The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: PHYSICS TODAY  (Read 9532 times)

Offline tsolkas-1

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« on: 08/12/2007 16:53:06 »
COMMENT
PHYSICS TODAY


 
To begin with, I am truly saddened, because a large number of physicists (university professors, researchers, etc) are so blind, that they fail to see and understand the following:
   1. Galileo was wrong (the Tower of Pisa Experiment). Therefore, the “equivalence principle” of the General Theory of Relativity (which, as we all know, is based on Galileo’s experiment) is obviously wrong, too.
   2. The advance of Mercury’s perihelion (43''/century)is due to the Sun’s revolution around the center of mass of the solar system, and not to the curvature of space-time around the Sun, as Einstein erroneously asserts.
   3. By conducting the J.P. Cedarholm - C.H. Townes experiment (1959) (a simple, low-cost experiment) on a moving vehicle, one can automatically establish whether Ether exists in nature or not.
Question: Why isn’t this simple yet important Physics experiment carried out?
   4. By conducting the “double-slit” experiment DS - e - 727 - 0,1 - 2,a simple, low-cost experiment), one can automatically establish whether Quantum Mechanics is an accurate or erroneous theory of Physics.
Question: Why isn’t this simple yet important Physics experiment carried out?
After everything stated above:
What do the “great” physicists (e.g. of Princeton University, MIT, Harvard University, etc) answer to the above queries (1), (2),(3), (4);
Personally, I believe that if there is a physicist who keeps silent or is unable to answer the above (1), (2), (3), (4), then this person not only is not regarded a scientist but is also a shame for the very science of physics.
This type of physicists who keep silent to such important issues, in reality put a halt to the evolution of Physics and help sustain a “new Middle Ages”.
Today it is a fact that research work in physics is turning into a craze.
A typical example is the performance of the Gravity Probe experiment b.
The cost of this experiment was 200 million dollars. In my opinion, the Gravity Probe-b experiment is the biggest nonsense perpetrated by the “great” physicists in the history of physics for the following reasons:
With the amount of money spent for the Gravity Probe-b experiment, the scientific community could have performed 1.000 simpler and more reliable experiments in order to establish the accuracy of the theory of relativity.
If that isn’t a huge nonsense, then what is it?
I am certain that this fact will go down in the history of physics as such, and future physicists will laugh at the nonsense of today’s “great” scientists, universities, etc!!!

Conclusion
 
Present-day Physics is a pseudo-physics (I firmly believe in that).
The significant scientific work of many anonymous physicists is shrugged off by various major “centers” (universities, college professors, scientific journals, etc).
Physics today resembles an immense madhouse; it has turned into a profit-making supermarket, let alone the propaganda accompanying various theories and the star system established among various physicists. I don’t want to believe that modern research is controlled and driven by several “centers” (universities, college professors, scientific journals, etc).
However, if this is true, then it is the most hideous shame for science itself.
Modern research in physics lacks totally the fundamental way of thinking adopted by the ancient Greek philosophers and Galileo.
The pure, simple and deep way of thinking such as that of Eratosthenes, Aristarchus, Newton, Fizeau, Fresnel, Rutheford, Planck, etc, has eclipsed from modern physics.
Modern physics speaks of “space-times”, “loops”, “strings”, “superstrings”, “wormholes”, “indeterminacies”, "quarks", etc. Excuse me for saying this, but all the above is pure nonsense, and figments of the imagination that bear no relation with physics.
Finally, the only thing that the “industries of Quantum Mechanics, the General Theory of Relativity, the theory of strings, etc” do is to constantly produce “materials” for the building of modern Physics’ “Tower of Babel”!
The victims in this situation are the young people and mostly students whose fresh mind has been turned into a “garbage can” for the products of the above industries.
I keep wondering about this:
So much money is spent every year in experimental research throughout the world:
   1. Is it so difficult to carry out one of the 10 experiments proposed in my paper so as to verify the Theory of Relativity?
   2. Is it so difficult to carry out one of the 7 experiments proposed in my paper so as to verify Quantum Mechanics?
I don’t know what to say! To this day, such a thing has never occurred in the history of physics!!
Why do the “major” universities, research centers, etc, refuse to perform one of the above 17 experiments?
Could it be because these “major” universities wish to preserve (for self-evident reasons) the “mummy” of the Theory of Relativity and of Quantum Mechanics which have already been dead?
I am truly amazed!!
Yet, I feel compelled to inform the “great” physics professors, the major universities, etc, that they turn a blind eye where my case is concerned, and that the answer will come from true and genuine researchers, and quite soon no less!
All the above is definitely no physics. It is the theater of the absurd!!
This is an appalling situation!!
This is all I had to say.

