|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th November 2012, 10:03 AM | #322 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
5th November 2012, 11:51 AM | #323 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
My favorite historical paper is Weinberg's 1967 paper on electroweak unification. That's a 2500x-cited paper that won a Nobel prize and so on. After going through the calculations that predict the W and Z-boson masses (correctly, as it turned out 10-15 years later) Weinberg says:
Originally Posted by http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v19/i21/p1264_1
|
5th November 2012, 11:57 AM | #324 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
5th November 2012, 12:18 PM | #325 |
Your Daddy
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 933
|
|
__________________
No way! Yahweh! |
|
5th November 2012, 04:42 PM | #326 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
8th November 2012, 04:00 AM | #327 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Sorry to have been away, there was something I had to do then I got distracted by other physics.
This pompous Emperor's New Clothes line can be used to dismiss anything. It's the modern equivalent of you don't even speak Latin. You won't get away with that on a skeptics forum. Will he, guys? Guys?
Originally Posted by kalen
|
8th November 2012, 04:23 AM | #328 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
|
Hahaha! Good one! Oh, wait, you were serious?
Quote:
Mathematics is not Latin, and even if it were, trying to argue that mathematics can be ignored when studying physics, while trying to promote your own personal variant of relativity is about as close to wandering around naked, while telling everyone how beautiful your clothes are, as I have ever in my life seen. I don't know if Cuddles or Ben are right about everything they say, but I would be a sorely failed skeptic if I thought anything you said was actual physics. If you actually tried answering some of the questions they asked, I might consider taking you seriously for at least a fraction of a second, but your continual sidestepping and ignoring direct and very relevant questions makes it clear your expertise is nil. Whether modern physics is right or not. Cuddles pointed you to the actual math that's relevant to the topic under discussion. Either refute the math or admit you can't, and aren't qualified to opine on the Higgs. |
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll |
|
8th November 2012, 06:23 AM | #329 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
This refers to Robo's post #298 where he said: "Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant?" This is a false argument that dismisses Einstein's explanation of mass and plays the "elegance" card like a card-sharp. Look carefully and you will notice that the explanation of mass is being palmed off into something which in itself is not explained at all. Off the top of my head, another example would be to say "magnets attract nails and the Earth attracts nails because of force, and it is more elegant to to explain only one thing". But then this "force" is not explained at all.
Originally Posted by Roboramma
Originally Posted by Roboramma
Originally Posted by Roboramma
|
8th November 2012, 06:40 AM | #330 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes, I was on a promise. I talk to a lot of people.
What flaws? You haven't pointed any out. I'm not promoting my own personal variant of relativity. I'm referring to Einstein's E=mc˛ here. And I'm not saying mathematics should be ignored. I'm saying it shouldn't be used to dismiss scientific evidence and rational argument. That's what Cuddles tried to do. I'm not sidestepping or ignoring direct and relevant questions. I'm talking physics here. Follow my references. It's plain-vanilla physics. You are a sorely failed skeptic for fooling yourself into thinking otherwise. And have you asked Cuddles to explain the Higgs paper? No. You're no skeptic, xtifr, you're an acolyte, one who fools himself into dismissing physics he can understand in favour of something he doesn't understand at all.
Quote:
Oh, and do please note, even though my Latin is poor, I am qualified to opine on heaven. |
8th November 2012, 06:50 AM | #331 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No, I meant electron. We can turn a photon into electron kinetic energy. Or we can turn a photon into an electron (and a positron) in pair production. So we can say the electron is made of kinetic energy. In the LHC we add kinetic energy to protons, then use that to make a "Higgs boson" which decays instantly into two photons.
|
8th November 2012, 07:05 AM | #332 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Just because you can use kinetic energy to make an electron positron pair doesn't mean they are physically constituted of kinetic energy.
And that's hardly the only thing I could take issue with. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
8th November 2012, 07:24 AM | #333 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Okay, E=mc2
I was aware of that, but yeah cool
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
An electron has kinetic energy, and it's true that the energy of its mass may have come from the kinetic energy of some other particle, but what does "made of kinetic energy" even mean?
Quote:
The fact that an electron's mass is determined by its coupling to the Higgs field doesn't mean it's mass doesn't depend on it's energy content: it requires a certain amount of energy to create an electron which is so coupled, so I really don't see your point here
Quote:
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th November 2012, 07:24 AM | #334 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
|
8th November 2012, 07:44 AM | #335 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 105
|
|
8th November 2012, 07:57 AM | #336 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
You may be taking Farsight too literally. His argument is metaphorical, not mathematical.
To deal with his argument on its own terms, you have to think metaphorically. Like this: So that's where baby photons come from? That's not where baby electrons come from. |
8th November 2012, 08:08 AM | #337 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th November 2012, 08:08 AM | #338 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Quote:
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
8th November 2012, 08:10 AM | #339 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
You've missed something somewhere along the line. The photon has a wavelength, it's a wave, and when you take all the kinetic energy out of the wave it doesn't exist any more. It isn't like some cannonball where you steal all its kinetic energy and you've still got a cannonball. So you can say the photon is kinetic energy. You know this is reasonable because you can convert a photon into electron kinetic energy in Compton scattering with a final bound-electron absorption like edd said. The photon has totally gone, and all you've got to show for it is electron kinetic energy. Alternatively you can use pair production to convert the photon, which is kinetic energy, into an electron. So the electron is made out of the same thing that makes an electron move. Kinetic energy. This is what E=mc˛ is all about. Read what Einstein said: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". That's what it is, not the measure of how strongly it couples with some cosmic treacle.
