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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 0:57:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:34:57 +0000, rhertz wrote:

Check this out:

*******************************************************************
Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory

http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html


Many GRT inconsistencies are well-known:

1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting transition
to the case without gravitation cannot exist without introducing the
artificial external conditions);

2) the conservation laws are absent;

3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of ellipsoids,
whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape);

4) the singular solutions exist.
(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar cases,
but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to construct
fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).

<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. 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.

Early in the 20th century, atomic physics was in turmoil. The results of experimentation presented a seemingly irrefutable picture of the atom:
tiny electrically charged particles called electrons continuously moving
in circles around an oppositely charged and extraordinarily dense
nucleus. This picture was, however, impossible in terms of the known
laws of classical physics, which predicted that such circulating
electrons should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. Atoms,
however, do not gradually lose energy and collapse.

Bohr and others who tried to encompass the paradoxes of atomic phenomena
in a new physical theory noted that the old physics had met all
challenges until physicists began to examine the atom itself. Bohr
reasoned that any new theory had to do more than describe atomic
phenomena correctly; it must be applicable to conventional phenomena,
too, in such a way that it would reproduce the old physics: this is the correspondence principle.

The correspondence principle applies to other theories besides quantum theory. Thus, the mathematical formulations for the behavior of objects moving at exceedingly high speeds, described by relativity physics,
reduce for low values of speed to the correct descriptions of the
motions of daily experience.

There is nothing exclusive to relativity for which relativity is valid.
There is no need for relativistic corrections at high speeds. So, future theories can disregard it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 0:57:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:34:57 +0000, rhertz wrote:

Check this out:

*******************************************************************
Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory

http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html


Many GRT inconsistencies are well-known:

1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting transition
to the case without gravitation cannot exist without introducing the
artificial external conditions);

2) the conservation laws are absent;

3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of ellipsoids,
whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape);

4) the singular solutions exist.
(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar cases,
but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to construct
fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).

<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. 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.

Early in the 20th century, atomic physics was in turmoil. The results of experimentation presented a seemingly irrefutable picture of the atom:
tiny electrically charged particles called electrons continuously moving
in circles around an oppositely charged and extraordinarily dense
nucleus. This picture was, however, impossible in terms of the known
laws of classical physics, which predicted that such circulating
electrons should radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus. Atoms,
however, do not gradually lose energy and collapse.

Bohr and others who tried to encompass the paradoxes of atomic phenomena
in a new physical theory noted that the old physics had met all
challenges until physicists began to examine the atom itself. Bohr
reasoned that any new theory had to do more than describe atomic
phenomena correctly; it must be applicable to conventional phenomena,
too, in such a way that it would reproduce the old physics: this is the correspondence principle.

The correspondence principle applies to other theories besides quantum theory. Thus, the mathematical formulations for the behavior of objects moving at exceedingly high speeds, described by relativity physics,
reduce for low values of speed to the correct descriptions of the
motions of daily experience.

It is said that a good theory conserves the successes of its
predecessor. However, relativity has no success to conserve by a new
theory. For example, it did not predict a doubling of the Newtonian
deflection because it provides no mathematical or physics basis for
inserting the number "2" in the equation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)