Thank you,
Christos A. Tsolkas


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #1 on: 08/12/2007 18:02:29 »
Right lets stop this before it spreads.
Galileo didn't really need to drop the balls from the tower to show that all objects fall at the same speed.
He knew from the simple rules of logic that this was the case. He did the experiment to prove it to people who were too stupid to understand the logical proof.

Imagine 2 balls (one heavy, one light) tied together with a string dropped from the tower.

The prevailing "wisdom" from Aristotle was that this combined object, being heavier than any of its components, would fall faster. Similarly, the heavy ball should fall faster than the light one.
So the heavy ball tries to fall faster leaving the light one behind - this would pull the string tight between them. Yet the overall combined object has to fall faster than the heavy ball would on its own. That only works if the little ball pulling upwards on the big one makes it fall down faster. That's clearly absurd. The only way to make it work is to have all the things fall at the same speed.

The great professors probably know this but couldn't be bothered to explain it to you.
Since Galileo was right, the rest of your post is wrong.
 

Offline kalayzor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #2 on: 09/12/2007 03:13:11 »
If I may follow a little bit -- someone actually tried dropping two objects off of the Leaning Tower of Pisa a little after Galileo...and the larger object actually did hit the ground first, thus Galileo is wrong?  No!  Air resistance!  Galileo actually figured error into his calculations and determined that he could be off by so much and still be correct...and this slight gap was within that margin.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the double slit experiment, though.  Quantum demands a wave/particle duality, and the double-slit experiment only proves one of those sides.  However, you can also quantize the amount of energy of a certain wavelength of light -- a particulate quality (talk to the folks in a few of the quantizing light threads about that).  Which is it?  Both!

And the ether has already been disproven -- check up on the Michaelson-Morley experiment (1907).  It used the Earth's orbit around the sun and an interferometer.

Read up a bit on some of this stuff...check out what's being done.

Out of curiosity, where's your paper?  I don't get physics magazines...and I want to see what you've suggested to verify quantum.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #3 on: 09/12/2007 17:38:46 »
I am never sure whether these modern science is a lie "loonies"  really believe the rubbish they are spouting or are just doing it to annoy others and waste our time by concocting detailed replies.  As bored chemist states the originating information in this thread is total rubbish and all the main theories of the bedrock of physics are adequately proved.  The deletion of this thread would only reinforce the image the originators belief in his erroneous conspiracy theories.  I suggest we put it to the vote and give the originator a sustained raspberry

Do you agree that our new contributor tsolkas-1 is just off his trolley? and not worthy of further comment?
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #4 on: 09/12/2007 18:02:57 »
Quote
4. By conducting the “double-slit” experiment DS - e - 727 - 0,1 - 2,a simple, low-cost experiment), one can automatically establish whether Quantum Mechanics is an accurate or erroneous theory of Physics.
Question: Why isn’t this simple yet important Physics experiment carried out?
I haven't done the double slit experiment but I have, on many occasions, done an electron diffraction  demonstration in front of A level students.  This involves passing a beam of electrons through a very thin sheet of carbon atoms and projecting the resulting pattern on a phosphor screen. Waving a magnet at the apparatus can prove that it is not a phenomenon of light, but charged particles. The pattern measurements give values for the de Broglie wavelength which tally with what you would expect. Anyone who wanted to prove or disprove that diffraction occurs could buy an EHT power supply and the appropriate tube; the equipment is readily available from educational equipment suppliers - not magic apparatus manufacturers.  It's an expense that anyone with zeal to prove Science is wrong could surely afford.

Use it and then try to claim that there were no diffraction rings. It wouldn't cost you much and could prove very educational for you,  tsolkas-1. It certainly convinces (guillable?)  teenagers on a regular basis. Look, for yourself,  at what happens and then deny that electrons can behave as waves. If you get yourself a cheap laser and a pinhole, you will see an identical diffraction pattern - as it happens, the spacing of the concentric rings is pretty much the same, even.
Failing that, try the link:
physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745
Or you may say that they are lying?
I often wonder what sources are read by some of the contributors to these fora. Have they ever read a textbook? (Or are they too clever for that?)
I concur with Soul Surfer.
Perhaps we should boycott such posts.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #5 on: 09/12/2007 20:18:38 »
On other discussion boards I have seen another interesting aproach- the thread gets moved to a "rubbish" forum. This gives us a chance to laugh at them (and even to point out the error of their ways if we are feeling generous). It lets others know exactly how much credibillity the ideas have and hopefully it puts people off posting nonsense.
Any thoughts?

