The parade of "pearls" from Progress in Physics continues with this paper
I think it's amazing they open with 'However, it is also this formula that many do not understand properly' when they think E=mc^2 is about light and utterly ignore the proper equation E^2 = m^2 + p^2 (c=1 units) where m=0 if you're considering light.
Not only has the author demonstrated a lack of understanding of the most basic parts of special relativity but has become a shining example of someone trying to run before they can walk. Mentions of the Riessner-Nordstrom metric (that's a charged black hole for those wondering) only serve to say "I'm talking about stuff I don't know about".
Saying that, the author(s) do seem to use a fair amount of maths I'm familiar with in the context of linearised theory involving gravity waves and light polarisation, but not to good effect. Simple things found in basic GR textbooks are respouted but different conclusions drawn.
Of course, the crowning mistake, the 'turd in the waterpipe' (Blackadder reference) is the claim E=mc^2 was from Einstein's 1915 (ie GR) paper and not actually his 1905 paper.
Not only has the author demonstrated a lack of understanding of the most basic parts of special relativity but has become a shining example of someone trying to run before they can walk. Mentions of the Riessner-Nordstrom metric (that's a charged black hole for those wondering) only serve to say "I'm talking about stuff I don't know about".
Saying that, the author(s) do seem to use a fair amount of maths I'm familiar with in the context of linearised theory involving gravity waves and light polarisation, but not to good effect. Simple things found in basic GR textbooks are respouted but different conclusions drawn.
Of course, the crowning mistake, the 'turd in the waterpipe' (Blackadder reference) is the claim E=mc^2 was from Einstein's 1915 (ie GR) paper and not actually his 1905 paper.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 3 2006, 09:15 PM)
I think it's amazing they open with 'However, it is also this formula that many do not understand properly' when they think E=mc^2 is about light and utterly ignore the proper equation E^2 = m^2 + p^2 (c=1 units) where m=0 if you're considering light.
Not only has the author demonstrated a lack of understanding of the most basic parts of special relativity but has become a shining example of someone trying to run before they can walk. Mentions of the Riessner-Nordstrom metric (that's a charged black hole for those wondering) only serve to say "I'm talking about stuff I don't know about".
Saying that, the author(s) do seem to use a fair amount of maths I'm familiar with in the context of linearised theory involving gravity waves and light polarisation, but not to good effect. Simple things found in basic GR textbooks are respouted but different conclusions drawn.
Of course, the crowning mistake, the 'turd in the waterpipe' (Blackadder reference) is the claim E=mc^2 was from Einstein's 1915 (ie GR) paper and not actually his 1905 paper.
"Turd in the waterpipe" ,
I will add this to my vocabulary.
Amazing that there are such "journals" and such "authors", eh?
Let's each write the most ridiculous "paper" that we can think about and let's submit it to "Regress in Physics". After publication, we compare notes, the most ridiculous one, wins. Howzat?
Not only has the author demonstrated a lack of understanding of the most basic parts of special relativity but has become a shining example of someone trying to run before they can walk. Mentions of the Riessner-Nordstrom metric (that's a charged black hole for those wondering) only serve to say "I'm talking about stuff I don't know about".
Saying that, the author(s) do seem to use a fair amount of maths I'm familiar with in the context of linearised theory involving gravity waves and light polarisation, but not to good effect. Simple things found in basic GR textbooks are respouted but different conclusions drawn.
Of course, the crowning mistake, the 'turd in the waterpipe' (Blackadder reference) is the claim E=mc^2 was from Einstein's 1915 (ie GR) paper and not actually his 1905 paper.
"Turd in the waterpipe" ,
I will add this to my vocabulary.Amazing that there are such "journals" and such "authors", eh?
Let's each write the most ridiculous "paper" that we can think about and let's submit it to "Regress in Physics". After publication, we compare notes, the most ridiculous one, wins. Howzat?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 4 2006, 12:15 AM)
...and utterly ignore the proper equation E^2 = m^2 + p^2 (c=1 units) where m=0 if you're considering light...
This is just math game. Photon has normal dynamic (relativistic) mass and as such it can generate gravity fileld, which is source of non-electromagnetic energy.
But I don't expect, such difference will be very high..
This is just math game. Photon has normal dynamic (relativistic) mass and as such it can generate gravity fileld, which is source of non-electromagnetic energy.
But I don't expect, such difference will be very high..
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 3 2006, 09:36 PM)
This is just math game. Photon has normal dynamic (relativistic) mass and as such it can generate gravity fileld, which is source of non-electromagnetic energy.
But I don't expect, such difference will be very high..
Hey, even you may be able to publish in "Regress in Physics". Submit your AWT right here. Who knows, you may finally get published.
But I don't expect, such difference will be very high..
Hey, even you may be able to publish in "Regress in Physics". Submit your AWT right here. Who knows, you may finally get published.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 3 2006, 10:36 PM)
This is just math game. Photon has normal dynamic (relativistic) mass and as such it can generate gravity fileld, which is source of non-electromagnetic energy.
Then you might want to stop considering special relativity and then use general relativity, which would involve the energy-momentum tensor. At least they attempted that in the paper.
Speaking as someone who actually sat an exam question on linearised perturbations and how they interact with light rays, the topic the paper covers is extremely well investigated, by people who know enough about relativity to know E=mc^2 is from 1905, not 1915.
Pupamancur, your suggestion is actually quite tempting. Given I'll most likely be spending the next few weeks (I meet my PhD supervisor in 2 days) (re)reading the books populating my shelves on relativity, quantum field theory and string theory, I'll have plenty of fancy words and ideas fresh in my mind, ideal for typing half a dozen pages of BS that few would want to bother checking
I could rewrite my 4th year dissertation to mean complete gibberish too. With a title 'The non-perturbative equivalence of perturbatively inequivalent string theories' it just begs people to want to read it
Then you might want to stop considering special relativity and then use general relativity, which would involve the energy-momentum tensor. At least they attempted that in the paper.
Speaking as someone who actually sat an exam question on linearised perturbations and how they interact with light rays, the topic the paper covers is extremely well investigated, by people who know enough about relativity to know E=mc^2 is from 1905, not 1915.
Pupamancur, your suggestion is actually quite tempting. Given I'll most likely be spending the next few weeks (I meet my PhD supervisor in 2 days) (re)reading the books populating my shelves on relativity, quantum field theory and string theory, I'll have plenty of fancy words and ideas fresh in my mind, ideal for typing half a dozen pages of BS that few would want to bother checking
I could rewrite my 4th year dissertation to mean complete gibberish too. With a title 'The non-perturbative equivalence of perturbatively inequivalent string theories' it just begs people to want to read it
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 3 2006, 09:44 PM)
Then you might want to stop considering special relativity and then use general relativity, which would involve the energy-momentum tensor. At least they attempted that in the paper.
Speaking as someone who actually sat an exam question on linearised perturbations and how they interact with light rays, the topic the paper covers is extremely well investigated, by people who know enough about relativity to know E=mc^2 is from 1905, not 1915.
Pupamancur, your suggestion is actually quite tempting. Given I'll most likely be spending the next few weeks (I meet my PhD supervisor in 2 days) (re)reading the books populating my shelves on relativity, quantum field theory and string theory, I'll have plenty of fancy words and ideas fresh in my mind, ideal for typing half a dozen pages of BS that few would want to bother checking
I could rewrite my 4th year dissertation to mean complete gibberish too. With a title 'The non-perturbative equivalence of perturbatively inequivalent string theories' it just begs people to want to read it
Yes!Yes!
I am already working on something really fun. I have difficulty typing since I am laughing so much.
I'll let you know under what name (not mine, of course) it gets published.
Any more takers?
Speaking as someone who actually sat an exam question on linearised perturbations and how they interact with light rays, the topic the paper covers is extremely well investigated, by people who know enough about relativity to know E=mc^2 is from 1905, not 1915.
Pupamancur, your suggestion is actually quite tempting. Given I'll most likely be spending the next few weeks (I meet my PhD supervisor in 2 days) (re)reading the books populating my shelves on relativity, quantum field theory and string theory, I'll have plenty of fancy words and ideas fresh in my mind, ideal for typing half a dozen pages of BS that few would want to bother checking
I could rewrite my 4th year dissertation to mean complete gibberish too. With a title 'The non-perturbative equivalence of perturbatively inequivalent string theories' it just begs people to want to read it
Yes!Yes!
I am already working on something really fun. I have difficulty typing since I am laughing so much.
I'll let you know under what name (not mine, of course) it gets published.
Any more takers?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 4 2006, 12:44 AM)
Then you might want to stop considering special relativity and then use general relativity, which would involve the energy-momentum tensor. At least they attempted that in the paper.
The true is, the energy-momentum tensor is quite negligible for photon of common frequency.
The true is, the energy-momentum tensor is quite negligible for photon of common frequency.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 3 2006, 09:36 PM)
This is just math game. Photon has normal dynamic (relativistic) mass and as such it can generate gravity fileld, which is source of non-electromagnetic energy.
But I don't expect, such difference will be very high..
Problem..
Where in the universe does the Photon change velocity?
And the above question is easy to understand and answer if one considers the makeup of all the Universe..
The Photon actually is a theoretical reference to an Electron, And whats more the electron is also merely theoretical and here's why...
Mass and or fields of mass that exist at near vacuum is uncompressed hence it has very little force and or potential "Almost at rest" and just like a fully unwound spring its area is far greater than a spring that is wound up with a high potential towards Unity.
All mass that science has defined as a Proton is a field of mass that has been compressed from an area "c" squared, this solid field has also been given a positive charge because of its outward potential towards unity.
Now if we consider a Proton we should note force/s must be containing its force because if the outward force were allowed it would be at a velocity towards unity.
Science has labeled this inward force as Negative charge and or the electron, now before one jumps reasoning here by some particle or field, consider one Proton completely surrounded by other protons with there respective outward force towards unity.. and where all the outward protons forces meet we have areas that are at zero velocity and or neutralized forces..
So there are all the charges that The electrical engineers work with and all the particles that Particle Physics work with and whats more we now have a clear view why the many different views of how Light is propagated..
Lets use the above model to to see if it clearly works in all mediums..
And we will begin with a single proton within a solid where its field is quite small in area because it is surrounded and highly compressed by other protons and because of this it has a high potential towards unity "E=MC^2"
Lets now assert a Negative charge to a Proton by forcing and compressing it via a negative charge "Another Protons outward force or {NEGATIVE CHARGE}" compresses the Proton and as it does this, its potential towards unity increases and because it now has a higher potential towards unity than other neighboring protons its force is exerted to them but lets say the force was a a single prod or "pulse" so if we follow this rise and fall of force from a proton to the edge of the solid lets say the solid was the aerial of a transmitter and we note this transmitter is a satellite in near vacuum, lets briefly ask how does an electron charge change velocity here if we were to use particle theory pertaining to a photon? lets go back to my model where in each field of mass is either compressed "solids" with a potential or some where closer to unity "near zero force" where the field has expended to an area that is near unity and or near vacuum "c^2" and or dark matter
Lets say the force is now being exerted to one of these particles and or fields that extends a vast distance, and as the negative force compresses the particle it gains a higher potential to other Protons in the area of near unity and or vacuum and it therefore is passed on but we should note for each exchange of exertion the distances are MASSIVE compared to the speed of light in a solid..
OK that's enough waffling...
NO WAIT! One more last eye opener.. If we note that mass that is near unity takes up around 90% of the universe and it still has some potential and or force we should note that this is what most individuals still today treat as some attractive force when the fact is Gravity is the result of the above mass of fields outward push towards unity..
Any questions?
But I don't expect, such difference will be very high..
Problem..
Where in the universe does the Photon change velocity?
And the above question is easy to understand and answer if one considers the makeup of all the Universe..
The Photon actually is a theoretical reference to an Electron, And whats more the electron is also merely theoretical and here's why...
Mass and or fields of mass that exist at near vacuum is uncompressed hence it has very little force and or potential "Almost at rest" and just like a fully unwound spring its area is far greater than a spring that is wound up with a high potential towards Unity.
All mass that science has defined as a Proton is a field of mass that has been compressed from an area "c" squared, this solid field has also been given a positive charge because of its outward potential towards unity.
Now if we consider a Proton we should note force/s must be containing its force because if the outward force were allowed it would be at a velocity towards unity.
Science has labeled this inward force as Negative charge and or the electron, now before one jumps reasoning here by some particle or field, consider one Proton completely surrounded by other protons with there respective outward force towards unity.. and where all the outward protons forces meet we have areas that are at zero velocity and or neutralized forces..
