An ether model which gives the Standard Model of particle physics

[The God]

Paddoboy,

Another lie.

I said Popper was not the be all and end all: The rest was in reference to Schmelzer. But English is not your first language is it? Although you should have picked up some in your Bollywood classes.

Take it easy my young friend....what I said......


I'm not the one that uses Popper as an excuse to validate bullshit.

This is what you said..

...............Just adding that Popper is not the be all and end all, and when any so called scientists, sees the need to invoke such inane semantical, philosophical bullshit, to support a failing stance, then that stance has not got much going for it.........


First of all it was dishonest on your part to make a comment about Popper, when admittedly you knew nothing about him.

Secondly, go and ask anyone, what the above statement of yours imply. It unequivocally says that you are referring to Popper not Schmelzer. [Inane, semantical, philosophical BS]. If any of your forum bosses support you in this, then invoke them too.

And Popper formalism is not for validation, rather it is for falsification (falsifiable)...that proves that you have no idea despite one go at google yesterday on Popper....Comprehension issues with an Australian whose native language is English???? None taught you during schooling (Did you attend beyond primary?) that being native to any language, only confirms ability to communicate in that language, it does not guarantee any expertise in that language. Infact most of the poor grammer is reflected in the illiterate natives only, and you are an illiterate guy.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

Another lie.




This is what you said..

...............Just adding that Popper is not the be all and end all, and when any so called scientists, sees the need to invoke such inane semantical, philosophical bullshit, to support a failing stance, then that stance has not got much going for it.........

Yep, Popper is not the be all and end all, and the "any so called scientist" was obviously in reference to Schmelzer who depends on him to validate his stories in much the same way that Farsight "uses"100 year old texts and misinterpretations of what Einstein said and meant.

First of all it was dishonest on your part to make a comment about Popper, when admittedly you knew nothing about him.

Not quite as dishonest as you using another handle to escape your own stupidity, nor as dishonest as hiding behind your now obvious religious agenda.

Secondly, go and ask anyone, what the above statement of yours imply. It unequivocally says that you are referring to Popper not Schmelzer. [Inane, semantical, philosophical BS]. If any of your forum bosses support you in this, then invoke them too.

You appear desperate my friend.
The paragraph was addressed to Schmelzer and obviously refers to Schmelzer and his habit of invoking Popper at every opportunity to add credibility to his silly ether claim.
You need to do better...much much better.
Oh, and of course Popper, at least Karl Popper, was not a scientist, he was simply a philosopher.
Perhaps if you could ask Schmelzer to give you some online support, which he appears rather reluctant to do.

And Popper formalism is not for validation, rather it is for falsification (falsifiable)...that proves that you have no idea despite one go at google yesterday on Popper....Comprehension issues with an Australian whose native language is English???? None taught you during schooling (Did you attend beyond primary?) that being native to any language, only confirms ability to communicate in that language, it does not guarantee any expertise in that language. Infact most of the poor grammer is reflected in the illiterate natives only, and you are an illiterate guy.

That's OK my friend...I know this is unnecessarily exciting you, but let's let your peers [and mine] on this forum be the judge as to who is acting like an uneducated fool.

And again on your Popper rant......
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
Henry Louis Mencken

OR one just for you.......

Science is the record of dead religions.
Oscar Wilde

 

[Layman]

brucep and Layman write a purely aggressive text without any scientific arguments, thus, nothing worth to be answered. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, so some of my texts may be misunderstood, may sound like google translations from German, sorry. Despite this, I doubt the accusation "word salad" is justified.

Paddoboy, my papers are published and open for discussion in academia. If the academia prefers to ignore it - probably afraid that association with the e-word decreases the chances of being published - it is their choice. But this silence also gives some information: If there would be errors, or some obvious weak points, it would be easy game to publish a refutation. I have used myself such a chance to get a publication in the "Annalen der Physik" (which is quite prestigious given its history) which has made the error to publish some anti-Bell-theorem paper. This is how peer-review errors are corrected.

