explanation for bjorken scaling, jets, the hadron spectrum,
three jet events, and the wealth of deep inelastic scattering data
measuring parton distributions?

What percentage of "jet events"
and "deep inelastic scattering"
indicate one, two, three, etc. points?

Tom, do you actually have any idea what I mean by those terms above?
Please read over some of the classic texts on particle physics, such as
Quarks & Leptons. There's no point to me spending time explaining it when
there's books that put it better than I could.
.

User: "Tom Potter"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 06:02:23 AM

"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412080748080.15973-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:

"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412071255500.31104-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...

On 7 Dec 2004,

wrote:

and

are incorporating quarks into the picture of reality. How sad and
misdirected.

So what's your explanation for bjorken scaling, jets, the hadron

spectrum,

three jet events, and the wealth of deep inelastic scattering data
measuring parton distributions?

What percentage of "jet events"
and "deep inelastic scattering"
indicate one, two, three, etc. points?

I didn't ask you to "explain" anything.
I just asked:
"What percentage of "jet events"
and "deep inelastic scattering"
indicate one, two, three, etc. points?"
and as you claim to be an expert on the subject,
I thought you would know.
You seem to be asserting that quarks
are the only explanation for observed "jet events"
and "deep inelastic scattering"
and as no isolated quarks have ever been observed,
it would be interesting to see what the actual data suggests.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.

User: "greywolf42"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 05:39:59 PM

Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412071255500.31104-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...

On 7 Dec 2004,

wrote:

So what's your explanation for bjorken scaling, jets, the hadron spectrum,
three jet events, and the wealth of deep inelastic scattering data
measuring parton distributions?

I explain it with really atrocious experimental procedures, coupled with
wishful thinking, and a lot of "creativity" with the historical record.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b6e80f8fbafb8
f4f
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 05:07:29 PM

I assuime you are declaring that the quark (that has never been
isolated and therefore never been proven to exist) is responsible for
these events.
I find this challenge interesting but would need more details in order
to discuss it further. Can you give me references?
As to inelastic scattering, you may find my treatment of combined
elastic and inelastic scattering in Compton's work interesting. You can
find it in my monograph entitled On the Quantum as a Physical Entitiy.
See the sub footnote in my posting.
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 03:44:57 AM

wrote:

I assuime you are declaring that the quark (that has never been
isolated

Right.

and therefore never been proven to exist)

Non sequitur.

is responsible for these events.

Not "declaring". Simply pointing out that QCD, the theory which
deals with quarks and their interactions, can describe all these things.
*Quantitatively*.

I find this challenge interesting but would need more details in order
to discuss it further. Can you give me references?

Any textbook on particle physics (try e.g. Povh or Perkins)
or Quantum Field Theory (e.g. Peskin&Schroeder) should do.

As to inelastic scattering, you may find my treatment of combined
elastic and inelastic scattering in Compton's work interesting. You can
find it in my monograph entitled On the Quantum as a Physical Entitiy.
See the sub footnote in my posting.

Can you reproduce any experimental data on scattering with your ideas?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 11:10:10 AM

wrote:

I assuime you are declaring that the quark (that has never been
isolated

Right.

and therefore never been proven to exist)

Non sequitur.
Vergon:
not a non sequitur. You can theorize all you want but if you can't
produce it it is just theory.

is responsible for these events.

Not "declaring". Simply pointing out that QCD, the theory which
deals with quarks and their interactions, can describe all these
things.
*Quantitatively*.
Vergon:
According to Occam's razor there are often multiple explanations for
events and data -- and the least complicated should be chosen.
As to describing quantitatively -- quarkism is based on the common
denominators of the atomic zoo so it is no surprise that it can come
with quantitative results.Doesn't mean the quark really exists.

I find this challenge interesting but would need more details in

order

to discuss it further. Can you give me references?

Any textbook on particle physics (try e.g. Povh or Perkins)
or Quantum Field Theory (e.g. Peskin&Schroeder) should do.

As to inelastic scattering, you may find my treatment of combined
elastic and inelastic scattering in Compton's work interesting. You

can

find it in my monograph entitled On the Quantum as a Physical

Entitiy.