So there are all the charges that The electrical engineers work with and all the particles that Particle Physics work with and whats more we now have a clear view why the many different views of how Light is propagated..
Lets use the above model to to see if it clearly works in all mediums..
And we will begin with a single proton within a solid where its field is quite small in area because it is surrounded and highly compressed by other protons and because of this it has a high potential towards unity "E=MC^2"
Lets now assert a Negative charge to a Proton by forcing and compressing it via a negative charge "Another Protons outward force or {NEGATIVE CHARGE}" compresses the Proton and as it does this, its potential towards unity increases and because it now has a higher potential towards unity than other neighboring protons its force is exerted to them but lets say the force was a a single prod or "pulse" so if we follow this rise and fall of force from a proton to the edge of the solid lets say the solid was the aerial of a transmitter and we note this transmitter is a satellite in near vacuum, lets briefly ask how does an electron charge change velocity here if we were to use particle theory pertaining to a photon? lets go back to my model where in each field of mass is either compressed "solids" with a potential or some where closer to unity "near zero force" where the field has expended to an area that is near unity and or near vacuum "c^2" and or dark matter
Lets say the force is now being exerted to one of these particles and or fields that extends a vast distance, and as the negative force compresses the particle it gains a higher potential to other Protons in the area of near unity and or vacuum and it therefore is passed on but we should note for each exchange of exertion the distances are MASSIVE compared to the speed of light in a solid..
OK that's enough waffling...
NO WAIT! One more last eye opener.. If we note that mass that is near unity takes up around 90% of the universe and it still has some potential and or force we should note that this is what most individuals still today treat as some attractive force when the fact is Gravity is the result of the above mass of fields outward push towards unity..
Any questions?
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 4 2006, 01:57 AM)
Where in the universe does the Photon change velocity?
For example in gravity field, so called gravitational lensing effect is based on this effect...
For example in gravity field, so called gravitational lensing effect is based on this effect...
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 3 2006, 11:13 PM)
For example in gravity field, so called gravitational lensing effect
Good, you are learning, you no longer claim that the photon changes speed, looks like you've learned the difference between speed and velocity.
Good, you are learning, you no longer claim that the photon changes speed, looks like you've learned the difference between speed and velocity.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 3 2006, 11:13 PM)
For example in gravity field, so called gravitational lensing effect is based on this effect...
Hmmm isn't the diagram pertaining more to changes of Trajectory?
And yes~ I should have asked where does the Electron Err~Wait I mean the morphing Electron to a Photon change speed... 
And here's some more thoughts to consider when we deal with the Theoretical Photons..
If we had a completely enclosed structure that was divided into two rooms to give us a western wing and an eastern wing and we then commissioned two tiny holes to the dividing wall where each hole only allowed a single photon through them at any given moment, we also commissioned a single hole on the most western wall which would only allow a single photon at any given moment through it, now ask your self why do we still end up with a display of reflected and refracted light on the most eastern wall? refer to "Double slit Experiment" I mean does the particle split and bounce with its counter split part?
Obviously Particle theory doesn't cut it when we are dealing with Light, so we must completely disband the concepts of particles and move on to more refined methods, in fact I would highly recommend every one treat the whole universe as areas and or fields that are the maximum of MC^2 area if the field or area was near unity or E was with very little potential towards unity and or of energy.
If any one here refers to particles when referencing functions to Light we immediately should treat it all as gibberish or the author is some undergraduate that is grappling with theory that simply is not adequate..
BTW.. if we treat the whole universe as fields we should also gain huge insights as to why Gravity is currently being treated incorrectly as some attractive force specially when we consider that over 90% of the universes area is exerting Gravity "That's right! Attractive forces are impossible! " That's why gravity is a mystery! any way gravity is better expressed as force from the combined areas that are NEAR Unity {90% of the universe}, further more by treating given area as fields or areas all exerting a velocity towards unity, we may gain a clearer understanding of why Gravity and electromotive forces can never be unified..
Hmmm isn't the diagram pertaining more to changes of Trajectory?
And yes~ I should have asked where does the Electron Err~Wait I mean the morphing Electron to a Photon change speed... And here's some more thoughts to consider when we deal with the Theoretical Photons..
If we had a completely enclosed structure that was divided into two rooms to give us a western wing and an eastern wing and we then commissioned two tiny holes to the dividing wall where each hole only allowed a single photon through them at any given moment, we also commissioned a single hole on the most western wall which would only allow a single photon at any given moment through it, now ask your self why do we still end up with a display of reflected and refracted light on the most eastern wall? refer to "Double slit Experiment" I mean does the particle split and bounce with its counter split part?
Obviously Particle theory doesn't cut it when we are dealing with Light, so we must completely disband the concepts of particles and move on to more refined methods, in fact I would highly recommend every one treat the whole universe as areas and or fields that are the maximum of MC^2 area if the field or area was near unity or E was with very little potential towards unity and or of energy.
If any one here refers to particles when referencing functions to Light we immediately should treat it all as gibberish or the author is some undergraduate that is grappling with theory that simply is not adequate..
BTW.. if we treat the whole universe as fields we should also gain huge insights as to why Gravity is currently being treated incorrectly as some attractive force specially when we consider that over 90% of the universes area is exerting Gravity "That's right! Attractive forces are impossible! " That's why gravity is a mystery! any way gravity is better expressed as force from the combined areas that are NEAR Unity {90% of the universe}, further more by treating given area as fields or areas all exerting a velocity towards unity, we may gain a clearer understanding of why Gravity and electromotive forces can never be unified..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 5 2006, 02:30 AM)
Attractive forces are impossible! " That's why gravity is a mystery
The gravity is quite symmetrical pseudo-force by it's mechanism - the only restriction is, just a objects with positive curvature (droplets) are considered closed, finite (... and suitable for life), whereas the open objects formed by foam are considered as stochastic emptiness in general. At the presence of strong gravity field the gravity becomes repulsive and reversion of time arrow can be observed: the particles will dissolve by "negative gravitation pressure" in Aether again.
The gravity is quite symmetrical pseudo-force by it's mechanism - the only restriction is, just a objects with positive curvature (droplets) are considered closed, finite (... and suitable for life), whereas the open objects formed by foam are considered as stochastic emptiness in general. At the presence of strong gravity field the gravity becomes repulsive and reversion of time arrow can be observed: the particles will dissolve by "negative gravitation pressure" in Aether again.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 5 2006, 12:38 AM)
The gravity is quite symmetrical pseudo-force by it's mechanism - the only restriction is, just a object with positive curvature (droplets) is considered closed, finite (... and suitabled for life), whereas the open objects formed by foam are considered as stochastic emptiness in general. At the presence of strong gravity field the gravity becomes repulsive and reversion of time arrow can be observed: the particles will dissolve by "negative gravitation pressure" in Aether again.
Word salad.
Word salad.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Oct 5 2006, 03:40 AM)
Word salad.
rule1: If you don't understand something, try to read about droplet model of Universe and later explanations.
If you don't understand something, go to rule1
rule1: If you don't understand something, try to read about droplet model of Universe and later explanations.
If you don't understand something, go to rule1
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 5 2006, 12:46 AM)
rule1: If you don't understand something, try to read about droplet model of Universe and later explanations.
If you don't understand something, go to rule1
Should i always follow these links if i don't understand something?
And if, for example, if i want to become an AWT idiot, what link should i follow??
(Alpha looks at the botom of Zephir's post, to "signature" place)
Yep i got it. Never mind.
If you don't understand something, go to rule1
Should i always follow these links if i don't understand something?
And if, for example, if i want to become an AWT idiot, what link should i follow??
(Alpha looks at the botom of Zephir's post, to "signature" place)
Yep i got it. Never mind.
Hi Pupamancur,
Please can u tell me in your own words why this E=mc^2 is so complete or your best understanding of the equation?
Thanks
Please can u tell me in your own words why this E=mc^2 is so complete or your best understanding of the equation?
Thanks
QUOTE (bee+Oct 28 2006, 02:14 PM)
Hi Pupamancur,
Please can u tell me in your own words why this E=mc^2 is so complete or your best understanding of the equation?
Thanks
I'll send you a book . Question is, can you read it? 
The complete formula is E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2, the author of the paper in cause is creating a strawman in trying to show that E=mc^2 is not "complete". Duh.
End of free lesson. Now go buzz elswhere.
Please can u tell me in your own words why this E=mc^2 is so complete or your best understanding of the equation?
Thanks
I'll send you a book
. Question is, can you read it? The complete formula is E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2, the author of the paper in cause is creating a strawman in trying to show that E=mc^2 is not "complete". Duh.
End of free lesson. Now go buzz elswhere.
Pupamancur said,
Ahhh, that's what that is called!
Ahhh, that's what that is called!
Where in the universe does the Photon change velocity?
Gee, in air for starters, glass, water, diamond, plastic, etc etc... anything with an index of refraction not 1.00000.... By the way, you haven't sent long rambling letters to University's Physics Dept before, have you?
Did that supposed Science Journal actually have its website on geocities?
QUOTE
Word salad.
Ahhh, that's what that is called!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Word salad. |
Ahhh, that's what that is called!Where in the universe does the Photon change velocity?
Gee, in air for starters, glass, water, diamond, plastic, etc etc... anything with an index of refraction not 1.00000.... By the way, you haven't sent long rambling letters to University's Physics Dept before, have you?
Did that supposed Science Journal actually have its website on geocities?
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Oct 28 2006, 03:37 PM)
The complete formula is E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2, the author of the paper in cause is creating a strawman in trying to show that E=mc^2 is not "complete". Duh.
E=MC^2 is complete!
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 comes about by a simple oversight by treating the Universe full of spheres and or Particles that can be moved about..
This model is wrong!
Hers why...
First question is to ask what is force?
How can force be possible?
The protons outward force is REAL and it has a footing so to speak.
If a REAL force can only be possible via an opposing force and or footing, how is the electrons definition possible?
Simple!
From the exertions from neighboring protons!
This suggests that the whole universe can be gridded out to the above equation, and should an area of C^2 be negatively exerted upon it will transfer the negative exertion to wherever a lower potential exists, so on and so on!
if a proton is exerted via a rising and falling potential this wave will be exerted as such so on and so and so on...
Notice how if an area with very little potential occupies a vast area if while if an area has a high potential its area pertains to gas and or solid!
Notice how everything correlates with the speed of light in near vacuum to speed of light in a solid, where each C^2 area is compressed and or with a high potential! Which BTW can also be worked out by using { E=MC^2 }.
Notice how by the use of the equation we can grid out solids, liquids and gas and even areas of near vacuum! We can work out what exertion would result for an orbit rather than the two areas with high potential are exerted to each other!
We can even work out what subatomic areas would give us the resulting standard model!
JUST TRY IT!..
E=MC^2 is complete!
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 comes about by a simple oversight by treating the Universe full of spheres and or Particles that can be moved about..
This model is wrong!
Hers why...
First question is to ask what is force?
How can force be possible?
The protons outward force is REAL and it has a footing so to speak.
If a REAL force can only be possible via an opposing force and or footing, how is the electrons definition possible?
Simple!
From the exertions from neighboring protons!
This suggests that the whole universe can be gridded out to the above equation, and should an area of C^2 be negatively exerted upon it will transfer the negative exertion to wherever a lower potential exists, so on and so on!
if a proton is exerted via a rising and falling potential this wave will be exerted as such so on and so and so on...
Notice how if an area with very little potential occupies a vast area if while if an area has a high potential its area pertains to gas and or solid!
Notice how everything correlates with the speed of light in near vacuum to speed of light in a solid, where each C^2 area is compressed and or with a high potential! Which BTW can also be worked out by using { E=MC^2 }.
Notice how by the use of the equation we can grid out solids, liquids and gas and even areas of near vacuum! We can work out what exertion would result for an orbit rather than the two areas with high potential are exerted to each other!
We can even work out what subatomic areas would give us the resulting standard model!
JUST TRY IT!..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 29 2006, 02:12 AM)
E=MC^2 is complete!
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 comes about by a simple oversight by treating the Universe full of spheres and or Particles that can be moved about..
I fail to see where you derived E=mc^2 or disproved E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 in that frantic armwaving.
You clearly have no idea how E=mc^2 or E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 are derived in relativity and just throw about random notions you've got trying to come up with your own way.
You divide a system up into grids, ignoring the fact that you'd get a cubic lattice, not a square grid since the universe is 3d (unless you want to argue against that too?) and then fail to notice that c^2 isn't even an area, the units are wrong! Not to mention you just pull the value c out of nowhere. Why not 5c? Or 0.75c?
