Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 23:04:35 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <b0b003b8c6231da9f96273298b22f81d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <f968e982f145ffe557c2bd2e1f919081@www.novabbs.com> <71e7c403645740182559679184e2319b@www.novabbs.com> <67642eb2$0$16823$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3693680"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ZzIp8HKH8uxtqhsBJMgtT.kPnsjDr/LgAFvJMxdMAVCo6f0iU9Cr6

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:33:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:34:57 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>
>>> Check this out:
>
> Woof! WoofWoof!!
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> There may be some confusion with the principle of correspondence, as
>> it's used also in philosophy.
>>
>> I meant this principle of correspondence, from quantum physics:
>>
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/science/correspondence-principle
>>
>> QUOTE:
>>
>> Correspondence principle, philosophical guideline for the selection of
>> new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the
>> phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid.
>
> Nobody ever needed Niels Bohr for that.
> (apart from it often being false)
>
>> Formulated in 1923 by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is
>> a
>> distillation of the thought that had led him in the development of his
>> atomic theory, an early form of quantum mechanics.
>
> Nonsense. Special relativity, 1905, and general relativity, 1915,
> had, and have no need for this Bohrian obscurantism with respect to
> the old quantum mechanics of 1923.
> (remember that the real quantum mechanics didn't start until 1925-26)
>
> Derivation of the non-relativistic limit of relativity
> is straightforward, and it is obviously in agreement
> with preceding theories, where applicable.
>
> Jan


Such "Bohrian obscurantism" was patiently taught to their disciples,
being the young Heisenberg one of them. Freed from the mental chains
that Max Born imposed to him, and being in a total mental crisis, was
brought by Bohr to his house for rest between 1924 and 1925.

Bohr, a slow but deep thinker, reshaped the mind of Heisenberg about
theoretical physics, and taught him how to think in terms of "observable
things". This effort allowed Heisenberg to come with his Matrix
Mechanics theory of the atom, which was the FIRST SOLID THEORY for a
model of H atoms that wasn't based on the planetary model (which was the
only theory between 1919 and 1925). Born was a fervent defender of such
theory, and wrote a whole book about it by 1925.

Once Heisenberg came with his model, Born abandoned the prevailing model
and coined the term "quantum mechanics" for this new theory, which he
and his associates found to be based in matrixes.

When Schrödinger came with his wave theory in 1926, once again Born
changed horses and embraced THIS THEORY, only because MOST (if not all)
physicists of that epoch were used to work with waves, and didn't know
shit about matrixes.

Both theories could explain "observables" known in that epoch, only that
the matrix model was abandoned for being too difficult for the imbeciles
of that era.

Most of the bright minds in that epoch revered the figure of Bohr and
his philosophy (Dirac, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, De Broglie, Schrodinger,
etc.) and were frequent visitors to Bohr's Institute and were hosted on
his house.

Bohr modeled the nucleus of the atom as behaving like a liquid drop,
which allowed to Meitner and his nephew to explain the "fission" of
Uranium by 1939.


So, the obscurantism that you came with was actually LIGHT that allowed
the most
important developments by their "disciples", like Gamow and many others.


Read his biography, as well as many books on the history of physics as
you can, because your IGNORANCE and your FOSSILIZED MIND are the causes
that you post so many crappy things, without REASONING. You are stuck in
2 or 3 concepts, plus you suffered the virus of relativity, which proves
(in your case) to be FATAL.

As a proof, you constantly resort to LIES, DECEIVING COMMENTS, DOGMAS,
etc., which characterize a chronic (and intellectually poor) relativist.

EVERY SINGLE TIME WHEN YOU WRITE A POST.