See the sub footnote in my posting.

Can you reproduce any experimental data on scattering with your ideas?
Vergon:
Read it and see. The theory explains the data.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 11:56:57 AM

wrote:

vergon_enterpri...@highstream.net wrote:

I assuime you are declaring that the quark (that has never been
isolated

Right.

Your attributions are garbled.

and therefore never been proven to exist)

Non sequitur.

Vergon:

not a non sequitur.

Yes, indeed.
*Nothing* is ever "proven" to exist in physics, if you did
not notice. The best you can do is to amass evidence for
the existence of something. And it's entirely irrelevant if
that evidence is direct or indirect.

You can theorize all you want but if you can't
produce it it is just theory.

We produce indeed something: effects predicted by the theory.
As long as you can't explain all the effects predicted by
QCD *quantitatively*, you are not in the position to claim
that quarks don't exist.

is responsible for these events.

Well, if you have a simpler, *quantitative* explanation of all
the data, feel free to give it.

As to describing quantitatively -- quarkism is based on the common
denominators of the atomic zoo so it is no surprise that it can come
with quantitative results.

I have not the faintest clue what this sentence is supposed to mean.

Doesn't mean the quark really exists.

Again: if you have a simpler, .... see above.

I find this challenge interesting but would need more details in
order to discuss it further. Can you give me references?

Any textbook on particle physics (try e.g. Povh or Perkins)
or Quantum Field Theory (e.g. Peskin&Schroeder) should do.

So will you look the data up? You won't, right?

As to inelastic scattering, you may find my treatment of combined
elastic and inelastic scattering in Compton's work interesting. You
can find it in my monograph entitled On the Quantum as a Physical
Entitiy.

See the sub footnote in my posting.

Can you reproduce any experimental data on scattering with your ideas?
Vergon:

Read it and see. The theory explains the data.

Why don't you simply answer my question?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 12:21:05 PM

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:cp7f99$5vh$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

vergon_enterprises@highstream.net wrote:

vergon_enterpri...@highstream.net wrote:

I assuime you are declaring that the quark (that has never been
isolated

Right.

Your attributions are garbled.

Slight understatement :-)
[snip]

Read it and see. The theory explains the data.

Why don't you simply answer my question?

Careful, in my lists Vergon is in the same category as
Henri Wilson and Harold Ensle.
Empty vessels. Waste of time. Nothing helps.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 03:19:53 AM

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:cp7f99$5vh$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

vergon_enterprises@highstream.net wrote:

[snip]

Read it and see. The theory explains the data.

Why don't you simply answer my question?

Careful, in my lists Vergon is in the same category as
Henri Wilson and Harold Ensle.
Empty vessels. Waste of time. Nothing helps.

Well, isn't this the case for all the cranks here? And essentially
for all cranks everywhere?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 04:28:38 AM

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:cp95bp$o9g$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:cp7f99$5vh$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

vergon_enterprises@highstream.net wrote:

[snip]

Read it and see. The theory explains the data.

Why don't you simply answer my question?

Careful, in my lists Vergon is in the same category as
Henri Wilson and Harold Ensle.
Empty vessels. Waste of time. Nothing helps.

Well, isn't this the case for all the cranks here? And essentially
for all cranks everywhere?

Ah sure, but some aren't cranks. Some are open and actually
learn something.
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "Creighton Hogg"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	07 Dec 2004 07:45:46 PM

Please include the quoted text in your post, it makes following the thread
much easier.
On 7 Dec 2004,

wrote:

I assuime you are declaring that the quark (that has never been
isolated and therefore never been proven to exist) is responsible for
these events.

No, I'm saying that QCD explains all these things. Nothing can be
*proven* to exist.

I find this challenge interesting but would need more details in order
to discuss it further. Can you give me references?

I'd recommend taking a look at Halzen and Martin's book Quarks & Leptons.
They don't just explain how the standard model works, but they discuss the
data that led to these conclusions.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 10:42:18 AM

According to the theory of Occam's razor there can be multiple
explanations for data or events -- and the least complicated should be
given preference.
As to "nothing can be proven to exist" let me say that you can theorize
-- but if you can't produce it it doesn't exist.
It's just theory. This "Well it's just stuck in the necleous" is a
crock and a copout.
.