I'll send you a book
Seems like you'll have to, you didn't understand it.
Seems like you'll have to, you didn't understand it.
Question is, can you read it?
No Sir, probably not, I battle to read number and word salad. Working on a magical translation though.
Now go buzz elswhere.
I'd rather stay here and sting!
I'd rather stay here and sting!
End of free lesson.
Not a lesson, just like I said...
the author of the paper in cause is creating a strawman in trying to show that E=mc^2 is not "complete". Duh.
I find some problems with “E=mc^2”, Duh. Need someone who actually understands it to debate with or have him explain it. Obviously I'm in the wrong thread.
What a coincidence, I found a straw man also!
Now I’ll go buzz elsewhere. Thanks for the good advice!
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 comes about by a simple oversight by treating the Universe full of spheres and or Particles that can be moved about..
I fail to see where you derived E=mc^2 or disproved E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 in that frantic armwaving.
You clearly have no idea how E=mc^2 or E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 are derived in relativity and just throw about random notions you've got trying to come up with your own way.
You divide a system up into grids, ignoring the fact that you'd get a cubic lattice, not a square grid since the universe is 3d (unless you want to argue against that too?) and then fail to notice that c^2 isn't even an area, the units are wrong! Not to mention you just pull the value c out of nowhere. Why not 5c? Or 0.75c?
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 29 2006, 02:12 AM)
JUST TRY IT!..
I have outlined just some of the problems I get when I 'JUST TRY IT'.
QUOTE
I'll send you a book
Seems like you'll have to, you didn't understand it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I'll send you a book |
Seems like you'll have to, you didn't understand it.
Question is, can you read it?
No Sir, probably not, I battle to read number and word salad. Working on a magical translation though.
QUOTE
Now go buzz elswhere.
I'd rather stay here and sting!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Now go buzz elswhere. |
I'd rather stay here and sting!
End of free lesson.
Not a lesson, just like I said...
QUOTE
the author of the paper in cause is creating a strawman in trying to show that E=mc^2 is not "complete". Duh.
I find some problems with “E=mc^2”, Duh. Need someone who actually understands it to debate with or have him explain it. Obviously I'm in the wrong thread.
What a coincidence, I found a straw man also!
Now I’ll go buzz elsewhere. Thanks for the good advice!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2006, 01:21 AM)
I fail to see where you derived E=mc^2 or disproved E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 in that frantic armwaving.
You clearly have no idea how E=mc^2 or E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 are derived in relativity and just throw about random notions you've got trying to come up with your own way.
You divide a system up into grids, ignoring the fact that you'd get a cubic lattice, not a square grid since the universe is 3d (unless you want to argue against that too?) and then fail to notice that c^2 isn't even an area, the units are wrong! Not to mention you just pull the value c out of nowhere. Why not 5c? Or 0.75c?
Let me give you a hint
"c" is the speed of Light propagated a distance for one second in a given medium.
"c" is always the same speed.. so it doesn't matter what medium we start with, if we compress a medium, we should note we will increase its potential but in doing so we decrease the area the given mass occupies and so the speed of light relative to us is a lot slower the more compressed the medium is..
Another example of '"c" is if we placed two satellites exactly the same as each other into orbit, but where one would be further out, lets say by a kilometer..
Now if we could board these satellites we would note that they are orbiting the same speed because they Keep in line with each other, but if we were to place ourselves in between them we would note one is actually moving faster relative to our observation area!
and whats more one seems to be a little larger!
and in fact we can work it all out why via
E=MC^2
or
M=E/C^2
or for the area a mass occupies as per above by
C^2=E/M
In a solid the speed of light is slower for this very reason!
its all to do with relativity and the above simple equation and if we map or grid out our whole universe to it! You should better understand how spherical particles simply are impossible!
We can work out everything we ever need to know using E=MC^2 as the bases!
we can even plot the rise and fall of potential to a given area to give us the frequency, colour and kelvin via the above equations!
As a claimed maths expert, I cant understand why you are having trouble with the given variables?
If an area is exerted upon it can be expressed as being compressed but if another area in contact is with less potential the exertion will be transferred towards it, so on and so on and if there are many compressed areas we can even have the perception a large mass has moved when the reality is the compressed state pertaining to mass has merely been passed onto an area with less potential just like the theoretical electron flow or the relative electromagnetic wave suggests a photon is moved when really what have moved is the charge and or force.
BTW just because we have gridded out space-time to cubes of sorts doesn't mean mass or compressed areas are of cubes!
what should be imagined is areas are somewhat interlinked spikes, noting these spikes are the temporary result of electromagnetic waves peaking and therefore are constantly infringing or peaking outwardly and or vice Vs compressing inwardly from a neighboring higher potential.
Yeah well if you really tried it, you should now see how the speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in a solid confirms E=MC^2 is all we need!
You clearly have no idea how E=mc^2 or E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 are derived in relativity and just throw about random notions you've got trying to come up with your own way.
You divide a system up into grids, ignoring the fact that you'd get a cubic lattice, not a square grid since the universe is 3d (unless you want to argue against that too?) and then fail to notice that c^2 isn't even an area, the units are wrong! Not to mention you just pull the value c out of nowhere. Why not 5c? Or 0.75c?
Let me give you a hint
"c" is the speed of Light propagated a distance for one second in a given medium.
"c" is always the same speed.. so it doesn't matter what medium we start with, if we compress a medium, we should note we will increase its potential but in doing so we decrease the area the given mass occupies and so the speed of light relative to us is a lot slower the more compressed the medium is..
Another example of '"c" is if we placed two satellites exactly the same as each other into orbit, but where one would be further out, lets say by a kilometer..
Now if we could board these satellites we would note that they are orbiting the same speed because they Keep in line with each other, but if we were to place ourselves in between them we would note one is actually moving faster relative to our observation area!
and whats more one seems to be a little larger!
and in fact we can work it all out why via
E=MC^2
or
M=E/C^2
or for the area a mass occupies as per above by
C^2=E/M
In a solid the speed of light is slower for this very reason!
its all to do with relativity and the above simple equation and if we map or grid out our whole universe to it! You should better understand how spherical particles simply are impossible!
We can work out everything we ever need to know using E=MC^2 as the bases!
we can even plot the rise and fall of potential to a given area to give us the frequency, colour and kelvin via the above equations!
As a claimed maths expert, I cant understand why you are having trouble with the given variables?
If an area is exerted upon it can be expressed as being compressed but if another area in contact is with less potential the exertion will be transferred towards it, so on and so on and if there are many compressed areas we can even have the perception a large mass has moved when the reality is the compressed state pertaining to mass has merely been passed onto an area with less potential just like the theoretical electron flow or the relative electromagnetic wave suggests a photon is moved when really what have moved is the charge and or force.
BTW just because we have gridded out space-time to cubes of sorts doesn't mean mass or compressed areas are of cubes!
what should be imagined is areas are somewhat interlinked spikes, noting these spikes are the temporary result of electromagnetic waves peaking and therefore are constantly infringing or peaking outwardly and or vice Vs compressing inwardly from a neighboring higher potential.
QUOTE
I have outlined just some of the problems I get when I 'JUST TRY IT'.
Yeah well if you really tried it, you should now see how the speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in a solid confirms E=MC^2 is all we need!
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 01:06 AM)
"c" is always the same speed.. so it doesn't matter what medium we start with
Light changes speed dependent on the medium, so yes it does.
Light changes speed dependent on the medium, so yes it does.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 01:06 AM)
Now if we could board these satellites we would note that they are orbiting the same speed because they Keep in line with each other, but if we were to place ourselves in between them we would note one is actually moving faster relative to our observation area!
and whats more one seems to be a little larger!
and whats more one seems to be a little larger!
No, we'd know that they are moving at the same angular velocity and we could tell that from being on board or being inbetween them.
Given different orbit radii and the same angular velocity it's obvious they move at different speeds, it's simple dynamics.
Given different orbit radii and the same angular velocity it's obvious they move at different speeds, it's simple dynamics.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 01:06 AM)
or for the area a mass occupies as per above by
C^2=E/M
C^2=E/M
You will never ever get a physically meaningful result if you think area is measured in velocity squared.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 01:06 AM)
In a solid the speed of light is slower for this very reason!
Nope, it's constant absorption and emission by those pesky 'theoretical' electrons which creates a delay.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 01:06 AM)
As a claimed maths expert, I cant understand why you are having trouble with the given variables?
The problem is, I have a sufficently good grasp of this material to see your ideas for the bullshit they are.
You say 'it's all to do with relativity', but how much have you actually done? Or are you just taking E=mc^2 and not bothering to learn anything else.
If E=mc^2 is all you need to know, what is the time dilation factor between two objects with relative velocity v? It's part of special relativity, but not part of E=mc^.2.
If you cannot, then obviously something else must be needed. And don't say "it's all theoretical", Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic, what your wonderful protons interact via
You say 'it's all to do with relativity', but how much have you actually done? Or are you just taking E=mc^2 and not bothering to learn anything else.
If E=mc^2 is all you need to know, what is the time dilation factor between two objects with relative velocity v? It's part of special relativity, but not part of E=mc^.2.
QUOTE
Yeah well if you really tried it, you should now see how the speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in a solid confirms E=MC^2 is all we need!
Please derive the Maxwell equations using E=mc^2. If it's all we need, they should be derivable just from that one equation. You may assume no other equations.If you cannot, then obviously something else must be needed. And don't say "it's all theoretical", Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic, what your wonderful protons interact via
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 29 2006, 01:12 AM)
E=MC^2 is complete!
You don't know what you are talking about because of your brainwashing with fabricated "science".
" Theories and hypotheses in physics are always exposed to endless challenges by observation and experiment. Einstein's theory is no exception. Most of the assumptions of its two postulates are under continuous threat of being experimentally invalidated. It is not inconceivable that a clock synchronized and thrown at 0.999c will come back synchronized. In addition to this burden, Einstein's theory faces serious difficulties at two fronts. From inside, the theory is plagued by internal inconsistencies, fuzzy logic, and perpetual tension between its two postulates. From outside, the current theory is subjected to a tremendous pressure by the universal concepts that have been left behind. The theory has placed itself firmly against some of the absolutes of Natural Philosophy. At the same time, it has done its best to save the laws of logic and causality. The problem is that the general principles of Natural Philosophy form a highly integrated package. Take it all or leave it all. There is no possibility of choosing only the items that one likes from this package and to do so would be to invite irresolvable contradictions.
" Einstein's theory has been criticized by the importing of many metaphysical issues into the heartland of physics. It is not easy to evaluate the possible effects of this import on the development of physics in the long term.
" On one hand, one may say: "Let main-streamers wrestle with the eternal conundrums of metaphysics and build up philosophical muscles." On the other hand, it is well-documented that the ancient Greeks, during the Hellenistic Era, had engaged in just the same playing around with essences and principles, and the Dark Ages weren't far behind. The current state of physics should be a source of concern, but not overwhelming so, as the present status quo is likely to persist for the next hundred years." ------End of the qoute----(AAF)
You don't know what you are talking about because of your brainwashing with fabricated "science".
" Theories and hypotheses in physics are always exposed to endless challenges by observation and experiment. Einstein's theory is no exception. Most of the assumptions of its two postulates are under continuous threat of being experimentally invalidated. It is not inconceivable that a clock synchronized and thrown at 0.999c will come back synchronized. In addition to this burden, Einstein's theory faces serious difficulties at two fronts. From inside, the theory is plagued by internal inconsistencies, fuzzy logic, and perpetual tension between its two postulates. From outside, the current theory is subjected to a tremendous pressure by the universal concepts that have been left behind. The theory has placed itself firmly against some of the absolutes of Natural Philosophy. At the same time, it has done its best to save the laws of logic and causality. The problem is that the general principles of Natural Philosophy form a highly integrated package. Take it all or leave it all. There is no possibility of choosing only the items that one likes from this package and to do so would be to invite irresolvable contradictions.
" Einstein's theory has been criticized by the importing of many metaphysical issues into the heartland of physics. It is not easy to evaluate the possible effects of this import on the development of physics in the long term.
" On one hand, one may say: "Let main-streamers wrestle with the eternal conundrums of metaphysics and build up philosophical muscles." On the other hand, it is well-documented that the ancient Greeks, during the Hellenistic Era, had engaged in just the same playing around with essences and principles, and the Dark Ages weren't far behind. The current state of physics should be a source of concern, but not overwhelming so, as the present status quo is likely to persist for the next hundred years." ------End of the qoute----(AAF)
QUOTE (News+Oct 31 2006, 02:12 AM)
You don't know what you are talking about because of your brainwashing with fabricated "science".