BTW, a search for that oddly named experiment will let you find it. I'm not including a link because that would make a lot of search engines think it was, in some sense, important.

It'a a pretty standard experiment- a simplified version of the one sophiecentaur describes, and the real results are, of course, consistent with the known laws of physics.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #6 on: 09/12/2007 20:55:14 »
"BTW, a search for that oddly named experiment will let you find it. I'm not including a link because that would make a lot of search engines think it was, in some sense, important."

you may post that link, this site has some clever jiggery pokery that works around that. No links placed on this site get google rankings...if you or anyone should want more info on this then Dave is your man.
Just post a topic in the feedback section and he will answer
 

another_someone

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #7 on: 10/12/2007 12:23:22 »
I do find the belittling of forum users, no matter that they may have seriously off centre ideas, to be at minimum, very vulgar, not likely to be constructive to anybody, and in extremis, could be classed as cyberbullying.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #8 on: 10/12/2007 18:16:41 »
I consider wasting bandwidth and people's time by posting flights of fantasy across several fora to be much the same.

I also think there's an important difference between someone posting "I think this but I'm not sure- can anyone help me" and "The whole of modern physics is wrong". I'm quite happy to help out in the former case. The latter case seems to be  deserving of discouragement, particularly the third time they do it.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2007 18:26:35 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #9 on: 10/12/2007 19:56:20 »
What do you mean by give him a raspberry?

Where I come from, giving somebody a raspberry means, forcefully holding them down, lifting up their shirt, and blowing on their stomach so it ripples. Its quite humiliating really. But im not so sure thats what you meant. So what did you mean by giving somebody a raspberry?

p.s if that is what it means, I suggest that I am the blower, since I recently acquired a silly mustache.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #10 on: 10/12/2007 21:16:53 »
I consider wasting bandwidth and people's time by posting flights of fantasy across several fora to be much the same.

I also think there's an important difference between someone posting "I think this but I'm not sure- can anyone help me" and "The whole of modern physics is wrong". I'm quite happy to help out in the former case. The latter case seems to be  deserving of discouragement, particularly the third time they do it.

The kind of behaviour you are describing (and I don't doubt the description is accurate) is what, when I was still a moderator on her, was referred to as evangelising.

Forum acceptable usage policy
Quote
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

It is not acceptable simply to repost material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.

So, if you want to raise the matter with the moderators, I would have thought you would have good grounds for doing so.  I just object to having people put in the stocks and having rotten tomatoes thrown at them.  Even if you may feel they deserve it, I feel it brings the tone of the forum itself down.
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #11 on: 10/12/2007 23:02:03 »
No one is forced to reply to these loony posts. Ignoring them the best way to deal with them.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2007 23:09:47 by sophiecentaur »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #12 on: 11/12/2007 00:17:41 »
No one is forced to reply to these loony posts. Ignoring them the best way to deal with them.

I have no disagreement with that.
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #13 on: 11/12/2007 17:34:50 »
We just have to contain our annoyance. Can you manage it?? We shall see. . . . .
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #14 on: 13/12/2007 15:33:30 »
As i see it, we all strive to be polite and considerate in our replies and discussions on the forum. But there does come a time when we need to call a spade a spade, no beating around the bush.

What i have noticed, is that when someone does post a topic that is "way out there" and quite "loony", there are a number of members that do reply with sound science. Some of us have stopped doing this for whatever reason, yet other continue.

There are some topics that Bored Chemist (others do this, but one example is enough) is the main contributer to, always replying with sound science and a good degree of civility. Why does he take the time to do this? I like to think that he does it because to leave the posts unchallenged and void of replies, would give the casual reader the impression that the post has merit.

This also raises the question of removing or deleting posts, should "loony" posts be moved or deleted? In the whole i would rather they remained. Yes they may be "loony" and posted across many forums but when posts have good scientific replies that may educate the poster, not to mention the membership i can not see them being a problem.

In every post there is a "report to moderator" option. To some extent we are all moderators of the site and have an interest to keep it going, when a member feels that a post is inappropriate or just plain wrong i think it would help the moderators and admin of the site if they were informed of this and the reasons why via use of the "report to moderator" option.

The moderators have jobs and families and spend as much time as they can on the forum, yet they can not be expected to read every post and follow ever link, so any assistance we, the membership, can give them to keep the site sound and flowing i know will be appreciated.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #15 on: 13/12/2007 16:24:31 »
Thanks for that. You are right about why I respond, I don't want to let the last word be unscientific nonsense because it might mislead some  people into thinking there is some merit to the claims.
If these pointless topics were moved to a forum explicitly labeled as rubbish then it would clarify this point very well.
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #16 on: 15/12/2007 11:42:57 »
That approach could generate a number of 'martyrs', if we are not careful. Such nonsense doesn't deserve that sort of acclaim! A thread that consists of only a single post soon finds itself off the front page and into oblivion.
I must say, it's happened to some of mine - I was LIVID!
 

another_someone

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #17 on: 15/12/2007 14:27:23 »
I think this obsession with having the last word (which I understand - I've been there - too often for my own good), can be counter-productive, and can end up devaluing your own point.