User: "Creighton Hogg"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 11:44:02 AM

Again, please try to quote the previous post when responding.
Thanks.
If you're using the new google groups, then I understand that there's
problems with quoting right now so don't worry about it.
On 8 Dec 2004,

wrote:

According to the theory of Occam's razor there can be multiple
explanations for data or events -- and the least complicated should be
given preference.

Yes, which is why I asked if you can explain all the same things as QCD.
Simply because there *might* be a theory that can do it and be simpler
doesn't mean we have to stop using something that works fine for now.
Before QCD was adopted there were competing theories about how to explain
hadron jets and other such things seen in high energy scattering, but QCD
came out on top because it *did* seem to do the best job in the best way.
Can you explain *all* the same data as QCD and still come out simpler?
I looked at your theory and, pending some further calculations from you, I
do not believe you can get jets from your theory since your version of the
strong force increases at short ranges and decreases uniformly at long
ranges, which means you don't have asymptotic freedom.
Also, we've observed that the strength of interaction changes with the
energy scale involved. I saw nothing in your theory that could replicate
the running of the coupling strengths for the different interactions.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	08 Dec 2004 09:05:14 PM

Creighton Hogg Dec 8, 9:44 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Creighton Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:44:02 -0600
Local: Wed, Dec 8 2004 9:44 am
Subject: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Again, please try to quote the previous post when responding.
Thanks.
If you're using the new google groups, then I understand that there's
problems with quoting right now so don't worry about it.
On 8 Dec 2004,

wrote:
Vergon:
I don't know about you but I don't like this new Google system. I wish
they'd go back to the old system. It worked just fine.
First, let me say I appreciate your approach and comments. They are
polite, intelligent and well thought out.
But let me explain something about my work and approach.
I do not claim (and say so in the work itself) that it is the answer to
all things. Rather, I say, it is a skeletal work with much to be filled
in by others. After all one man can only do so much and the range *is*
very broad.
The purpose was to come up with a physical model -- not just for QM but
for all that transpires in the universe. I am particularly pleased with
the section on gravity. It can be considered a quantized version. Also,
it is very hypothetical but the worked example does fit accepted data.
It also supplies a physical explanation for action at a distance. That
is no longer a mystery if one accepts my thesis.
Are there mistakes or errors? You can bet your booty. And I am very
fortunate that people will gladly point them out.
I was pleased to be able to come up with an equation that fitted the
empirical determinations of the strong force. Also there is an
explanation as to why the charges on the electron and proton are equal
(though opposite). And it doesn't involve quarks.
There is much that is admittedly avant-garde -- like an explanation as
to why the density of certain particles fall off as the fourth power of
the distance from the center.
And then there is the determination of the equatorial velocity of
particles -- and the fact it is a constant.
Another thing is the mass of the quantum and a showing that my quantum
particle composes both radiation and ponderable matter. In other
words, radiation is just another state of matter.
Any way I think it is a nice piece of work even if it doesn't answer
all the questions.
if you ever read it all, I would appreciate your thoughts on it.
Best Regards

According to the theory of Occam's razor there can be multiple
explanations for data or events -- and the least complicated should

given preference.

Yes, which is why I asked if you can explain all the same things as
QCD.
Simply because there *might* be a theory that can do it and be simpler
doesn't mean we have to stop using something that works fine for now.
Before QCD was adopted there were competing theories about how to
explain
hadron jets and other such things seen in high energy scattering, but
QCD
came out on top because it *did* seem to do the best job in the best
way.
Can you explain *all* the same data as QCD and still come out simpler?
I looked at your theory and, pending some further calculations from
you, I
do not believe you can get jets from your theory since your version of
the
strong force increases at short ranges and decreases uniformly at long
ranges, which means you don't have asymptotic freedom.
Also, we've observed that the strength of interaction changes with the
energy scale involved. I saw nothing in your theory that could
replicate
the running of the coupling strengths for the different interactions.
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 03:18:58 AM

wrote:

Creighton Hogg Dec 8, 9:44 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Creighton Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:44:02 -0600
Local: Wed, Dec 8 2004 9:44 am
Subject: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Again, please try to quote the previous post when responding.
Thanks.
If you're using the new google groups, then I understand that there's
problems with quoting right now so don't worry about it.

