Re: Crap Physics

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 01 Jun 1998 20:51:53 -0400

Tony Hollick wrote:

> John K Clark wrote:
> > Tony Hollick latest post is, as usual, full of errors, I list a few of them
> > below but I only glanced at it so I don't claim it's anywhere near complete.
> Perhaps if John Clark took a bit longer to understand these
> problems, he would have a better understanding of them.
> I give a _physical_ explanation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty
> principle, whereby I expressly demarcate the _physics_ of
> Heisenberg's ideas from the observationalist/positivist religion:
> > >All this [ Heisenberg's] 'observationalist' stuff is positivist old
> > >hat and can be demolished quite readily. We can _retrodictively
> > >correct_ the observation results.
> My assertion that we can retrodictively correct the 'observational'
> 'evidence' to the extent that we understand the underlying processes
> and interactions is simply _true_ (we do it all the time), and I
> cannot understand why John Clark should fail to grasp the point,
> unless he doesn't _want_ to understand it.
> > No you can not, not readily and not at all
> > >>Planck's constant is constant
> > >Wake up man -- it's a ratio!
> > Could you please explain why a ratio can not be a constant.
> I was hoping to get Christian to see the difference between a ratio
> and an (alleged) Absolute property. SR/GR simultaneously states
> that there are no absolute properties, then tries to sneak in an
> Absolute velocity of light. It just doesn't work.
> > >Not [the speed of light is constant] according to Richard Feynman
> > >in Quantum Electrodynamics.
> >Dead wrong, Richard Feynman never said anything that stupid in his life.
> I have a hundred dollars that says that I can give you citation for
> Feynman's saying exactly this, that photons can travel faster and
> slower than 'c'. In QED. Wanna play? >:-}

I know what it is. Light travels slower in denser matter. i.e. it travels slower
in air than in a vacuum, and slower in an optic fiber than in air. It is also
affected by gravity as well, which is why its slower when travelling through dense
matter, but this is described in SR/GR.

> > >Not according to observation.
> > A statement without a particle of fact.
> We start with a uniform cubic space, say one metre along each edge.
> On the north side is a blue LED pointing south, and alongside it, a
> photoelectric cell likewise aimed southwards.
> On the south side we have a red LED pointed north, and a northwardly
> aimed photoelectric cell.
> Our apparatus is rigged so that the red and the blue LEDs fire
> simuultaneusly. The photoelectric cells record the time of flight
> of the red and the blue photons.
> Armed with this kit, we can do a timeslice-by-timeslice analysis of
> the positions of the photons within the cube. We can show
> _conclusively_ that -- for the photons to start where and when they
> do, and end up when and where they do, the red photons MUST travel
> at 2c relative to the blue photons.

No, this is not true. They travel at the same speed, with different wavelengths.

> Your whole crumbling edifice rests upon the empty assertion that
> simultaneity is impossible, and that we cannot establish a uniform
> mapping of the photons' positions. Yet we can, and do. QED.
> > >Neither Special nor General Relativity have given science or
> > >technology anything it didn't have anyway.
> > Spectacularly wrong.
> So name six technologies critically (patentably) dependent on
> Special and General Relativity. You can't. And don't hand out that
> tired old 'GPS' nonsense -- NASA use CLASSICAL MECHANICS for all
> navigational calculations. e=mc^2 was derived classically 'way
> before SR/GR, as every knowledgeable scholar in the field is (or
> should be) aware. 'Black Holes' preceded GR by more than a hundred
> years.

I'd like to see citations of mathematical treatments of black hole theory that
precedes SR/GR by 100 years. Lessee, that means they should be published before
1805.Solid state electronics cannot be described by classical mechanics, because
so much of electronic theory depends on tunneling.

Likewise, lasers cannot function purely by classical mechanics.

Nor can polarizing filters on cameras.

the electroluminescent lamp cannot function by classical mechanics

nuclear fission cannot be described by classical mechanics.

the quantum tunneling microscope cannot function by classical mechanics.

Ok, thats six, now where is my money?

> Just name six. If you can. Wanna bet?
> John, I know the relativistic religion is alluring. But it's just
> plain myth... >:-}
> Tony

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?