Then lets hear what you have to say about what direction and force defines the Proton, Electron and the Neutron?
And please don't cut and paste some text you don't fully understand, because I have more questions dependant on your answers..
I have asked Alpha the same questions, but thus far I have received no coherent answer..
So please stop and think carefully, what forces are really possible for the above particles definition and then detail it in your own words here each particles direction of force and how these forces are possible and how they are contained in the area they exist.
Then lets hear what you have to say about what direction and force defines the Proton, Electron and the Neutron?
And please don't cut and paste some text you don't fully understand, because I have more questions dependant on your answers..
I have asked Alpha the same questions, but thus far I have received no coherent answer..
So please stop and think carefully, what forces are really possible for the above particles definition and then detail it in your own words here each particles direction of force and how these forces are possible and how they are contained in the area they exist.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 31 2006, 12:21 AM)
Light changes speed dependent on the medium, so yes it does.
So you agree with me now?
I see you are slowly but surely getting the whole picture now
I see you are slowly but surely getting the whole picture now
You say 'it's all to do with relativity', but how much have you actually done? Or are you just taking E=mc^2 and not bothering to learn anything else.
If E=mc^2 is all you need to know, what is the time dilation factor between two objects with relative velocity v? It's part of special relativity, but not part of E=mc^.2.
Please derive the Maxwell equations using E=mc^2. If it's all we need, they should be derivable just from that one equation.
You may assume no other equations.
If you cannot, then obviously something else must be needed. And don't say "it's all theoretical", Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic, what your wonderful protons interact via
Hooray! lets now look at what Maxwell is playing around with.. what variables are we messing around with and why?
Notice how Maxwell relies on permeability and permittivity of space, question is although you may know the formula, but can you tell me what each variable represents and with change on one of the variables how does one represent it in reality, sure its a cinch mathematically but what are the real Physics?
I have numerous times already given inferences in my own words the dynamics of how we can forgo Maxwell's formula which BTW so happens creates problems for the crackpots that insist areas consisting of particles, was it you that stated you had just completed research on latices? gee I wonder why?
Anyway because of this problem I bet Lorentz force is not to far away from getting a mention..
Look how many times do I have to express I have no problems with any current theory other than treating certain particles as if real when they are strictly theoretical!
So you agree with me now?
QUOTE
No, we'd know that they are moving at the same angular velocity and we could tell that from being on board or being inbetween them.
Given different orbit radii and the same angular velocity it's obvious they move at different speeds, it's simple dynamics.
You will never ever get a physically meaningful result if you think area is measured in velocity squared.
Nope, it's constant absorption and emission by those pesky 'theoretical' electrons which creates a delay.
The problem is, I have a sufficently good grasp of this material to see your ideas for the bullshit they are.
Given different orbit radii and the same angular velocity it's obvious they move at different speeds, it's simple dynamics.
You will never ever get a physically meaningful result if you think area is measured in velocity squared.
Nope, it's constant absorption and emission by those pesky 'theoretical' electrons which creates a delay.
The problem is, I have a sufficently good grasp of this material to see your ideas for the bullshit they are.
I see you are slowly but surely getting the whole picture now
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, we'd know that they are moving at the same angular velocity and we could tell that from being on board or being inbetween them. Given different orbit radii and the same angular velocity it's obvious they move at different speeds, it's simple dynamics. You will never ever get a physically meaningful result if you think area is measured in velocity squared. Nope, it's constant absorption and emission by those pesky 'theoretical' electrons which creates a delay. The problem is, I have a sufficently good grasp of this material to see your ideas for the bullshit they are. |
I see you are slowly but surely getting the whole picture now
You say 'it's all to do with relativity', but how much have you actually done? Or are you just taking E=mc^2 and not bothering to learn anything else.
If E=mc^2 is all you need to know, what is the time dilation factor between two objects with relative velocity v? It's part of special relativity, but not part of E=mc^.2.
Please derive the Maxwell equations using E=mc^2. If it's all we need, they should be derivable just from that one equation.
You may assume no other equations.
If you cannot, then obviously something else must be needed. And don't say "it's all theoretical", Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic, what your wonderful protons interact via
Hooray! lets now look at what Maxwell is playing around with.. what variables are we messing around with and why?
Notice how Maxwell relies on permeability and permittivity of space, question is although you may know the formula, but can you tell me what each variable represents and with change on one of the variables how does one represent it in reality, sure its a cinch mathematically but what are the real Physics?
I have numerous times already given inferences in my own words the dynamics of how we can forgo Maxwell's formula which BTW so happens creates problems for the crackpots that insist areas consisting of particles, was it you that stated you had just completed research on latices? gee I wonder why?
Anyway because of this problem I bet Lorentz force is not to far away from getting a mention..
Look how many times do I have to express I have no problems with any current theory other than treating certain particles as if real when they are strictly theoretical!
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 09:32 AM)
So you agree with me now?
Where did I ever say the speed of light didn't change when it enters a transparent medium. Never have I said that.
Where did I ever say the speed of light didn't change when it enters a transparent medium. Never have I said that.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 09:32 AM)
I see you are slowly but surely getting the whole picture now
What? I've done nothing to acctp what you're saying, what I said was stuff taught to 14 year olds in physics class. v = omega*r, orbital motion. If you think me understanding basic motion is somehow a revelation you really have no idea, but than that's obvious
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 09:32 AM)
was it you that stated you had just completed research on latices
No it wasn't me.
So that is a no I take it, you cannot derive Maxwell's Equations from E=mc^2. It would seem your claim that all you need is E=mc^2 is wrong then.
So that is a no I take it, you cannot derive Maxwell's Equations from E=mc^2. It would seem your claim that all you need is E=mc^2 is wrong then.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 31 2006, 09:32 AM)
I have asked Alpha the same questions, but thus far I have received no coherent answer..
I have given a coherent answer, but every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed, or a particle you don't like such as the electron, you come back with "It's all theoretical!!".
I give coherent answer, answers which if I carried on elaborating on would give explainations to experiments and the ability to model reactions accurately. Just because you give incoherent responses to that which throw out experiments (therefore are a cardinal sin as far as the scientific method is concerned) doesn't make my responses invalid.
You've been able to back up any claims you've made, can't model anything in the real world and ignore experiment. Sure, you don't have to believe in gluons or quarks, but you still have to explain ALL experiments in terms of your own model. Claiming "that doesn't exist so I dont' have to explain it" is wrong.
I give coherent answer, answers which if I carried on elaborating on would give explainations to experiments and the ability to model reactions accurately. Just because you give incoherent responses to that which throw out experiments (therefore are a cardinal sin as far as the scientific method is concerned) doesn't make my responses invalid.
You've been able to back up any claims you've made, can't model anything in the real world and ignore experiment. Sure, you don't have to believe in gluons or quarks, but you still have to explain ALL experiments in terms of your own model. Claiming "that doesn't exist so I dont' have to explain it" is wrong.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 31 2006, 09:35 AM)
I have given a coherent answer, but every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed, or a particle you don't like such as the electron, you come back with "It's all theoretical!!".
No you haven't!
What do you mean by strong force?
Where does this force originate from?
How is it facilitated?
What footing does the strong force exert from?
How does the weak force compare with the above, and why is it necessary to scrutinize an area that can only begot via theoretically..
Lets refer to the muons and consider the following properties of it
where its electric charge is -1
With a coupling mass of 105.658 MeV suggesting the anti-muon has the same 105.658 MeV but its electric charge is +1 giving a good indication of its origin..
Lets break down an Atom to its REAL forces and see where the theoretical muons would be situated normally?
Any ideas? Now lets briefly go back over my questions above, and lets see if you know where we are heading?
NOW~ What defines the area that is deemed by science as an electron, lets justify what forces define the area, and lets clarify where an electrons definition ends and whatever it is in contact with begins via what line of force we are dealing with..
How about we go once more over where muons may exist in an atom?
OK here's even a simpler question you should be able to answer and if you don't may I commend you on your cutting and pasting skill's!
Are we in agreement the Proton of an atom is Positively charged?
and lets clarify its exertion in that would it be an outward or inward exertion?
No you haven't!
What do you mean by strong force?
Where does this force originate from?
How is it facilitated?
What footing does the strong force exert from?
How does the weak force compare with the above, and why is it necessary to scrutinize an area that can only begot via theoretically..
Lets refer to the muons and consider the following properties of it
where its electric charge is -1
With a coupling mass of 105.658 MeV suggesting the anti-muon has the same 105.658 MeV but its electric charge is +1 giving a good indication of its origin..
Lets break down an Atom to its REAL forces and see where the theoretical muons would be situated normally?
Any ideas? Now lets briefly go back over my questions above, and lets see if you know where we are heading?
NOW~ What defines the area that is deemed by science as an electron, lets justify what forces define the area, and lets clarify where an electrons definition ends and whatever it is in contact with begins via what line of force we are dealing with..
How about we go once more over where muons may exist in an atom?
OK here's even a simpler question you should be able to answer and if you don't may I commend you on your cutting and pasting skill's!
Are we in agreement the Proton of an atom is Positively charged?
and lets clarify its exertion in that would it be an outward or inward exertion?
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 1 2006, 12:32 AM)
What do you mean by strong force?
Where does this force originate from?
How is it facilitated?
I'm sure Wiki can tell you more than you can understand
Where does this force originate from?
How is it facilitated?
I'm sure Wiki can tell you more than you can understand
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 1 2006, 12:32 AM)
How about we go once more over where muons may exist in an atom?
Another example of you having no idea about mainstream physics. Physics doesn't think the muon exists within the atom, but is a particle created in high energy interactions. As you're so fond of mentioning the equation, you know that by E=mc^2 energy and mass are related. If something has enough energy, it'll shed that excess energy in the form of particles. Particles like the muon.
To speed things up.. lets say I am a crackpot and I am an absolute more~on..
And your the smartest individual in the Universe! OK are we all pleased?
Now..
On my previous Post I wrote
To which you replied with
To which you replied with
I'm sure Wiki can tell you more than you can understand
Another example of you having no idea about mainstream physics. Physics doesn't think the muon exists within the atom, but is a particle created in high energy interactions. As you're so fond of mentioning the equation, you know that by E=mc^2 energy and mass are related. If something has enough energy, it'll shed that excess energy in the form of particles. Particles like the muon.
I am wondering if your paying attention...
I previously also wrote
You answered
You answered
Another example of you having no idea about mainstream physics. Physics doesn't think the muon exists within the atom, but is a particle created in high energy interactions.
To which, I now ask what interactions? Where and with what?
Read your statement again and then go carefully over the whole post..
Forget about proving your self and discrediting me, and lets address from where and or how a muons properties come about.
Note my previous questions, pertaining to strong and weak forces, note we are currently referring to a muon, and note how you are now claiming a muon is a particle in its own right by foregoing its previous states "eg Pion" and origin or have you deliberately ignored this?
Have you considered how it came to exist? what force/s gives it, its definition and how did it come about? Where and how long does it exist?
All the above answers, if answered correctly lead us where? or to to do exactly what with said and or claimed theoretical sub ATOMIC Particle?
Lets move on and concede Particle theory leads us no-where but for the need of more and more theoretical subdivisions or smaller particles with half arzed charge and spins etc, just in order to explain away an introduced flaw via treating an independent force as being possible and REAL on its own accord, attraction is simply not possible unless we have the right conditions to infer attraction, and these conditions can be stopped at the Atomical level where the Electron is really the result of the surrounding protons exertions, where each proton is pushing outwardly {positive} but inwardly {negative} to all of its neighboring Protons, the Proton is a positive area {area with an outward exertion} and if I am right the Electron is a Negative area! {area of inward exertion} and where the two forces meet they enmesh and are neutralized. every experiment proves these lines of forces exist and from these forces science concluded with to current theoretical components, particle lackies have over looked the fact how negative exertion is gained and treats the area seperate from its origin, {big mistake} but in doing so they still havent clicked to what they are messing around with!
Any~ho!
Electron flow {Light in a solid} and or the propagation of Light and or Electromagnetic waves {Electron flow in a near vacuum} have the exact same dynamics, because the only change is the medium, and if you read this statement with due care you should note the deliberate swap and play with terminology..
The above statement may seem utter nonsense, even to some Crackpot Lecturers who still haven't come to terms with reality with respects to REAL force, but to those that have worked with Electromagnetic waves and or Electronics for a considerable amount of time should see no problems with it..
