Thanks Paul
In the event that some people might be wondering why I'm so anal about getting
my physics right, refer to my published paper, Quantum Semiotics:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64
We do need to get our assumptions right, and how our experience
>"You're complaining about the standards of science, yet your standards are
>such that you believe most of the media is conspiring to fake our news?"
I just did a search through my Sadhu Sanga email folder on the terms [Blauvelt
liberal]. Easy paydirt. Your liberal colors are showing.
June15,20
>”But that does not mean anyone who has not studied science in detail, can
>just come up with a wild idea sitting in his house that this theory is wrong
>and that theory is wrong!”
Are you suggesting that science doesn’t need to lift its game? The peer review
process has serious problems… refe
>”Special and General Relativity and the relativity of inertial frames implies
>that when the past is past for one set of people it is not necessarily past
>for another set of people (as long as they are in different inertial frames).
>We've conducted multiple experiments that confirm relativity
Paul, Kashyap, Siegried, thanks for your valuable inputs.
For other list members that might be interested… I posted the following
question in another forum and received further good answers in the affirmative:
>”Are special relativity predictions consistent with experimental results at
>near-c
Siegfried >”Is that along the lines of what you were asking for?”
Your second example is, because you are connecting theory with actual
experimentally observed results. However I am unable to contextualize it in a
manner that is compelling to me, as I don’t have a reference base to compare it
t
Hi Siegfried
>”There is no conflict between SR and QM and no controversy from the
>perspective of physics as practiced today.”
Are collisions between particles travelling at near-light speed (0.1c),
in the Large Hadron Collider, consistent with[E=mc2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]?
That is, as t
Paul and Kashyap, further to the distinction between special relativity and
general relativity to which both of you draw attention… If general relativity
was built on the assumptions of special relativity as a given, it follows that
a problem with general relativity suggests that the assumptions
Paul Werbos>” No. There is no conflict between special relativity and QM,
period.”
The following article is of a very different opinion. The controversy is
clearly far from settled. From Nature 547, 156–158 (13 July 2017)
doi:10.1038/547156a:
http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum
Serge Patlavskiy >”How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation
is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by
comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense
in your words."”
And this works in both directions. Going in rever
Vasavada, Kashyap >”Special theory of relativity (SR) has been verified by
innumerable experiments. In fact the whole fields of Nuclear and High Energy
Physics have come up during the last 80 years or so, strongly verifying SR
every day in the labs!”
As per my reply to Paul Werbos, I do not acc
Paul Werbos >” But in fact, there is only one postulate in special relativity
as used today: invariance of the laws of the universe with respect to proper
Lorentz transformations.”
Good, I’m perfectly fine with that – it provides a necessary common ground that
we all agree on. It was an importa
12 matches
Mail list logo
