• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dennislmay

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Dennis May
  • Looking or Not Looking
    looking for female

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. If more undergraduate students in special relativity and quantum mechanics would do their own homework [read and understand the history and decision points of why only one point of view is taught in educational settings] they might eventually be able to solve actually interesting problems that have evaded solution for more than 3 generations. On a fundamental level conventionally taught relativity and conventional quantum mechanics are irreconcilable as deterministic versus indeterministic theories. So one or the other or both are fundamentally incorrect. The next question is deterministic or indeterministic. If you decide indeterministic then both versions of relativity fail and you have nothing. If you choose deterministic then you must choose which QM which will work with a version of relativity. The only candidate is LET because Special Relativity is entirely brittle - unable to adapt. Dennis
  2. The brittle theory [Think calculus of variations - it fails utterly under any variation] Special Relativity cannot adapt to new observations. LET can be modified keeping essentially the same framework - it can be varied in a differential manner and not entirely collapse as Special Relativity does. LET existed prior to Special Relativity, mathematically Special Relativity brought nothing new to the table so historically under the Feynman presumption Special Relativity is a worthless theory. Special Relativity and LET have the same mathematical framework but are very different theories in their assumptions concerning the nature of reality. One can be varied in a differential manner with little consequence [LET], the other produces logical contractions and a failure of identity and causality under differential variation [special Relativity]. Dennis
  3. Yes the "Green is the new Red" religion in Hawaii is said to be quite strong. I've never been there but in general I don't like to go to places where straying a few blocks the wrong way off the beaten path might lead to my ass getting kicked. A problem said to exist in Hawaii as friends in the Air Force stationed there told me, people who have visited or lived there, and as my brother tells me it is a recurring plot theme on the new Hawaii-50 show. Tribal violence against non-locals can't be good for tourism or promoting a good future in general. Dennis
  4. You mean Hawaii didn't have record cold this year :-) Dennis
  5. Since most physicists have never taken both regular Special Relativity coursework and coursework in Lorentzian Ether Theory [LET] which pre-dates Einstein's version [i was taught both in parallel in the same class by a world class expert in Special Relativity]. They both produce exactly the same results mathematically but are different interpretations. If you've not been taught or been exposed to both you are unaware of the actual foundations of the work and give undo credit to Einstein. Einstein's Special Relativity is entirely brittle in respect to the speed of light and Einstein did not say there is no aether - only that as long as no consequence of the existence of an aether can be detected Special Relativity will hold. Lorentzian Ether Theory is not brittle in that respect. It can adapt to new observation without producing the logical paradoxes Einstein's Special Relativity immediately falls into. Any non-linearity in quantum mechanics, any effective supraluminal messaging of any kind, and any preferred reference frames of any kind cause the logic of the entirely brittle Special Relativity explode like glass. Taychons, time travel, and causal violations are all creations of the brittle nature of Special Relativity - contradictions which do not exist in LET in its original or modified versions that can incorporate new observations. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics which produce the same mathematical outcome just like there are two interpretations of relativity which produce the same mathematical outcomes. The only known interpretation of quantum mechanics which maintains causality and identity without assuming parallel universes are the Bohm or Bohm-like deterministic interpretations. The only version of relativity which can be integrated with Bohm-like deterministic quantum mechanics are LET related versions of relativity. So you can keep causality and identity or you can keep Einstein's version of Special Relativity - it is exactly that simple. Dennis
  6. The speed of light being the limit depends upon on both your buying certain models of quantum mechanics and a certain model of relativity. If however you rely upon observation you may reach different conclusions: Experimentation demonstrates the new lower limit of speed is four orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. A result which agrees with modeling in deterministic quantum mechanics where the results begin to noticeable diverge from theory and observation in the near field if the speed is not at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than light. The other "interpretations" mean you abandon identity and causality [and any form of logic which does not involve hand waiving, arbitrary assertions, and fuzzy ill defined concepts without referents]. Dennis