Or am I born Centuries to early? Where "attraction" can still be magically exerted on its own merits?
And your the smartest individual in the Universe! OK are we all pleased?
Now..
On my previous Post I wrote
QUOTE
(Laidback @ Nov 1 2006, 12:32 AM)
What do you mean by strong force?
Where does this force originate from?
How is it facilitated?
What do you mean by strong force?
Where does this force originate from?
How is it facilitated?
To which you replied with
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Laidback @ Nov 1 2006, 12:32 AM) What do you mean by strong force? Where does this force originate from? How is it facilitated? |
To which you replied with
I'm sure Wiki can tell you more than you can understand
Another example of you having no idea about mainstream physics. Physics doesn't think the muon exists within the atom, but is a particle created in high energy interactions. As you're so fond of mentioning the equation, you know that by E=mc^2 energy and mass are related. If something has enough energy, it'll shed that excess energy in the form of particles. Particles like the muon.
I am wondering if your paying attention...
I previously also wrote
QUOTE
(Laidback @ Nov 1 2006, 12:32 AM)
How about we go once more over where muons may exist in an atom?
How about we go once more over where muons may exist in an atom?
You answered
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Laidback @ Nov 1 2006, 12:32 AM) How about we go once more over where muons may exist in an atom? |
You answered
Another example of you having no idea about mainstream physics. Physics doesn't think the muon exists within the atom, but is a particle created in high energy interactions.
To which, I now ask what interactions? Where and with what?
QUOTE
As you're so fond of mentioning the equation, you know that by E=mc^2 energy and mass are related. If something has enough energy, it'll shed that excess energy in the form of particles. Particles like the muon.
Read your statement again and then go carefully over the whole post..
Forget about proving your self and discrediting me, and lets address from where and or how a muons properties come about.
Note my previous questions, pertaining to strong and weak forces, note we are currently referring to a muon, and note how you are now claiming a muon is a particle in its own right by foregoing its previous states "eg Pion" and origin or have you deliberately ignored this?
Have you considered how it came to exist? what force/s gives it, its definition and how did it come about? Where and how long does it exist?
All the above answers, if answered correctly lead us where? or to to do exactly what with said and or claimed theoretical sub ATOMIC Particle?
Lets move on and concede Particle theory leads us no-where but for the need of more and more theoretical subdivisions or smaller particles with half arzed charge and spins etc, just in order to explain away an introduced flaw via treating an independent force as being possible and REAL on its own accord, attraction is simply not possible unless we have the right conditions to infer attraction, and these conditions can be stopped at the Atomical level where the Electron is really the result of the surrounding protons exertions, where each proton is pushing outwardly {positive} but inwardly {negative} to all of its neighboring Protons, the Proton is a positive area {area with an outward exertion} and if I am right the Electron is a Negative area! {area of inward exertion} and where the two forces meet they enmesh and are neutralized. every experiment proves these lines of forces exist and from these forces science concluded with to current theoretical components, particle lackies have over looked the fact how negative exertion is gained and treats the area seperate from its origin, {big mistake} but in doing so they still havent clicked to what they are messing around with!
Any~ho!
Electron flow {Light in a solid} and or the propagation of Light and or Electromagnetic waves {Electron flow in a near vacuum} have the exact same dynamics, because the only change is the medium, and if you read this statement with due care you should note the deliberate swap and play with terminology..
The above statement may seem utter nonsense, even to some Crackpot Lecturers who still haven't come to terms with reality with respects to REAL force, but to those that have worked with Electromagnetic waves and or Electronics for a considerable amount of time should see no problems with it..
Or am I born Centuries to early? Where "attraction" can still be magically exerted on its own merits?
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 2 2006, 02:38 AM)
Note my previous questions, pertaining to strong and weak forces, note we are currently referring to a muon, and note how you are now claiming a muon is a particle in its own right by foregoing its previous states "eg Pion" and origin or have you deliberately ignored this?
Please quote where I'd said the muon was in a pion. Firstly, a pion is not an atom, it's a short lived bound state and secondly it's a bound state of two quarks.
I'm not deliberartely ignoring anything, you're the one who just keeps getting it wrong and ignoring experiment.
Please quote where I'd said the muon was in a pion. Firstly, a pion is not an atom, it's a short lived bound state and secondly it's a bound state of two quarks.
I'm not deliberartely ignoring anything, you're the one who just keeps getting it wrong and ignoring experiment.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 2 2006, 02:38 AM)
and these conditions can be stopped at the Atomical level where the Electron is really the result of the surrounding protons exertions, where each proton is pushing outwardly {positive} but inwardly {negative} to all of its neighboring Protons, the Proton is a positive area {area with an outward exertion} and if I am right the Electron is a Negative area! {area of inward exertion} and where the two forces meet they enmesh and are neutralized.
Except you can get electrons when there's no protons around at all. How do you explain that?
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 2 2006, 02:38 AM)
Electron flow {Light in a solid} and or the propagation of Light and or Electromagnetic waves {Electron flow in a near vacuum} have the exact same dynamics, because the only change is the medium,
Electromagnetic waves are NOT electrons. This is easily provably by noting magnets do not bend light. If light was electrons, magnets would bend light around them. Does your fridge door bend light?
Another example of you saying "I've got a half arsed theory and experimental evidence be damned!"
Electromagnetic waves are NOT electrons.
What are your electrons made of?
What are your electrons made of?
This is easily provably by noting magnets do not bend light.
Does your fridge door bend light?
If the magnet/fridge door were the size of the planet would it bend light?
do magnets have gravity?
If light was electrons, magnets would bend light around them.
If there was a slightly curved magnetic tunnel 3 000 000 km's long, how do you know it wouldn't bend light? The photon's speed and low mass, has that got anything to do with it?
If there was a slightly curved magnetic tunnel 3 000 000 km's long, how do you know it wouldn't bend light? The photon's speed and low mass, has that got anything to do with it?
But every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed
Has science seen inside a nucleus? Which experiment? Can you provide a link?
Another example of you saying "I've got a half arsed theory and experimental evidence be damned!"
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 2 2006, 02:38 AM)
Or am I born Centuries to early? Where "attraction" can still be magically exerted on its own merits?
No, you were born in a century where a theory has to match experiment before it's even considered for validity, not where you can rant about how experiments don't reflect reality and expect your model to be science.
QUOTE
Electromagnetic waves are NOT electrons.
What are your electrons made of?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Electromagnetic waves are NOT electrons. |
What are your electrons made of?
This is easily provably by noting magnets do not bend light.
Does your fridge door bend light?
If the magnet/fridge door were the size of the planet would it bend light?
do magnets have gravity?
QUOTE
If light was electrons, magnets would bend light around them.
If there was a slightly curved magnetic tunnel 3 000 000 km's long, how do you know it wouldn't bend light? The photon's speed and low mass, has that got anything to do with it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If light was electrons, magnets would bend light around them. |
If there was a slightly curved magnetic tunnel 3 000 000 km's long, how do you know it wouldn't bend light? The photon's speed and low mass, has that got anything to do with it?
But every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed
Has science seen inside a nucleus? Which experiment? Can you provide a link?
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 10:26 PM)
What are your electrons made of?
They are a fundamental quantum entity. They are coupled to the electromagnetic force, in that electrons and photons can interact but that is NOT the same saying the electron is an electromagnetic wave.
You'd not have asked that question if you'd ever opened an actual textbook on quantum mechanics.
They are a fundamental quantum entity. They are coupled to the electromagnetic force, in that electrons and photons can interact but that is NOT the same saying the electron is an electromagnetic wave.
You'd not have asked that question if you'd ever opened an actual textbook on quantum mechanics.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 10:26 PM)
If the magnet/fridge door were the size of the planet would it bend light?
do magnets have gravity?
do magnets have gravity?
That's obviously not the effect I'm refering to and you know it. Magnets would bend the paths of nearby moving electrons via the interaction with the electron's electric and magnetic fields (moving charge makes a field and all that).
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 10:26 PM)
If there was a slightly curved magnetic tunnel 3 000 000 km's long, how do you know it wouldn't bend light? The photon's speed and low mass, has that got anything to do with it?
If a photon was made up of electrons, ignoring the fact they'd be charged and have rest mass, they'd bend EASILY in a magnetic field, you wouldn't need a tube that long.
They are a fundamental quantum entity.
What's that mean? They don’t have structure?
What's that mean? They don’t have structure?
They are coupled to the electromagnetic force, in that electrons and photons can interact but that is NOT the same saying the electron is an electromagnetic wave.
Could their structure be EM? Do photons from the sun push the Earth with their momentum?
This suggested that atoms had internal structure
What structure, is empty space a structure?
What structure, is empty space a structure?
and a lot of empty space.
What empty space, it's filled with force!
Forgive my skepticisms! Not being able to making head or tails of the rest of your link. It’s not very logical.
But every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed
No direct observation? All theoretical!
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from?
No direct observation? All theoretical!
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from?
You'd not have asked that question if you'd ever opened an actual textbook on quantum mechanics.
Should I still read your textbook?
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 10:26 PM)
Has science seen inside a nucleus? Which experiment? Can you provide a link?
Deep inelastic scattering
Again, a passing familiarity with some quantum mechanics and you'd know that.
Again, a passing familiarity with some quantum mechanics and you'd know that.
QUOTE
They are a fundamental quantum entity.
What's that mean? They don’t have structure?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
They are a fundamental quantum entity. |
What's that mean? They don’t have structure?
They are coupled to the electromagnetic force, in that electrons and photons can interact but that is NOT the same saying the electron is an electromagnetic wave.
Could their structure be EM? Do photons from the sun push the Earth with their momentum?
QUOTE
This suggested that atoms had internal structure
What structure, is empty space a structure?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
This suggested that atoms had internal structure |
What structure, is empty space a structure?
and a lot of empty space.
What empty space, it's filled with force!
Forgive my skepticisms! Not being able to making head or tails of the rest of your link. It’s not very logical.
QUOTE
But every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed
No direct observation? All theoretical!
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But every time I mention something about the strong force, a force which is experimentally observed |
No direct observation? All theoretical!
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from?
You'd not have asked that question if you'd ever opened an actual textbook on quantum mechanics.
Should I still read your textbook?
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 10:15 PM)
What's that mean? They don’t have structure?
According to every experiment run, electrons have no structure at any scale we can probe.
This is consistant with the predictions of the Standard Model.
Yikes. This was post 900, which I had hoped would be more meaningful. I guess I'll have to save the good stuff for post 1000.
According to every experiment run, electrons have no structure at any scale we can probe.
This is consistant with the predictions of the Standard Model.
Yikes. This was post 900, which I had hoped would be more meaningful. I guess I'll have to save the good stuff for post 1000.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
What's that mean? They don’t have structure?
They don't internal structure.
They don't internal structure.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
Could their structure be EM?
Why just electromagnetism? Why not vector bosons too, since they couple to the electron, plus they can carry charge (well 2 of them can). But then you have a problem with rest masses.
You can't just say "Electrons are photons" without having to them explain ALL the implications of that statement. Why don't photons carry charge but electrons do? Why don't photos have rest mass but electrons do. What keeps the photons bound together? What layout are the photons?
You can't just say "Electrons are photons" without having to them explain ALL the implications of that statement. Why don't photons carry charge but electrons do? Why don't photos have rest mass but electrons do. What keeps the photons bound together? What layout are the photons?
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
Do photons from the sun push the Earth with their momentum?
A small amount, yes.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
What structure, is empty space a structure?
Having structure means they are actually a bound state of smaller particles.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
What empty space, it's filled with force!
Force is not a 'thing' like an electron is a thing. What you mean is that there's fields of force within that empty space. Yes, there are, but that's not the same as there being other real particles.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
Not being able to making head or tails of the rest of your link. It’s not very logical.
Google 'deep inelastic scattering' then and find one you do think is 'logical'. You'd understand it more if you actually knew some quantum field theory.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
No direct observation? All theoretical!
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from?
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from?
Protons and neutrons demonstrate internal structure. Experimental fact. Weak bosons have been seen. Experimental fact. Weak bosons don't explain the mechanics of the nucleus and the structure of baryons and mesons, neither does it with the EM force.
Gluon decays are often seen in colliders.
According to every experiment run, electrons have no structure at any scale we can probe.
This is consistant with the predictions of the Standard Model.
There could be scales that we haven't probed yet, hey?