On 8 Dec 2004,

Can you give a reason why anyone should try to fill out the gaps
in *your* "skeletal work" and not in the work of the hundreds
other people who think they have found an alternative explanation?

The purpose was to come up with a physical model -- not just for QM but
for all that transpires in the universe.

Define "physical model".

I am particularly pleased with
the section on gravity. It can be considered a quantized version.

Says the one who has no clue what "quantization" actually means.
Hint: it does not simply mean something like postulating that
certain things come in "quanta".

Also,
it is very hypothetical but the worked example does fit accepted data.

Please provide a link to where exactly one can find this "worked
example"

It also supplies a physical explanation for action at a distance. That
is no longer a mystery if one accepts my thesis.

Well, that is also no longer a mystery if one accepts QFT,
a theory which was developed 60 years ago and in all that decades has
stood millions of experimental tests.

Are there mistakes or errors? You can bet your booty. And I am very
fortunate that people will gladly point them out.

And you will ignore all errors which are pointed out, as usual.

I was pleased to be able to come up with an equation that fitted the
empirical determinations of the strong force.

Which empirical determinations, specifically? And what strong
force do you mean? The strong nuclear force, or the strong
colour force?

Also there is an
explanation as to why the charges on the electron and proton are equal
(though opposite). And it doesn't involve quarks.

There is much that is admittedly avant-garde -- like an explanation as
to why the density of certain particles fall off as the fourth power of
the distance from the center.

Which particles would that be?

And then there is the determination of the equatorial velocity of
particles -- and the fact it is a constant.

Well, where is the experimental support for that?

Another thing is the mass of the quantum and a showing that my quantum
particle composes both radiation and ponderable matter. In other
words, radiation is just another state of matter.

In other words, you don't know what the words you use mean.

Any way I think it is a nice piece of work even if it doesn't answer
all the questions.

If you did not notice: there are hundreds of peoples on the web
who say and think the same.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: ""
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	09 Dec 2004 05:28:25 PM

From: Creighton Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:44:02 -0600
Local: Wed, Dec 8 2004 9:44 am
Subject: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS
Again, please try to quote the previous post when responding.
Thanks.
If you're using the new google groups, then I understand that there's
problems with quoting right now so don't worry about it.
On 8 Dec 2004,

wrote:
Vergon:
I don't know about you but I don't like this new Google system. I

wish

they'd go back to the old system. It worked just fine.
First, let me say I appreciate your approach and comments. They are
polite, intelligent and well thought out.
But let me explain something about my work and approach.
I do not claim (and say so in the work itself) that it is the answer

all things. Rather, I say, it is a skeletal work with much to be

filled

in by others. After all one man can only do so much and the range

*is*

very broad.

Can you give a reason why anyone should try to fill out the gaps
in *your* "skeletal work" and not in the work of the hundreds
other people who think they have found an alternative explanation?
VERGON:
Yes, because my work is superior.

The purpose was to come up with a physical model -- not just for QM

but

for all that transpires in the universe.

Define "physical model".
VERGON:
You've got to be kidding. Read up on the philosophy of physics and
you'll get a grasp on the subject.

I am particularly pleased with
the section on gravity. It can be considered a quantized version.

Says the one who has no clue what "quantization" actually means.
Hint: it does not simply mean something like postulating that certain
things come in "quanta".
VERGON:
It might mean one thing to you and another to me.

Also,
it is very hypothetical but the worked example does fit accepted

data.
Please provide a link to where exactly one can find this "worked
example"
VERGON:
You're not paying attention. I already did that.
Click http//www.wbabit.net . Go to the pull down marked "Author list"
and click on Vertner Vergon.
You'll be presented with several monographs of mine. Click the one
titled On the Quantum as a Physical Entity. Go to the end -- the
section titled "Gravity" Read it with an open mind if possible.
You will be handicapped if you have not read the section called "The
Corpus Quantum" which is a description of the particle I call "THE
quantum".
Since this is an avant-garde work -- and the thinking is outside the
box, you may have trouble with it. But you will find it self
consistent, consistent with empiricism -- and it does answer many
questions.

