wrote:
As a simplistic example, relativistic physics doesn't make Newtonian
physics "wrong", discard it or revise it, Newton just becomes a subset,
a special case where if velocity is much, much smaller than c, the
effects of velocity can be ignored.

As an earlier simplistic example, the four elements of fire,
earth, air, and water are not all the elements that exist
although one might rationalize that those four elements are
a subset of the periodic table of the elements.

Forcing boundary conditions on existing "laws of physics" doesn't
make things like Newtonian physics any more accurate. It just
makes some of us human beings feel better about our sacred
cows. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
As a simplistic example, relativistic physics doesn't make Newtonian
physics "wrong", discard it or revise it, Newton just becomes a subset,
a special case where if velocity is much, much smaller than c, the
effects of velocity can be ignored.

As an earlier simplistic example, the four elements of fire,
earth, air, and water are not all the elements that exist
although one might rationalize that those four elements are
a subset of the periodic table of the elements.

Except no one ever did experiments to prove the hypothesis that fire,
earth, air, and water were elements, so it remained a hypothesis until
experiments were conducted to define elements, at which time the
hypothesis was discarded.

Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

You do know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific
hypothesis, don't you?

Forcing boundary conditions on existing "laws of physics" doesn't
make things like Newtonian physics any more accurate. It just
makes some of us human beings feel better about our sacred
cows. :-)

Nonsense, it is just reality.

Everything has boundary conditions, except maybe your proclivity
to try and stir the pot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

Quoted from:
************************************************** ********
Ask A Scientist - General Science Archive
----------------------------------------------------------
Theories Proven Wrong

Question - Where can I find information on theories that
were proven wrong?
---------------------------------------
Answer: Rumor has it that "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of
Science" by Martin Gardner is just what your looking for.

Every scientific theory is wrong in some respect. There is
no scientific theory of "everything".
************************************************** ********
end quote
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

Quoted from:
************************************************** ********
Ask A Scientist - General Science Archive
----------------------------------------------------------
Theories Proven Wrong

Question - Where can I find information on theories that
were proven wrong?
---------------------------------------
Answer: Rumor has it that "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of
Science" by Martin Gardner is just what your looking for.

Every scientific theory is wrong in some respect. There is
no scientific theory of "everything".
************************************************** ********


Apples and oranges.

A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble
thrown around by the clueless.

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for
describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social
phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental
evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized
expression of all previous observations that is predictive,
logical and testable.

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical
framework - derived from a small set of basic principles (usually
symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or
identity of electrons, etc) - which is capable of producing
experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems.

Note the words "a given category of physical systems".

As for the "aether", no observations that are predictive,
logical or testable except in the negative.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble
thrown around by the clueless.

Is that your theory? :-) Such "meaningless babble"
was quoted from an "Ask a Scientist" web page.

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for
describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social
phenomena.

Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).

For instance: "The red shift in the spectra of galaxies
supports the theory that the universe is continuously
expanding."

That theory seems to be on the verge of being proved wrong.

As for the "aether", no observations that are predictive,
logical or testable except in the negative.

On the contrary, the Casmire effect seems to prove the
existence of something existing in empty space. Particles
seem to wink in and out of existence within the "absolute
nothingness" of a vacuum.

"For many years the Casimir effect was little more than
a theoretical curiosity."

Was that theory a "curiosity" or is it a "logically self-
consistent model"?

One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light yet the communications between entangled
particles obviously travels faster than the speed of
light.

How about the "Theory of Evolution"? Is it right or wrong?

How about all the JFK "Conspiracy Theories"? Are they all
"logically self-consistent"?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble
thrown around by the clueless.

Is that your theory? :-) Such "meaningless babble"
was quoted from an "Ask a Scientist" web page.

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for
describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social
phenomena.

Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).

That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.

Why do you insist on playing these silly games?

snip remaining word games

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).

That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.

No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion:

Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

I have personally discarded the "Devine Creation Theory"
and most of the JFK assassination theories. I have also
discarded the "Red-Shift Theory" of the expansion of the
universe as will most astronomers in the near future.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"?
2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed
greater than the speed of light.

If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and
rich.

John, N9JG

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
[snip]
One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light yet the communications between entangled
particles obviously travels faster than the speed of
light.
[snip]
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"John, N9JG" wrote in message
et...
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"?
2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed
greater than the speed of light.

If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous
and
rich.

John, N9JG

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
[snip]
One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light yet the communications between entangled
particles obviously travels faster than the speed of
light.
[snip]
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com



John & Cecil

Extract from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/newtech2.html

The Chiao Group at Berkeley is investigating superluminality. Ryan Frewin,
Renee George, Deborah Paulson have a web page about superluminality, in
which they say: "...

About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T Bell Labs in New
Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling through
an absorbing material ...
In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et al at the National Institute for Research into
Electromagnetic Waves in Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation
for microwaves through a "forbidden zone" inside square metal w aveguides.
The reported values were initially less than the speed of light, until the
experiment was repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers ...
Also in 1992, Gunter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne
reported superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden
region ...
In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his
colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of California
at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer ... they were able to
measure the tunneling times of visible light. According to Brown, "the
researchers found that the photons that tunneled their way through the
optical filter arrived 1.5 femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled
through air. The tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the
speed of light" ...
Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University in
Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they progressively
increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time saturated toward a
maximum value" ...
In March of 1995, at a colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he
had sent a signal across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed
of light . The signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave
source matching Mozart's 40th Symphony ... Even Chiao and his colleagues
were adamantly opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal
....
Why was the bar of Mozart's symphony not a signal? ... If a wave packet's
shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a straightforward
calculation to determine its shape after transmission. Because the final
shape can be mathematically determined ... most scientists would not
consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal. ... Chiao and Steinberg
were quick to point out that Nimtz' symphony was not a signal, but simply a
smoothly varying pulse. .. A sudden change in the shape would still travel
at only light speed, and only a sudden change, according to Chiao, could be
regarded as a signal ... ".

Clearly some things do appear to travel faster than the speed of light in a
vacuum. The jury appears to be out as to whether any practical use can be
made of the phenomenon.

Mike G0ULI

John, N9JG wrote:
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"?
2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed
greater than the speed of light.

Already answered from another posting:
"Those particles are communicating faster than light
but there is no information flow (yet)."

IMO, it is only a matter of time and effort before
we figure out how to modulate entangled particles.
After all, it took ~250,000 years for us to figure
out how to modulate EM waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com