Is it nature’s standard model? Or our best-guessed theoretical theory that gets manipulated to meet theoretical data? Allot to go wrong there! I stick with what I see.
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from? Don’t be scared to give this a crack! You could have used it to give the 900th post a more meaningful objective. How's my golf handicap coming along?
There could be scales that we haven't probed yet, hey?
Is it nature’s standard model? Or our best-guessed theoretical theory that gets manipulated to meet theoretical data? Allot to go wrong there! I stick with what I see.
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from? Don’t be scared to give this a crack! You could have used it to give the 900th post a more meaningful objective. How's my golf handicap coming along?
They don't internal structure.
Any proof?
Why not vector bosons too
What are vector bosons made of, do they have an internal structure?
What are vector bosons made of, do they have an internal structure?
Why don't photons carry charge but electrons do?
Back to the solar panel, Eh?
A small amount, yes.
Next year we have 367 days, Hey? Eventually humans will have one birthday then eventually none. GEE, wont be to much fun and at least I wont have to buy so many presents, cool. Best to be checking the implications of this on the moon.
Next year we have 367 days, Hey? Eventually humans will have one birthday then eventually none. GEE, wont be to much fun and at least I wont have to buy so many presents, cool. Best to be checking the implications of this on the moon.
Force is not a 'thing' like an electron is a thing.
Yes I believe your science says forces they are imaginary and not physical. Spooky action at a distance…
Having structure means they are actually a bound state of smaller particles.
Bound by empty space?
Bound by empty space?
Google 'deep inelastic scattering' then and find one you do think is 'logical'. You'd understand it more if you actually knew some quantum field theory.
Dont know yours, working on my own, it doesn't make me crazy. Trying to stick a 2x4 down a rifle barrel.
Gluon decays are often seen in colliders
My little pet theory predicts particle mass from the lightest to the heaviest and an every thing in-between combination. Try labeling all of those. This is the new theory section of the forum, or am I in the wrong place?
Are all particles unique like humans have fingerprints and features?
My little pet theory predicts particle mass from the lightest to the heaviest and an every thing in-between combination. Try labeling all of those. This is the new theory section of the forum, or am I in the wrong place?
Are all particles unique like humans have fingerprints and features?
Maybe if you knew some quantum mechanics you'd be able to answer some of your own questions rather than trying to blow holes in things you don't know.
hahaha... I'll blow holes in through your empty space, oops, sorry they are there already.
Nothing is certain, but I'll keep working on my new theory.
Gluon decays are often seen in colliders.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
Should I still read your textbook?
I don't have a textbook I wrote, though I do highly recommend An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Peskin and Schroeder. If you know basic quamtum mechanics, vector calculus and variational principles it guides you through the beginnings of quantum field through, through scalar phi^4 theory, QED, abelian QCD, non-abelian QCD and plenty more. It's aimed at 3rd year or graduate uni students and beyond (that applies more to the last few chapters).
Maybe if you knew some quantum mechanics you'd be able to answer some of your own questions rather than trying to blow holes in things you don't know.
Maybe if you knew some quantum mechanics you'd be able to answer some of your own questions rather than trying to blow holes in things you don't know.
QUOTE
According to every experiment run, electrons have no structure at any scale we can probe.
This is consistant with the predictions of the Standard Model.
There could be scales that we haven't probed yet, hey?
Is it nature’s standard model? Or our best-guessed theoretical theory that gets manipulated to meet theoretical data? Allot to go wrong there! I stick with what I see.
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from? Don’t be scared to give this a crack! You could have used it to give the 900th post a more meaningful objective. How's my golf handicap coming along?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
According to every experiment run, electrons have no structure at any scale we can probe. This is consistant with the predictions of the Standard Model. |
There could be scales that we haven't probed yet, hey?
Is it nature’s standard model? Or our best-guessed theoretical theory that gets manipulated to meet theoretical data? Allot to go wrong there! I stick with what I see.
Where does the nuclei strong/weak force come from? Don’t be scared to give this a crack! You could have used it to give the 900th post a more meaningful objective. How's my golf handicap coming along?
They don't internal structure.
Any proof?
QUOTE
Why not vector bosons too
What are vector bosons made of, do they have an internal structure?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Why not vector bosons too |
What are vector bosons made of, do they have an internal structure?
Why don't photons carry charge but electrons do?
Back to the solar panel, Eh?
QUOTE
A small amount, yes.
Next year we have 367 days, Hey? Eventually humans will have one birthday then eventually none. GEE, wont be to much fun and at least I wont have to buy so many presents, cool. Best to be checking the implications of this on the moon.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A small amount, yes. |
Next year we have 367 days, Hey? Eventually humans will have one birthday then eventually none. GEE, wont be to much fun and at least I wont have to buy so many presents, cool. Best to be checking the implications of this on the moon.
Force is not a 'thing' like an electron is a thing.
Yes I believe your science says forces they are imaginary and not physical. Spooky action at a distance…
QUOTE
Having structure means they are actually a bound state of smaller particles.
Bound by empty space?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Having structure means they are actually a bound state of smaller particles. |
Bound by empty space?
Google 'deep inelastic scattering' then and find one you do think is 'logical'. You'd understand it more if you actually knew some quantum field theory.
Dont know yours, working on my own, it doesn't make me crazy. Trying to stick a 2x4 down a rifle barrel.
QUOTE
Gluon decays are often seen in colliders
My little pet theory predicts particle mass from the lightest to the heaviest and an every thing in-between combination. Try labeling all of those. This is the new theory section of the forum, or am I in the wrong place?
Are all particles unique like humans have fingerprints and features?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Gluon decays are often seen in colliders |
My little pet theory predicts particle mass from the lightest to the heaviest and an every thing in-between combination. Try labeling all of those. This is the new theory section of the forum, or am I in the wrong place?
Are all particles unique like humans have fingerprints and features?
Maybe if you knew some quantum mechanics you'd be able to answer some of your own questions rather than trying to blow holes in things you don't know.
hahaha... I'll blow holes in through your empty space, oops, sorry they are there already.
Nothing is certain, but I'll keep working on my new theory.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
Any proof?
Plenty of evidence, there's no way to prove it for sure.
Plenty of evidence, there's no way to prove it for sure.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
What are vector bosons made of, do they have an internal structure?
They don't, but asking what they are made of implies a lack of understanding on your part, they are fundamental.
A string theorist might say where were a particular mode of a vibrating string or membrane which isn't the sum of other self consistent modes.
A string theorist might say where were a particular mode of a vibrating string or membrane which isn't the sum of other self consistent modes.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
Back to the solar panel, Eh?
A solar panel has nothing to do with it.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
Next year we have 367 days, Hey? Eventually humans will have one birthday then eventually none. GEE, wont be to much fun and at least I wont have to buy so many presents, cool. Best to be checking the implications of this on the moon.
I said small, as in VERY small. Not a measurable amount, plus there are other effects which can counter if like gravitational radiation (though it's much weaker than photon pressure).
You attempt to ridicule it by making an over the top statement. It's akin to saying "Air pressure drops as you go higher? How do people breath at the top of ladders then!".
You attempt to ridicule it by making an over the top statement. It's akin to saying "Air pressure drops as you go higher? How do people breath at the top of ladders then!".
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
Yes I believe your science says forces they are imaginary and not physical. Spooky action at a distance…
Action at a distance is something else. Forces are effects objects feel in relation to one another. If you think they are imaginary, jump off the top of a tall building and just think "Gravity is imaginary". They exist because they have measurable effects.
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
Bound by empty space?
Again, you show your ignorance of physics by asking that. They are bound to one another. A proton and an electron can form a bound state, a hydrogen atom. There's bags of empty space within that bound state object (just ask Rutherford ).
).QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
My little pet theory predicts particle mass from the lightest to the heaviest and an every thing in-between combination. Try labeling all of those. This is the new theory section of the forum, or am I in the wrong place?
I don't know why they mixed 'new theories' with quantum mechanics and relativity. It means that all the new theory cranks invade decent threads on experimentally verified effects with "It's because everything is made of aether!". Just look at Zephir, I don't think there's a thread where someone has asked "Why does..." or "Can someone explain how..." without him posting at least 3 pictures/animations and a paragraph about how AWT explains all quantum mechanics, relativity, cures world hungry and names JFKs killer
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
hahaha... I'll blow holes in through your empty space, oops, sorry they are there already.
Are you implying the universe is a continuum?
QUOTE (bee+Nov 3 2006, 12:50 AM)
Nothing is certain, but I'll keep working on my new theory.
It's only cranks who attempt new theories without learning the old to a reasonable level. Why not? You worried you might be tainted by real knowledge? Or that having a lot of maths under your belt might actually mean you know how to model physical systems?
Hell, learning old theories even serves the purpose of telling you how to avoid what you see as mistakes other people have made! But no, that's too much like hard work and all cranks what is to explain the universe but without the effort
Hell, learning old theories even serves the purpose of telling you how to avoid what you see as mistakes other people have made! But no, that's too much like hard work and all cranks what is to explain the universe but without the effort
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 2 2006, 08:27 AM)
Please quote where I'd said the muon was in a pion. Firstly, a pion is not an atom, it's a short lived bound state and secondly it's a bound state of two quarks.
What the?
A pion is a previous state of a muon, what are you rambling on about?
So what have we constructed our instruments and detectors with?
Lets get REAL and down to the proper basics and apply what force defines the Proton from its surrounding area..
A proton has been deemed by science as holding a Positive exertion and or Positive charge, now lets make a note and give this {clapping fingers in the air} area pertaining to a positive charge and or exertion and give it an inward or outward exertion its your call! and if you have another force in mind then spill your gutz out keeping in mind at all times the forces footing so to speak.
what exertion are we going to say it has?
So what have we constructed our instruments and detectors with?
Lets get REAL and down to the proper basics and apply what force defines the Proton from its surrounding area..
A proton has been deemed by science as holding a Positive exertion and or Positive charge, now lets make a note and give this {clapping fingers in the air} area pertaining to a positive charge and or exertion and give it an inward or outward exertion its your call! and if you have another force in mind then spill your gutz out keeping in mind at all times the forces footing so to speak.
what exertion are we going to say it has?
Electromagnetic waves are NOT electrons. This is easily provably by noting magnets do not bend light. If light was electrons, magnets would bend light around them. Does your fridge door bend light?
Ask what happens in a transmitters circuit? electron flow is propagated via negative exertion experienced from a proton with a higher potential to which the next proton exerts to another proton that is with a lower potential so on and so on..{electron flow}
Ask what occurs at the aerials surface? {solid} The electron charge or exertion is exerted to either a gaseous proton or a Proton that is at a state of "near vacuum", and this exertion is exerted to where ever the potential is lower, so and so on and so on, if the Protons were gaseous the speed of light would be dependent on the protons gaseous potential, the potential is quite significant to a medium of near vacuum, so the medium would be considerably more compressed compared to a medium like near vacuum, so the speed of light would be dependently slower as it would be when we compare near vacuum and in a solid. we can prove this via E=MC^2 BTW and you with your claimed mathematical skills should find it an absolute cinch!
BTW have you Asked why we use ELECTRO-magnets to steer whatever {including theoretical photons} in an accelerator?
Like I keep saying, you will do a lot better, if you start thinking before you open your {bucket!?} Err~ Oceanic mouth..
My model still acknowledges Positive and negative exertions and or charges and or in REALITY outward and inward exertions but it doesn't treat them as separate, because if we remove the force that facilitates the proton we end up with none of the forces!
Prove attraction is possible on its own merit, and then! and only then! Can you claim I am a crackpot!
You haven't done this! in fact all you have done is taken on as if I have insulted your credibility, can you imagine if it were discovered I was with a mental disorder that restricted my intelligence to a more-on and even so proven correct, how would that make you look? here am I and here you are making a total arze of your self..
and trust me you are!
So I say the electron is a by product of protons, and its not a particle in its own right!
No matter what experiments you can bring forth, Protons will always be present because the whole Universe consists purely of areas {protons} that are in constant exertions onto each other, and we cant build on experiments with out our protons.
I say this with the greatest of ease because the only way a force can exert itself is via an opposing footing, as in a distancing exertion and or outwardly exertion..
now if the above is positive and negative is the opposite, how do you suppose an inward exertion is possible? WELL!??? {Pete wipes froth from mouth
}
Alpha I have no doubt you re brilliant and you will go a long way, but if you don't catch on as other have privately indicated, you will be left behind.. and you dont deserve such an injustice..
What the?
A pion is a previous state of a muon, what are you rambling on about?
