Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
You are making the assumption that these effects would be detectable as charge conservation violations. What makes you assume that?
|
If if walks like a duck and says "AFLAC!!!" like a duck, it's probably a duck. Stephen's idea calls for the charge of a deuteron to oscillate between +e and 0. That sounds like violation of charge conservation to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Agreed it is a little like mentioning a paradigm shift. I hate that.
|
I take points of for that too. Another 10 points!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
[Snip!]But I think a better analogy to what I am saying is to look at models of complex protein interactions: Relativistics physics play no obvious role, and we do not need them to understand these 'higher level' quantum behaviors. Gravity plays virtually no role in QMs. So the description within QM of gravimetric properties may be completely out in left-field.
|
Two words: Hydrogen bonds. (Not bombs!
) Hydrogen bonds play a crucial role in the shapes and ultimately the functions of proteins. Of course we're still at the point of experiment and observe, we can't predict and observe yet. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
Basic theory has never properly married quantum and relativistic behavior, and this is after an 80 year engagement. That is a problem. Basic theory cannot churn out a good reason for lightning to produce gamma rays, for the acceleration of the solar wind, the accelerations of the Pioneer probes or the anomalous behavior of Cassini as it approaches Titan. Something very basic might be wrong.
|
Unfortunately the proposed solutions of various ATM proponents are wrong, very wrong, in their basic assumptions. Charge oscillation as proposed by Stephen is one of these very, very wrong things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
If you want to try an interesting thought experiment, assume the speed of light does vary 20% between the sun and the Kuiper belt, then figure out how you would measure this, and what effect varying the speed of light would have on every thing we see and experience. Then gradually reduce the effect, making it most pronounced very near the sun, reducing to a very small, nearly constant acceleration by the orbit of Saturn. At what level would the effect be non-detectable?
|
I tried it, remember when I branded your model "the Funhouse Solar System"? We do not see such grotesque distortions in the positions of the planets. And the fact that we do not observe aberrations other than the standard stellar and planetary observations puts fairly stringent limits on this effect.
But why take my word for it? Browse the Particle Data Group website, I think they may have some information on the variability of the speed of light. Since the speed of light and special relativity is so important to particle physicists, I'm sure that they have the best limits for both Earth-bound and Solar System experiments and references to the experiments in question. And no whining about these only being two-way measurements!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Jensen
At what level would Saturn detectably glow more brightly in direct solar opposition than predicted? (Something we have observed!)
|
Apples and oranges, Jerry. Two more words for you: glory scattering.
Time does not allow me to answer the rest of this post; maybe later on tonight. Unless something more flawed and urgent comes up.