It also supplies a physical explanation for action at a distance.

That

is no longer a mystery if one accepts my thesis.

Well, that is also no longer a mystery if one accepts QFT,
a theory which was developed 60 years ago and in all that decades has
stood millions of experimental tests.
VERGON:
Well if it explains it in physical terms, why are people still saying
action at a distance is still unexplained?

Are there mistakes or errors? You can bet your booty. And I am very
fortunate that people will gladly point them out.

And you will ignore all errors which are pointed out, as usual.
VERGON:
Shame on you, now you are getting nasty and personal.
See the trouble is you offer your opinion as gospel -- and then accuse
the other person of ignoring the "errors" you've pointed out -- and
then you get bent out of shape when they don't see things your way. How
do you expect to learn anything if you don't have an open mind?
Einstein said "Great spirits have alway encountered violent opposition
from mediocre minds"
Max Planck said something to the effect of -- If you have a new theory
don't try to teach it to the establishment, teach it to the young minds
that are more pliable.
The Bible says, "Cast not thy pearls before swine for they will trample
them then turn to destroy you."
How was Velikovsky treated?
How was Tesla regarded until he prevailed?
You see mathematicians don't think like ordinary people do. They think
mathematics is God. In fact one said God is a mathematician.
It is obvious you don't think the way I do -- and we will never see eye
to eye. Pity.
Let me give you a crude example.
There were two partners in the old west that went to work for a ranch
and when the season was over the rancher gave them 13 cows as a bonus.
They decided to split up because one wanted to take his half of the
herd to Chicago -- and the other wanted to go to Abilene Kansas. So
they split the herd in half. Each took his 6 1/2 cows and they went
their separate ways.
Mathematically there's nothing wrong with this picture. But I think it
would be quite a sight to see these guys each herding 6 1/2 cows down
the trail. That half cow would look rather funny.
Silly?
Do you believe empty space is not empty?
Do you believe empty space is warped?
Do you believe in tachyons?
Do you believe in wormholes?
Do you believe in time reversal?
Do you believe in virtual photons?
Do you believe in Gluons?
Do youbelieve in gravitons?
Do you believe in half cows marching down the trail?

I was pleased to be able to come up with an equation that fitted the
empirical determinations of the strong force.

Which empirical determinations, specifically? And what strong
force do you mean? The strong nuclear force, or the strong
colour fource?
The answers are in the Monograph -- except the one re the strong
colour. Incidentally, what part of the spectrum does that strong colour
occupy? :-) In Alice in Wonderland someone said "Words mean what we
want them to mean"

Also there is an
explanation as to why the charges on the electron and proton are

equal

(though opposite). And it doesn't involve quarks.

Nice.
However, if you want to claim that there are no quarks, and that
there is no evidence for their existence (as you do), you *first*
have to show how one can explain all the (admittedly indirect)
evidence for their existence with alternative approaches. Good luck.
VERGON:
What do you want expalined?
I already gave you one example (the equality of charges) -- and your
only remark was "Nice".
Your so called " admittedly indirect evidence" is a euphemism for
'mathematical footwork'.

There is much that is admittedly avant-garde -- like an explanation

to why the density of certain particles fall off as the fourth power

the distance from the center.

Which particles would that be?
Electron, proton, neutron.
This whole show business of particle shards is a joke anyway. You take
true particles and smash them into a thousand pieces. They immediately
reconform (decay) into true particles -- and you pretend there is some
significance the these shards.
It's a waste of time and money. This baloney about telling how the
universe started by pursuing this endeavor is one of the biggest con
games ever.

And then there is the determination of the equatorial velocity of
particles -- and the fact it is a constant.

Well, where is the experimental support for that?
Vergon:
Did they ask Einstein for experimental suppport when he said that
matter could be converted to energy? "Course it was demonstrated to the
Japanese in 1945.

