Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #561637

was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth?

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 11:19:04 AM UTC-6, Jack...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:15:19 -0600, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 3/10/2016 9:21 PM, Jackpol11@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> For reference see:
> >> http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
> >> I didn't say it was difficult-I said it was unspeakable. I worked out
> >> the units myself as you saw in the previous note so that's behind us.
> >> A bastard term like frequency to the -11/3 power needs someone to
> >> explain its relevance and its origin.
> >
> >The derivation of that equation can be found in the article referenced 
> >in this paper. If you would bother to look that up, you might have your 
> >questions answered.
> >L. Blanchet, T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, C. M. Will, and A. G.
> >Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3515 (1995)
> >This is the reason the reference is listed, so that you not think it was 
> >made up from thin air.
> It's unavailable without a subscription.
> 
> >
> >> Or at least give it units so
> >> that it should be understood. for
> >>   Let L = wavelength or m/cycle = 1/F. Then we have
> >>       f^-11/3 = L^11/3 = cube root of (meters^11/cycle^11)
> >
> >I really don't think that's necessary. You're asking scientists to 
> >explain the units in a way that is understandable TO YOU. 
> No I am not. The units are where the physics is. Just making equations
> balance is not physics, if the equations are not the logical result of
> quantizing some physical sequence. f to the -11/3 is an example
> Of the 118 references in the paper, #11 was not available without a
> subscription. 
> 
> >> Things don't really improve by taking the 3/5 power of all that.
> >
> >I don't know what you mean by "improve". The theory is the theory.
> 
> I don't see a theory, I see an assertion. I see a believer, or no, a
> person who is unwilling to doubt. 
> There is another paper that gives a lot more information to the inside
> workings:
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf
> It's hard to see how they identified the 2 masses as 30 and 32 solar
> masses, when the 1st notification was on earth at the time of the
> collision 1.3 Byrs later and had no idea in what direction to look
> (for 2 black holes).
> This is much like supernovae with a life several weeks, which appear
> at random, the best of which are identified as "no more than 5 days
> after the peak." Not one has been tracked from start to finish, so
> there is no functional form to describe the "light curve". it is
> necessary to "back-engineer" to the assumed peak. 
> (But easier than tracking those 2 black holes after they are
> demolished).
> 
> John Polasek

I am with John on this issue.

I suspect the archaic exponents come from a theory of multidimensions in which those are not warranted.

As Jack or John points out, Physics is in Quantum Mechanics of rational number like that of spin 1/2.

So if we start mickey mousing around with (.5)^11/3, the 11/3 power we have no longer rational numbers, and in the wide margin of 11/3 we end up with so much leeway error that we get the phony millisecond theory stretch of time in the LIGO interferometers.

AP

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:03 -0800
  Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 16:03 -0600
    Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-09 22:00 -0500
      Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:49 -0600
        Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 09:41 -0500
          Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:52 -0600
            Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 10:26 -0500
              Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:57 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 16:42 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:12 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-10 22:21 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:15 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-11 12:18 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:47 -0600
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-11 16:46 -0500
                Re: why did LIGO turn off their machine Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:57 -0600
                was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:08 -0800
                Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 16:10 -0800

csiph-web