But we have to distinguish between people who merely have made a mess of their science, and people who really are not interested in discussing anything, and merely see us as an advertising resource (even if what they are advertising is their own pet theory, rather than a commercial product).
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #18 on: 15/12/2007 14:59:07 »
I think this obsession with having the last word....

I agree  :D

but seriously, if you have devoted your time and energy in to a topic, should you just stop because someone either does not get it or refuses to? If that were the case then why bother replying to topics at all?
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #19 on: 15/12/2007 17:27:53 »
You can usually tell, from the first sentence, whether the new posted thread is serious or just raving. Serious but misled is fine and deserves a reply. But good will can run out!
 

another_someone

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #20 on: 16/12/2007 07:32:53 »
but seriously, if you have devoted your time and energy in to a topic, should you just stop because someone either does not get it or refuses to? If that were the case then why bother replying to topics at all?

I think there is a number of value judgements to be made.

One replies to a topic in the hope of making a difference, not merely (I hope) to see one's reply posted (to visually hear one's own voice).  In that respect, one has to make a judgement as to whether replying initially, or continuing to reply, will make a difference - will it alter minds (even if the mind it alters ends up being your own - that too is valuable - I know, you can do that with LSD as well :)).

How one judges this matter may in part be down to the degree of one's own naive optimism, but also in how well one thinks one can manage to get on the same wavelength as the other parties in the discussion, and so actually be able to get some real information across.  Some people are on a wavelength that is all their own, that nobody is going to manage to adapt to; other people simply have their receiver switched off; but a lot of others are listening, just you have to somehow find how to get them to understand (and that is often as much a challenge to one's own skill, to try and find out what language you can use to get through to them).  These are the judgements you have to make.
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #21 on: 16/12/2007 20:40:39 »
I agree with most of this. The problem is that when you appear prepared to carry on a pointless critique of something which is nonsense (and we do get some of those, don't we) it just encourages more nonsense postings.
This reminds me of the recent Oxford Union Debate; do we want to give a platform to every view? We surely want to protect uninformed readers  who can't discriminate sense from nonsense? This is supposed to be a Science Forum - not  a Magic or Conspiracy forum.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #22 on: 16/12/2007 21:50:08 »
Like the Oxford Union, I don't think we ought to give a forum to these daft ideas, otoh if we delete their posts I suspect they will just repost them.
If we move them to somewhere that's a "zoo" for people to come and look at oddities then I don't think people will post rubbish twice.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #23 on: 18/12/2007 02:28:17 »
Like the Oxford Union, I don't think we ought to give a forum to these daft ideas, otoh if we delete their posts I suspect they will just repost them.
If we move them to somewhere that's a "zoo" for people to come and look at oddities then I don't think people will post rubbish twice.

Depends on who and what they are.

If they are merely posting, and are not looking for responses, they will probably not even notice that we have deleted their post.

If they are coming back, then at least they are looking to find what replies they have evoked, and are likely to engage in some debate.

In most cases, where we make it clear that someone is not wanted here, and do so in a firm but polite way (and back that up by removing their account), they will simply walk away.  If we simply go about ridiculing them, they will probably simply respond in kind (which is how we have in the past gone into endless pages of mutual insults that served nobody any good).

The wider problem is that we are also sending out the signal to others that ridiculing people is acceptable behaviour (so long as somehow you can claim personal justification for it).

The other problem is that if someone who is a bit shy about asking a question (maybe they feel they might look ridiculous), then observes us openly ridiculing someone else, will not be in any way encouraged to put their head above the parapet.  I would rather they ask their question, however some people might think it silly, then the continue in ignorance for fear of being made to look a fool.  Even if you give you assurance now that the fact the you ridicule person X, you will not ridicule person Y; by the time person Y comes along, he will not be seeing that assurance (nor know whether the assurance applies to him also), but will merely see that ridicule is a tool that is accepted on this site, and will take away the message that unless you are tough enough to take it, don't enter here.
 

lyner

  • Guest
PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #24 on: 19/12/2007 21:31:57 »
Anyone who has the courtesy to put their post in the form of a question is more likely to get a friendly response.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

PHYSICS TODAY
« Reply #24 on: 19/12/2007 21:31:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums