Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Conceptually there is nothing wrong with Steve's root hypothesis, if you assume the frequency of these oscillations is so high that it is virtually undetectable.
|
How high would 'the frequency of these oscillations' have to be to be 'virtually undetectable'?
Quote:
|
Face it: There has to be a mechanism for backing mass/energy into a gravitational field. Particle physicists assume this is the function of the Higgs boson - an animal never detected.
|
This is either trivially true, a question that is well-recognised as something which will come from a unified theory, or nonsense (well, apart from the need to replace 'never' with 'not so far').
If it is part of some unification, then wouldn't it be better to focus on the details of that unification, than just a result? After all, without knowing where it comes from, what guidance could this statement have (in terms of ways to find answers)?
Quote:
|
Particle physics has a phenominological history of development: We observed behaviour, then built models that explain the behavior. Eventually the models became so good, they could predict behavior in many cases. But this is no different from the development cycle of epicycles, and may contain fundamental conceptual errors in spite of the success of the methods.
|
Which is, again, either trivially true (something that is inevitable, given the scientific method), a cop-out (science progresses by testing theories, the 'mainstream' one against alternatives), or nonsense (and what on earth is "phenominological"?)
Quote:
|
One of the offshoots of Steve's approach (and my own, which is almost identical) is that we should expect field behavior near massive objects that is different from particle solutions. These variations should also be observable, and I think they are: In the acceleration of the solar wind, the Doppler dip of the Pioneer 6 probe, and many other poorly understood phenomenon - such as triboelectric effects.
|
And if I'm not mistaken, you have put your alternative ideas up for us to consider, here in the ATM section, at least once before. Time to revive at least one such thread? (I'd prefer that we don't hijack this one, discussing Ste
phen's idea, to discuss yours Jerry).