Another thing is the mass of the quantum and a showing that my

quantum

particle composes both radiation and ponderable matter. In other
words, radiation is just another state of matter.

In other words, you don't know what the words you use mean.
Vergon:
You mean *you* don't understand them. Your shortcoming is your problem
not mine. You're too locked in the box and incapable of climbing out.
Pity.

Any way I think it is a nice piece of work even if it doesn't answer
all the questions.

If you did not notice: there are hundreds of peoples on the web who say
and think the same.
Vergon:
And there are thousands who think the same as you -- poor things. :-)
But underneath it all you are probably a pretty nice person -- so I
forgive you (for you know not what you do).
Best Regards
Vert
.

User: "GRAVITYMECHANIC2"
Title: Re: RECLAIMING PHYSICS	10 Dec 2004 06:22:39 PM

Subject: GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE
PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2004 Allen C. Goodrich
A planet or any mass such as the earth orbits the sun
simply because it would require the gain or loss of a
tremendous amount of energy to make it travel in any
other orbit or path.
Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.
Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?
1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.
It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.
2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.
How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?
3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.
Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m is any mass say that of the earth.
Planets, moons, and electrons are normally in equilibrium
orbits where the total energy is constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L+ X e(2 pi L)^2/t^2 +
Z e^2/4 pi E_o L = a constant.
(In the absence of a charge)
From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L^2
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.
If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.
POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.
No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy decreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.
GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich
An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.
TABULATED co-op.nos.noaa.gov and
space.jpl.nasa.gov DATA:
OCEAN TIDES AND PHASES OF THE MOON
AT DEEP OCEAN PORT- MYRTLE BEACH
LOWEST TIDE (YEARS 1992 AND 1993)
1992 FULL MOON---1992 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(std)-DATE---TIME(std)
Mar.18--12:00Mid-Mar.3---12:00Noon
Apr.17--12:00Mid-Apr.2---12:00Noon
May.17--12:00Mid-May.2---12:00Noon
Jun.15--12:00Mid-Jun.29--12:00Noon
July.13-12:00Mid-July.29-12:00Noon
Aug.12--12:00Mid-Aug.27--12:00Noon
Sept.11-12:00Mid-Sept.26-12:00Noon
Oct.11--12:00Mid-Oct.26--12:00Noon
Nov.10--12:00Mid-Mov.25--12:00noon
Dec.10--12:00Mid-Dec.25--12:00noon
1993 FULL MOON---1993 NEW MOON
(at moons highest point in the sky)
DATE---TIME(sdt)-DATE---TIME(sdt)
Jan.8--12:00Mid--Jan.24-12:00Noon
Feb.6--12:00Mid--Feb.21-12:00Noon
Mar.8--12:00Mid--Mar.23-12:00Noon
Apr.6--12:00Mid--Apr.21-12:00Noon
May.6--12:00Mid--May.20-12:00Noon
Jun.4--12:00Mid--Jun.19-12:00Noon
July.3-12:00Mid--Juy.18-12:00Noon
Aug.2--12:00Mid--Aug.17-12:00Noon
Sep.1--12:00Mid--Sep.16-12:00Noon
Sep.30-12:00MId--Oct.15-12:00Noon
Oct.30-12:00Mid--Nov.14-12:00Noon
Nov.29-12:00Mid--Dec.13-12:00Noon
Dec.28-12:00Mid--Jan.12-12:00Noon
This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.
CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports. A lowest tide
also occurs on the earth's ocean directly opposite
to the new and full moons.
SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.
THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)
Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH
A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),
Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L
equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).
^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.
INERTIA AND MOMENTUM are the properties of a mass
that evidence its reluctance to change its total
energy, or it is its need to maintain a constant total
energy. If it could more easily obtain or lose energy,
it would have less inertia or momentum.
SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechanic2/myhomepage/resume.html
A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.
The universe has been found to be expanding at an
accelerating rate as predicted in 1984 by this new
theory.
ELECTROMAGNETIC ,PHOTON AND CHARGE EFFEC