QUOTE
I'm not deliberartely ignoring anything, you're the one who just keeps getting it wrong and ignoring experiment.
Except you can get electrons when there's no protons around at all. How do you explain that?
Except you can get electrons when there's no protons around at all. How do you explain that?
So what have we constructed our instruments and detectors with?
Lets get REAL and down to the proper basics and apply what force defines the Proton from its surrounding area..
A proton has been deemed by science as holding a Positive exertion and or Positive charge, now lets make a note and give this {clapping fingers in the air} area pertaining to a positive charge and or exertion and give it an inward or outward exertion its your call! and if you have another force in mind then spill your gutz out keeping in mind at all times the forces footing so to speak.
what exertion are we going to say it has?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not deliberartely ignoring anything, you're the one who just keeps getting it wrong and ignoring experiment. Except you can get electrons when there's no protons around at all. How do you explain that? |
So what have we constructed our instruments and detectors with?
Lets get REAL and down to the proper basics and apply what force defines the Proton from its surrounding area..
A proton has been deemed by science as holding a Positive exertion and or Positive charge, now lets make a note and give this {clapping fingers in the air} area pertaining to a positive charge and or exertion and give it an inward or outward exertion its your call! and if you have another force in mind then spill your gutz out keeping in mind at all times the forces footing so to speak.
what exertion are we going to say it has?
Electromagnetic waves are NOT electrons. This is easily provably by noting magnets do not bend light. If light was electrons, magnets would bend light around them. Does your fridge door bend light?
Ask what happens in a transmitters circuit? electron flow is propagated via negative exertion experienced from a proton with a higher potential to which the next proton exerts to another proton that is with a lower potential so on and so on..{electron flow}
Ask what occurs at the aerials surface? {solid} The electron charge or exertion is exerted to either a gaseous proton or a Proton that is at a state of "near vacuum", and this exertion is exerted to where ever the potential is lower, so and so on and so on, if the Protons were gaseous the speed of light would be dependent on the protons gaseous potential, the potential is quite significant to a medium of near vacuum, so the medium would be considerably more compressed compared to a medium like near vacuum, so the speed of light would be dependently slower as it would be when we compare near vacuum and in a solid. we can prove this via E=MC^2 BTW and you with your claimed mathematical skills should find it an absolute cinch!
BTW have you Asked why we use ELECTRO-magnets to steer whatever {including theoretical photons} in an accelerator?
QUOTE
Another example of you saying "I've got a half arsed theory and experimental evidence be damned!"
No, you were born in a century where a theory has to match experiment before it's even considered for validity, not where you can rant about how experiments don't reflect reality and expect your model to be science.
No, you were born in a century where a theory has to match experiment before it's even considered for validity, not where you can rant about how experiments don't reflect reality and expect your model to be science.
Like I keep saying, you will do a lot better, if you start thinking before you open your {bucket!?} Err~ Oceanic mouth..
My model still acknowledges Positive and negative exertions and or charges and or in REALITY outward and inward exertions but it doesn't treat them as separate, because if we remove the force that facilitates the proton we end up with none of the forces!
Prove attraction is possible on its own merit, and then! and only then! Can you claim I am a crackpot!
You haven't done this! in fact all you have done is taken on as if I have insulted your credibility, can you imagine if it were discovered I was with a mental disorder that restricted my intelligence to a more-on and even so proven correct, how would that make you look? here am I and here you are making a total arze of your self..
and trust me you are!
So I say the electron is a by product of protons, and its not a particle in its own right!
No matter what experiments you can bring forth, Protons will always be present because the whole Universe consists purely of areas {protons} that are in constant exertions onto each other, and we cant build on experiments with out our protons.
I say this with the greatest of ease because the only way a force can exert itself is via an opposing footing, as in a distancing exertion and or outwardly exertion..
now if the above is positive and negative is the opposite, how do you suppose an inward exertion is possible? WELL!??? {Pete wipes froth from mouth
}Alpha I have no doubt you re brilliant and you will go a long way, but if you don't catch on as other have privately indicated, you will be left behind..
and you dont deserve such an injustice..
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 01:37 AM)
A pion is a previous state of a muon, what are you rambling on about?
Nope. While a pion decay can cause (among other things) muons, that doesn't mean the previous state of a muon is a pion, as you implied here:
Nope. While a pion decay can cause (among other things) muons, that doesn't mean the previous state of a muon is a pion, as you implied here:
QUOTE
d note how you are now claiming a muon is a particle in its own right by foregoing its previous states "eg Pion" and origin or have you deliberately ignored this?
Muons can be created without ever involving pions.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| d note how you are now claiming a muon is a particle in its own right by foregoing its previous states "eg Pion" and origin or have you deliberately ignored this? |
Muons can be created without ever involving pions.
Ask what happens in a transmitters circuit? electron flow is propagated via negative exertion experienced from a proton with a higher potential to which the next proton exerts to another proton that is with a lower potential so on and so on..{electron flow}
Ask what happens in a transmitters circuit? electron flow is propagated via negative exertion experienced from a proton with a higher potential to which the next proton exerts to another proton that is with a lower potential so on and so on..{electron flow}
How do you explain electric charge flow in a metal solid, where the nuclei can't move? Something must be moving, but it can't be protons and just exerting force on one another doesn't result in charge flow.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 01:37 AM)
BTW have you Asked why we use ELECTRO-magnets to steer whatever {including theoretical photons} in an accelerator?
We use electromagnetics because we can turn them on and off in precisely timed pulses in order to accelerate charged particles. In the same way you can push a child on a swing higher and higher if you push them at just the right moment, you can do the same to particles. The electromagnets also keep them moving in circles.
We don't use them to accelerate photons because they don't have any effect on photons. Have a look at experimental evidence, or your fridge door.
We don't use them to accelerate photons because they don't have any effect on photons. Have a look at experimental evidence, or your fridge door.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 01:37 AM)
we can prove this via E=MC^2 BTW and you with your claimed mathematical skills should find it an absolute cinch!
You claim it's possible, you show it's possible. I don't think it's possible, so I can't do it. Feel free to prove me wrong in a totally undeniable way. Just saying "And apply m = E/c^2" isn't that.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 01:37 AM)
Can you claim I am a crackpot!
You're a crackpot because you ignore experiments, claim to have solved everything but never really pin down the exact framework and your theory cannot model anything exactly, just with "and it works". That puts you pretty high up on the crackpot scoring chart, irresepctive of what I can or can't do.
Model beta decay. Give the particles general momenta like p,q,r and compute the scattering cross section.
You're a crackpot because you ignore experiments, claim to have solved everything but never really pin down the exact framework and your theory cannot model anything exactly, just with "and it works". That puts you pretty high up on the crackpot scoring chart, irresepctive of what I can or can't do.
Model beta decay. Give the particles general momenta like p,q,r and compute the scattering cross section.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 01:37 AM)
can you imagine if it were discovered I was with a mental disorder that restricted my intelligence to a more-on and even so proven correct, how would that make you look? here am I and here you are making a total arze of your self..
and trust me you are!
and trust me you are!
Since you think expecting a theory to match experiments is making an 'arze' of oneself, perhaps you do have a mental disorder, at least a mental block in the area of how science works.
Why do you think your theory doesn't have to explain some reactions? Sure, you might not believe in the electron or neutron, but something is happening to whatever entity you believe the neutron is, which then makes it look like a proton, what I'd call an electron and also an antineutrino.
You dismiss the existence of those particles and then think that you don't have to explain the experiment. You still have to, in terms of your own theory, in a way which gives meaningful quantative predictions. You've failed to give a single quantative prediction, therefore you have no theory, you have a bad philosophy. Nothing more.
Why do you think your theory doesn't have to explain some reactions? Sure, you might not believe in the electron or neutron, but something is happening to whatever entity you believe the neutron is, which then makes it look like a proton, what I'd call an electron and also an antineutrino.
You dismiss the existence of those particles and then think that you don't have to explain the experiment. You still have to, in terms of your own theory, in a way which gives meaningful quantative predictions. You've failed to give a single quantative prediction, therefore you have no theory, you have a bad philosophy. Nothing more.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 3 2006, 01:12 AM)
Nope. While a pion decay can cause (among other things) muons, that doesn't mean the previous state of a muon is a pion, as you implied here:
Muons can be created without ever involving pions.
How do you explain electric charge flow in a metal solid, where the nuclei can't move? Something must be moving, but it can't be protons and just exerting force on one another doesn't result in charge flow.
We use electromagnetics because we can turn them on and off in precisely timed pulses in order to accelerate charged particles. In the same way you can push a child on a swing higher and higher if you push them at just the right moment, you can do the same to particles. The electromagnets also keep them moving in circles.
We don't use them to accelerate photons because they don't have any effect on photons. Have a look at experimental evidence, or your fridge door.
You claim it's possible, you show it's possible. I don't think it's possible, so I can't do it. Feel free to prove me wrong in a totally undeniable way. Just saying "And apply m = E/c^2" isn't that.
You're a crackpot because you ignore experiments, claim to have solved everything but never really pin down the exact framework and your theory cannot model anything exactly, just with "and it works". That puts you pretty high up on the crackpot scoring chart, irresepctive of what I can or can't do.
Model beta decay. Give the particles general momenta like p,q,r and compute the scattering cross section.
Since you think expecting a theory to match experiments is making an 'arze' of oneself, perhaps you do have a mental disorder, at least a mental block in the area of how science works.
Why do you think your theory doesn't have to explain some reactions? Sure, you might not believe in the electron or neutron, but something is happening to whatever entity you believe the neutron is, which then makes it look like a proton, what I'd call an electron and also an antineutrino.
You dismiss the existence of those particles and then think that you don't have to explain the experiment. You still have to, in terms of your own theory, in a way which gives meaningful quantative predictions. You've failed to give a single quantative prediction, therefore you have no theory, you have a bad philosophy. Nothing more.
OY! <sigh>~ a whole lot of wind of a boastfull nature!
Ok so year 12 science is far to complex for you, so Let see if grade 3 science is beyond you!
What line of force would give definition to a proton compared to its environment?
Lets make it real simply where we require a simple A/. B/. or C/. reply by the given choices..
A/. Inward?
or
B/. Outward?
or
C/. Other
If the answser is beyond you, dont come back with C/., We dont need any more of the gibberish defensive parroting thus far gleened from another parrot that has parroted from yet another parrot!
Muons can be created without ever involving pions.
How do you explain electric charge flow in a metal solid, where the nuclei can't move? Something must be moving, but it can't be protons and just exerting force on one another doesn't result in charge flow.
We use electromagnetics because we can turn them on and off in precisely timed pulses in order to accelerate charged particles. In the same way you can push a child on a swing higher and higher if you push them at just the right moment, you can do the same to particles. The electromagnets also keep them moving in circles.
We don't use them to accelerate photons because they don't have any effect on photons. Have a look at experimental evidence, or your fridge door.
You claim it's possible, you show it's possible. I don't think it's possible, so I can't do it. Feel free to prove me wrong in a totally undeniable way. Just saying "And apply m = E/c^2" isn't that.
You're a crackpot because you ignore experiments, claim to have solved everything but never really pin down the exact framework and your theory cannot model anything exactly, just with "and it works". That puts you pretty high up on the crackpot scoring chart, irresepctive of what I can or can't do.
Model beta decay. Give the particles general momenta like p,q,r and compute the scattering cross section.
Since you think expecting a theory to match experiments is making an 'arze' of oneself, perhaps you do have a mental disorder, at least a mental block in the area of how science works.
Why do you think your theory doesn't have to explain some reactions? Sure, you might not believe in the electron or neutron, but something is happening to whatever entity you believe the neutron is, which then makes it look like a proton, what I'd call an electron and also an antineutrino.
You dismiss the existence of those particles and then think that you don't have to explain the experiment. You still have to, in terms of your own theory, in a way which gives meaningful quantative predictions. You've failed to give a single quantative prediction, therefore you have no theory, you have a bad philosophy. Nothing more.
OY! <sigh>~ a whole lot of wind of a boastfull nature!
Ok so year 12 science is far to complex for you, so Let see if grade 3 science is beyond you!
What line of force would give definition to a proton compared to its environment?
Lets make it real simply where we require a simple A/. B/. or C/. reply by the given choices..
A/. Inward?
or
B/. Outward?
or
C/. Other
If the answser is beyond you, dont come back with C/., We dont need any more of the gibberish defensive parroting thus far gleened from another parrot that has parroted from yet another parrot!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 3 2006, 01:12 AM)
You're a crackpot because you ignore experiments, claim to have solved everything but never really pin down the exact framework and your theory cannot model anything exactly, just with "and it works". That puts you pretty high up on the crackpot scoring chart, irresepctive of what I can or can't do.