A proof of why Bells-Theorem was wrong would be a good start, which was my scientific argument against your paper. Without his proofs being accepted as being wrong, I couldn't accept that your paper is correct. I apologize, my mother had passed away last weekend, and I have been rather upset lately. Nonetheless, I provided a link telling about Bells impossibility proofs. If your mathematical "proofs" are correct, then it would seem like you should be able to show how Bell was wrong or missed the possibilities that your own proof is able to provide. Although, I find that very unlikely, because his work was basically what the Standard Model was based on for the mathematical approach used to describe it. Your paper is "beyond the standard model", and I think there is a section of forums more appropriate for those kinds of theories on these forums...

 

[Schmelzer]

A proof of why Bells-Theorem was wrong would be a good start, which was my scientific argument against your paper. Without his proofs being accepted as being wrong, I couldn't accept that your paper is correct.

Bell's theorem is correct, and this is an argument in favor of a preferred frame. That you think one can make a scientific argument against one of my papers suggests that you have not understood or Bell's theorem, or my papers.

If your mathematical "proofs" are correct, then it would seem like you should be able to show how Bell was wrong or missed the possibilities that your own proof is able to provide. Although, I find that very unlikely, because his work was basically what the Standard Model was based on for the mathematical approach used to describe it. Your paper is "beyond the standard model", and I think there is a section of forums more appropriate for those kinds of theories on these forums...

Whatever you think, there is not even a conflict between Bell's theorem and ether theories. Bell's theorem is a problem for hidden variable theories which want to be Lorentz-covariant. For theories with a preferred frame, which allow superluminal causal influences in the preferred frame, Bell's theorem is unproblematic.

 

[paddoboy]

Your paper is "beyond the standard model", and I think there is a section of forums more appropriate for those kinds of theories on these forums...

Most of those pushing an alternative model, have generally over-inflated ego problems, and as such putting their hypothetical baby into the alternative section does not give them the "high" they are obviously seeking: That with the seemingly lax attention by the mods to threads being in the wrong section, also adds to their high.

 

[Layman]

Bell's theorem is correct, and this is an argument in favor of a preferred frame. That you think one can make a scientific argument against one of my papers suggests that you have not understood or Bell's theorem, or my papers.

Whatever you think, there is not even a conflict between Bell's theorem and ether theories. Bell's theorem is a problem for hidden variable theories which want to be Lorentz-covariant. For theories with a preferred frame, which allow superluminal causal influences in the preferred frame, Bell's theorem is unproblematic.

I guess if you make up mathematical proofs that don't even abide with other basic scientific or mathematical principals, then it wouldn't conflict with a theory that does...

Without any explanation, it just sounds like you are beating around the bush again. You just talk big, but you don't have anything to back it up with. How convenient is it that you just say that everything in your theory conforms to accepted science in a science forum, with no explanation when it actually doesn't. Then I guess you may actually be right, because Bells theories were based on scientific and mathematical fact. That is really my best guess of why it should be anything otherwise from what I have said earlier.

 

[Layman]

Never-mind quantum mechanics, an explanation of how classical physics should work with a preferred frame would be a really interesting, if your theory proves a preferred frame of reference. Or should we just do away with classical physics altogether? Or do you think we should just keep the only version of it that we have with this apparent flaw which you proved? kappa

 

[sweetpea]

Most of those pushing an alternative model, have generally over-inflated ego problems, and as such putting their hypothetical baby into the alternative section does not give them the "high" they are obviously seeking: That with the seemingly lax attention by the mods to threads being in the wrong section, also adds to their high.

Paddo, just thought I let you know I will be working on a TOE theory in the new year, it will be a 'joint' work with my partners... a pedicurist and podiatrist.

 

[Schmelzer]

Layman, sorry, I was unable to make sense of most of your posts, so I cannot answer them. My response to what I was able to make some sense of:

1.) I have something to back up, namely several papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

2.) Physical theories prove nothing, they are hypotheses, which allow to make predictions about what happens, but cannot prove it happens - and if it does not happen, the theory is false, falsified.

3.) There is no such animal as "Bell's theories".

 

[paddoboy]

Paddo, just thought I let you know I will be working on a TOE theory in the new year, it will be a 'joint' work with my partners... a pedicurist and podiatrist.

Well put!