Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 12:28 am
thanks, that was a good read.AcesHigh wrote:new article by Woodward, at Centauri Dreams
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=18076
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
thanks, that was a good read.AcesHigh wrote:new article by Woodward, at Centauri Dreams
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=18076
The logic is correct and the idea in principle is good.AcesHigh wrote:like if Einstein didnt himself refused several of the principles of quantum mechanics brought by the physicists from Copenhagen.
you should judge whole books (persons) by what they say. But judge not each idea of the book by the whole book. Judge each idea of the book by the idea itself.
Giorgio wrote:The logic is correct and the idea in principle is good.AcesHigh wrote:like if Einstein didnt himself refused several of the principles of quantum mechanics brought by the physicists from Copenhagen.
you should judge whole books (persons) by what they say. But judge not each idea of the book by the whole book. Judge each idea of the book by the idea itself.
The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.
Because they can't be easily tested string theory, branes, and even the Higgs get serious scepticism.AcesHigh wrote:nor has string theory, branes, etc. Have gravitons already been detected? Higgs Boson? These must be investigated. If every theory that can not be quickly verified was discarded, science would be frick up. Too bad you cant see that.Giorgio wrote:The logic is correct and the idea in principle is good.AcesHigh wrote:like if Einstein didnt himself refused several of the principles of quantum mechanics brought by the physicists from Copenhagen.
you should judge whole books (persons) by what they say. But judge not each idea of the book by the whole book. Judge each idea of the book by the idea itself.
The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.
and either way, you completely changed the subject. You quoted something where we werent EVEN talking about Woodward.
it was about some famous scientist refusing some concept that proved to be true and implying that if such scientist is wrong on ONE thing, then everything else he worked on is wrong too.
thats why I brought Einstein on the subject. How the hell is that related to his relativity theories being proven quickly or not, unlike Woodward?
Where do you read in my post that I am opposing research on these issues?AcesHigh wrote:nor has string theory, branes, etc. Have gravitons already been detected? Higgs Boson? These must be investigated. If every theory that can not be quickly verified was discarded, science would be frick up. Too bad you cant see that.
It is not related at all, I misread the post before replying, it happens.AcesHigh wrote:thats why I brought Einstein on the subject. How the hell is that related to his relativity theories being proven quickly or not, unlike Woodward?
Yes. The trouble of course is the engineering to demonstrate Mach Effects is exceedingly difficult and crosses several disciplines. The UFG for instance, requires extremely complex acoustics. It's simply not easy to make something change energy and resonate at two frequencies at once. In order to do these experiments, you not only need to have a sound grasp of the underlying M-E physics, you need to have much of the training and expertise of a mechanical engineer, an acoustic engineer and for the power systems, an electrical engineer. That's hard to do, especially with no funding.Giorgio wrote:The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.
Or not to find it. In both cases we will need to rethink our model.IntLibber wrote:That said, the money spent on mach effect research has been miniscule compared to other theories that have skeptics. They've dumped many billions into the LHC primarily to find the higgs boson.
Does anyone know how much time/data needs to be consumed before they decide they are simply not going to find the Higgs?Giorgio wrote:Or not to find it. In both cases we will need to rethink our model.IntLibber wrote:That said, the money spent on mach effect research has been miniscule compared to other theories that have skeptics. They've dumped many billions into the LHC primarily to find the higgs boson.
Higgs is the only particle in the Standard Model that has never been observed. It supposedly gives mass to massive particles (includes electron but not photon). If they don't find it, there will be huge reason to think the Standard Model is not as complete as most like to think.EricF wrote:I've been reading as much as I can about thsi concept as far as CERN is concerned; so if I understand this right, they propose that any particle with mass (including an electron or photon?) has somewhere hidden within it this 'Higgs particle"? Is it supposed to form some sort of 'mass cloud' when coupled to other force or charge carriers, in the way that an electron forms a cloud around a nucleus? And it will become uncoupled and show up in the detectors due to the high energy collision of the particles?
O yes? When did anyone see an individual quark? Kind of tough to do if you believe the binding force between quarks does not decrease with distance.GIThruster wrote:Higgs is the only particle in the Standard Model that has never been observed. It supposedly gives mass to massive particles (includes electron but not photon). If they don't find it, there will be huge reason to think the Standard Model is not as complete as most like to think.EricF wrote:I've been reading as much as I can about thsi concept as far as CERN is concerned; so if I understand this right, they propose that any particle with mass (including an electron or photon?) has somewhere hidden within it this 'Higgs particle"? Is it supposed to form some sort of 'mass cloud' when coupled to other force or charge carriers, in the way that an electron forms a cloud around a nucleus? And it will become uncoupled and show up in the detectors due to the high energy collision of the particles?