  7. I don't believe we can see forever but that is not the question at hand. What is wrong with the cosmos being spatially infinite? Every criticism of that concept I've heard to date is entirely without merit. The idea that an infinite and eternal cosmos would roast does not apply except in certain models which are not being discussed here. Dennis
  8. Al Gore has increased his personal wealth by an estimated $100 million dollars through various publications, speaking fees, and other payments related to his pushing the pseudo-science hysteria of AGW. It has also gotten him various paid positions on corporate boards where he is further able to push his agenda. That is still trivial to the trillion dollar payday those who will broker carbon credits expect to cash in on. Dennis
  9. The "event horizon for the cosmos" depends upon a theory which cannot even get spiral galaxies right - not even close, much less the entire cosmos. Dennis
  10. There is no issue with the theory of complex numbers being consistent. I suspect what is intended in the discussion is whether or not complex numbers in and of themselves have an identifiable matching real world identity and causality related compliment - which they do not. That is not the intention of complex numbers. They are a tool in mathematics allowing ease of computational manipulation in compact form with known properties of how to convert those results back to real world identity and causality related compliments. Dennis
  11. There is no question that those attracted to medicine are generally 3rd tier intellectuals and scientists at best. Now that we are actually talking about government medicine it moves to 4th or less tier with little prospect of getting good statistical studies on a regular basis. 1st world medicine being transformed into 3rd world medicine. Dennis
  12. False - you can do electrodynamics and quantum theory without complex numbers. They are mathematical tools of convenience. Any physics starting with and ending with real numbers can be done without complex numbers - that is a fact though Ba'al Chatzaf is the not the first to incorrectly believe otherwise - I ran into two such professors [both applied mathematics] and when you pin them down they have no basis for their claim. Dennis
  13. I don't know all the details about my mother having polio - mostly that she couldn't walk for some period of time and had to relearn to walk. She was affected by it later in life mostly related to having pain in her ribs and sharp stabbing pains occasionally. She also suffered from feeling cold all the time most of her life. She was known to garden in the summer wearing a white sweater. Some of those issues were no doubt related to her almost dying as an infant from a calcium deficiency related to my grandmother nursing my uncle while pregnant with my mother. It is unfortunate that the government has been allowed to destroy the medical system at a time when trust in government is approaching single digits. Who will trust what the government has to say anything about anything related to medical care and vaccinations in particular. They botched the swine vaccine back in the day killing a number of people. I suspect we will see offshore medicine and research become the new standard of medicine if things are not turned around very soon. Dennis
  14. J.S Bell pointed our von Neumann's error in 1964, Grete Hermann announced the error in 1935, Schrödinger wrote about the error in 1935, 1952 Bohm and Vigier showed that it had to be an error, Einstein and Peter Bergmann discussed the error [date unknown but Einstein died in 1955]. Only Bell worked publicly to attempt to correct the error - in his 1988 book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" Bell discusses how the physics and educational communities still fail to understand that the no hidden-variable theorem was an error and still treat it as though it was correct. You can still find the implication that the von Neumann was correct all over the web including in links from major universities. Dennis
  15. My college geology professor was a young guy who had just finished his PhD. His advisor was from the old school which knew the days when plate tectonics was pseudoscience not to be discussed seriously in polite circles. Any book published today giving an opinion concerning specific examples of what is and is not pseudoscience is likely to contain a great many errors and embrace any number of fallacies. I can find provable mistaken opinions from reputable sources all day long. AGW may be the biggest scam ever pulled off in terms of the sheer number of people involved but I would argue the damage done by John von Neumann in his "no hidden-variable theorem" of 1932 [already disproved by 1935] remains the greatest blunder in the history of science since modern science began under Newton. I can readily find references implying von Neumann was correct to this day from reputable sources all over the web. The refusal to correct this error once and for all is very much like the secular religion of AGW. It matters not that the issue was settled logically and scientifically nearly 80 years ago the believers want to believe and fighting the true believers is an endless and thankless task. Dennis