I have never ignored any experiments, all I have done is thus far agreed with all of them! In fact it is because of these experiments anyone here with decent logic should come to the conclusion that if we remove the force that facilitate the protons we would also be removing both the electrons and the neutrons forces..
Time and time again I have asked you to ponder over the answer to the previous post..
And by answering the question successfully you should know the Electron is really theoretical or gained as a "by product" of a few Protons outwardly exertion to a given area!
I have never ignored any experiments, all I have done is thus far agreed with all of them! In fact it is because of these experiments anyone here with decent logic should come to the conclusion that if we remove the force that facilitate the protons we would also be removing both the electrons and the neutrons forces..
Time and time again I have asked you to ponder over the answer to the previous post..
And by answering the question successfully you should know the Electron is really theoretical or gained as a "by product" of a few Protons outwardly exertion to a given area!
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 02:51 AM)
If the answser is beyond you, dont come back with C/., We dont need any more of the gibberish defensive parroting thus far gleened from another parrot that has parroted from yet another parrot!
The answer isn't 'beyond me', the question is ill defined. A proton far from anything doesn't exert a force. It has an electric field around it, but that doesn't relate to a force till you put another charge within that field.
Then the force depends on what the other charge is. If it's another proton, they repel. If it's something with a negative charge, then they attract.
That a simple enough 3rd grade answer for you?
The answer isn't 'beyond me', the question is ill defined. A proton far from anything doesn't exert a force. It has an electric field around it, but that doesn't relate to a force till you put another charge within that field.
Then the force depends on what the other charge is. If it's another proton, they repel. If it's something with a negative charge, then they attract.
That a simple enough 3rd grade answer for you?
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 02:51 AM)
Ok so year 12 science is far to complex for you,
You'll forgive me if I don't consider your evaluation of my physics ability to be worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
Today I gave a 30 minute presentation to a bunch of professors in high energy physics on renormalisation and the beta function in scalar QCD. Easy stuff to them, but new stuff to me, and they considered it demonstrated I was well on top of the material.
But then we're parrots parroting parrots right?
Today I gave a 30 minute presentation to a bunch of professors in high energy physics on renormalisation and the beta function in scalar QCD. Easy stuff to them, but new stuff to me, and they considered it demonstrated I was well on top of the material.
But then we're parrots parroting parrots right?
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 02:51 AM)
I have never ignored any experiments, all I have done is thus far agreed with all of them!
How can they be when you think muons and electrons don't exist? You claim the nuclei of atoms is held together by some kind of convoluted form of the electromagnetic field and there is no strong force.
Also, at no point have you proved your idea alines with experiments, you just quoite E=mc^2 and claim it solves everything. If it does, model the reaction I asked, electron+positron -> muon+antimuon. Compute the differential cross section. You can take the electron as massless and consider the non-relativistic limit if you want to make things easier. It's a page of working for QED. Go on, show your theory is worth something.
Also, at no point have you proved your idea alines with experiments, you just quoite E=mc^2 and claim it solves everything. If it does, model the reaction I asked, electron+positron -> muon+antimuon. Compute the differential cross section. You can take the electron as massless and consider the non-relativistic limit if you want to make things easier. It's a page of working for QED. Go on, show your theory is worth something.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 3 2006, 02:18 AM)
The answer isn't 'beyond me', the question is ill defined. A proton far from anything doesn't exert a force. It has an electric field around it, but that doesn't relate to a force till you put another charge within that field.
I see where you are going wrong now!
But first let me say you havent considered what defines the protons definition if it has no outwardly exertion how did we come to detect a non exerting area?
Besides you are treating an area first with electromotive force and then the same area with Newtonian force, its not both Alpha its one or the other..
And I suggest you refer to your Lectures for some further clarification on that..
what forces facilitates this?
I see where you are going wrong now!
But first let me say you havent considered what defines the protons definition if it has no outwardly exertion how did we come to detect a non exerting area?
Besides you are treating an area first with electromotive force and then the same area with Newtonian force, its not both Alpha its one or the other..
And I suggest you refer to your Lectures for some further clarification on that..
QUOTE
It has an electric field around it,
How so?what forces facilitates this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It has an electric field around it, |
How so?
what forces facilitates this?
but that doesn't relate to a force till you put another charge within that field.The answer isn't 'beyond me', the question is ill defined. A proton far from anything doesn't exert a force.
if we know a proton and or field exists some force has to be aparent, so therefore it must have a defining force to it, you cant say we have a field and then infer it has no defining force to it.
And in the main, I don't dispute this! in fact I have been trying to express this for quite some time now!
What you need to do is to stop and think how do all these defining forces work or get exerted to each other... insist that you know what direction the exertion is being exerted to, so that we can define what area is what and from what part of the atom.
I have given the very model you just described over and over with you in constant dispute and now you do a back flip like as if you have just recently grasped what is truly going on!
And in the main, I don't dispute this! in fact I have been trying to express this for quite some time now!
What you need to do is to stop and think how do all these defining forces work or get exerted to each other... insist that you know what direction the exertion is being exerted to, so that we can define what area is what and from what part of the atom.
I have given the very model you just described over and over with you in constant dispute and now you do a back flip like as if you have just recently grasped what is truly going on!
That a simple enough 3rd grade answer for you?
You'll forgive me if I don't consider your evaluation of my physics ability to be worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
You're Forgiven ~ It happens to the best of us.
There you go again! referring to Particle theory as if theoretical subatomic particles are real, when in reality all you are dealing with is a theoretical area that is with a given theoretical velocity in a given theoretical trajectory gained by detectors that theoretically detect via theoretical rules to a given force and or charge and potential to a given time frame within a given theoretical environment designed on the premise our model of the atom is truly correct.
Oh Sure~ REAL forces can exert ones electronic detectors to infer what we expect, but what is really happening? lets get to The forces! The REAL forces...
Here's a thought...
If a Protons potential increases by being compressed does its outward and or positive exertion increase? what area would it take if it was allowed to expend almost all of its outward exertion, I only say and insist "almost all" because zero potential means Err~ well No-thing!
And how is a negative exertion or compression going to be possible? if we don't have any protons exerting the only REAL and possible exertion.
What would happen if an outwardly force was not surrounded or released into a medium that has very little opposing exertion?
Let me suggest if another protons outward exertion is with a higher outwardly potential or exertion to it in a given medium, the protons next to it will experience compression by it {negative exertion and or charge} so the surrounding suckers would all end up being compressed, so and so on..
Now imagine for each exchange it would take a given amount of time..
And lets say we had two equal lines where one line had a few "very large" areas{particles} in a line next to another line of "many smaller" areas {particles}.
Can you tell me which line would transfer an exertion quicker from one end to the other end of their respective lines?
Now correlate the speeds within a solid {compressed areas} and near vacuum {Huge areas} with reference to the speed of light? are you getting the picture?
Do you still think Atoms and or near vacuum is made up of particles?
or are they mostly theoretical by noting an areas potential can be completely shiftedt o another entire area.
what forces facilitates this?
but that doesn't relate to a force till you put another charge within that field.The answer isn't 'beyond me', the question is ill defined. A proton far from anything doesn't exert a force.
if we know a proton and or field exists some force has to be aparent, so therefore it must have a defining force to it, you cant say we have a field and then infer it has no defining force to it.
QUOTE
Then the force depends on what the other charge is. If it's another proton, they repel. If it's something with a negative charge, then they attract.
And in the main, I don't dispute this! in fact I have been trying to express this for quite some time now!
What you need to do is to stop and think how do all these defining forces work or get exerted to each other... insist that you know what direction the exertion is being exerted to, so that we can define what area is what and from what part of the atom.
I have given the very model you just described over and over with you in constant dispute and now you do a back flip like as if you have just recently grasped what is truly going on!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then the force depends on what the other charge is. If it's another proton, they repel. If it's something with a negative charge, then they attract. |
And in the main, I don't dispute this! in fact I have been trying to express this for quite some time now!
What you need to do is to stop and think how do all these defining forces work or get exerted to each other... insist that you know what direction the exertion is being exerted to, so that we can define what area is what and from what part of the atom.
I have given the very model you just described over and over with you in constant dispute and now you do a back flip like as if you have just recently grasped what is truly going on!
That a simple enough 3rd grade answer for you?
You'll forgive me if I don't consider your evaluation of my physics ability to be worth the electrons it took to transmit it.
You're Forgiven ~ It happens to the best of us.
QUOTE
Today I gave a 30 minute presentation to a bunch of professors in high energy physics on renormalisation and the beta function in scalar QCD. Easy stuff to them, but new stuff to me, and they considered it demonstrated I was well on top of the material.
But then we're parrots parroting parrots right?
How can they be when you think muons and electrons don't exist? You claim the nuclei of atoms is held together by some kind of convoluted form of the electromagnetic field and there is no strong force.
Also, at no point have you proved your idea alines with experiments, you just quoite E=mc^2 and claim it solves everything. If it does, model the reaction I asked, electron+positron -> muon+antimuon. Compute the differential cross section. You can take the electron as massless and consider the non-relativistic limit if you want to make things easier. It's a page of working for QED. Go on, show your theory is worth something.
But then we're parrots parroting parrots right?
How can they be when you think muons and electrons don't exist? You claim the nuclei of atoms is held together by some kind of convoluted form of the electromagnetic field and there is no strong force.
Also, at no point have you proved your idea alines with experiments, you just quoite E=mc^2 and claim it solves everything. If it does, model the reaction I asked, electron+positron -> muon+antimuon. Compute the differential cross section. You can take the electron as massless and consider the non-relativistic limit if you want to make things easier. It's a page of working for QED. Go on, show your theory is worth something.
There you go again! referring to Particle theory as if theoretical subatomic particles are real, when in reality all you are dealing with is a theoretical area that is with a given theoretical velocity in a given theoretical trajectory gained by detectors that theoretically detect via theoretical rules to a given force and or charge and potential to a given time frame within a given theoretical environment designed on the premise our model of the atom is truly correct.
Oh Sure~ REAL forces can exert ones electronic detectors to infer what we expect, but what is really happening? lets get to The forces! The REAL forces...
Here's a thought...
If a Protons potential increases by being compressed does its outward and or positive exertion increase? what area would it take if it was allowed to expend almost all of its outward exertion, I only say and insist "almost all" because zero potential means Err~ well No-thing!
And how is a negative exertion or compression going to be possible? if we don't have any protons exerting the only REAL and possible exertion.
What would happen if an outwardly force was not surrounded or released into a medium that has very little opposing exertion?
Let me suggest if another protons outward exertion is with a higher outwardly potential or exertion to it in a given medium, the protons next to it will experience compression by it {negative exertion and or charge} so the surrounding suckers would all end up being compressed, so and so on..
Now imagine for each exchange it would take a given amount of time..
And lets say we had two equal lines where one line had a few "very large" areas{particles} in a line next to another line of "many smaller" areas {particles}.
Can you tell me which line would transfer an exertion quicker from one end to the other end of their respective lines?
Now correlate the speeds within a solid {compressed areas} and near vacuum {Huge areas} with reference to the speed of light? are you getting the picture?
Do you still think Atoms and or near vacuum is made up of particles?
or are they mostly theoretical by noting an areas potential can be completely shiftedt o another entire area.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 05:45 AM)
Besides you are treating an area first with electromotive force and then the same area with Newtonian force, its not both Alpha its one or the other..
And I suggest you refer to your Lectures for some further clarification on that..
Err, no. The proton will behave in a somewhat Newtonian way if you only apply a small force to it, but that doesn't mean the force is 'Newtonian'. There is no 'Newtonian force', there's Newtonian dynamics which means that the forces and speeds involved as much less than light but there's no force which is 'Newtonian' like there's a force which is electromagnetic.
I'd tell you to read your lecture notes but it's obvious you've never been to any.
And I suggest you refer to your Lectures for some further clarification on that..
Err, no. The proton will behave in a somewhat Newtonian way if you only apply a small force to it, but that doesn't mean the force is 'Newtonian'. There is no 'Newtonian force', there's Newtonian dynamics which means that the forces and speeds involved as much less than light but there's no force which is 'Newtonian' like there's a force which is electromagnetic.
I'd tell you to read your lecture notes but it's obvious you've never been to any.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 05:45 AM)
How so?
what forces facilitates this?
what forces facilitates this?
The electromagnetic force.
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 3 2006, 05:45 AM)
if we k