See above. Matter is made of energy. That's the whole point of E=mc˛. No. I said the electron's mass depends on its energy content. Like Einstein said. The Higgs mechanism doesn't, it says it depends on how much it couples with an-all pervasive field. It ignores the wave nature of matter and it contradicts what Einstein said. The point is that the electron is a body, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, not on something else. If you trap a photon in a box, the added mass is nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. If you trap a photon in a box of its own making because photon-photon coupling and photon self-coupling really does occur despite what QED says, the added mass is again nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. It's just the flip side of momentum. It's the resistance to change-in-motion for a standing wave propagating round and round at c and getting nowhere, rather than the resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. It's that simple, and it's a symmetry. Again look at atomic orbitals which says the electrons exist as standing waves, and look at electron diffraction. Electrons aren't cannonballs, they're waves, made from photons in pair production. They have spin angular momentum and magnetic moment so something really is going round and round in there. See above. The inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said. Not on something else. I've got to go. I'll look at other posts I've skipped such as RC's another time. |
8th November 2012, 08:23 AM | #340 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
So explain it then. In your own words. And while you're at it, do mention why the inertia of a body doesn't depend upon its energy content.
Well, that's one way to dismiss patent scientific evidence along with plain-vanilla physics and a straightforward explanation that even a child can understand. And Einstein to boot. Hide behind mathematics, like a witch doctor hides behind incantations when a pharmacologist shows up. Like a medieval bishop hides behind Latin and says "you're not qualified to speak of such matters". Nobody falls for it on a skeptics website. Do they? Perpetual Student, explain the Higgs paper in your own words. When you can't, it will be a nice demonstration of Emperors' New Clothes. Cue ducking and diving and a few more outraged "crackpot" squawks. Bah. Now I really must go. |
8th November 2012, 09:40 AM | #341 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
This really is crazy. Photons do not trap themselves in self-made boxes. Photons do not couple directly to photons. QED is in complete agreement with all two-photon physics. Electrons are not made up internally of photons, and photons are in no meaningful way made up purely of kinetic energy.
To follow your logic Farsight, photons can't be fundamental since they also have spin angular momentum, so presumably there's something smaller going round and round in them too? Your idea makes no useful predictions, unlike the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs mechanism also does not violate relativity (you'd have thought someone might have mentioned that when they found the Higgs if it did, no?) |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
8th November 2012, 10:29 AM | #342 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
As usual, Farsight can't tell the difference between "explaining Relativity" and "explaining his crackpot mental image of Relativity".
You really seem to think that energy is the underlying "stuff", and that if you rearrange and recombine energy in different ways you get different "stuff". Tie up some energy like this, and you get an electron at rest; tie it up like that, you get a top quark moving at 0.5c. This is wrong---or, at least, this is not what Einstein or anybody else thought. Energy is a conserved quantity. You can measure it. Different things add up to different amounts of energy. The rest mass of a down quark is worth 5 MeV in this conservation law---that does not mean that "5MeV" worth of "energy blobs" are its building blocks. The field energy of the 1-fm sphere of gluons, found inside a proton, is worth about 900 MeV. The rest mass of an electron is worth 0.511 MeV---that does NOT, emphatically, mean that you build a proton by balling up 0.511 MeV of energy-substance. Energy isn't a substance, isn't a building block, isn't a thing at all. Rest mass has this conserved quantity, energy, as an attribute. High velocities have this energy-quantity as an attribute. Strong fields have this energy-quantity as an attribute. That's as far as it goes. That is the whole point of E=mc^2 --- it tells you what quantity of energy is associated with mass at rest. It does not tell you that one is a constituent of the other. (ETA: Indeed, Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 has nothing whatsoever to do with substances. That derivation is *pure* kinematics---you starts with "let's assume that energy is conserved", and you run some inelastic-collision experiments in different frames. You discover that E = 1/2 mv^2 is *not* a conserved quantity, but E = sqrt(m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2) is a conserved quantity. This derivation does not care about electrons, or photons, or pair production, or fields---it's just the definition of the conservation law.) All of your assertions revolve around a stupid reinterpretation of words like "contains", etc.. Imagine listening to someone discussing their assets: "I sank $150,000 into my house, and my car is $10,000, and I have $8000 in gold bullion under my mattress." And imagine a crackpot thinking that this literally means that you could pick the car apart under a microscope and find the $150,000 it's made of; that smashing the gold together really hard will reveal a cunning work of dollar-bill origami. It will get worse when the crackpot sees an broker advertising that he can convert gold into money and vice versa (you're ignoring evidence, morons, says the crackpot), and a bank talking about the "liquidity" of assets (see, money is a substance! Everyone knows but you! says the crackpot.) That is just as stupid as your electron = kinetic energy assertion, Farsight. |
8th November 2012, 02:50 PM | #343 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Testing, one two:
|
8th November 2012, 03:17 PM | #344 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes they do couple directly. It's called two-photon physics. SLAC have done the experiments. And go and read Light bends itself into an arc. What do you think's going to happen if that arc is so very curved that it forms a closed path?
Not the bit that says pair production occurs because pair production occurs, and that a photon is forever spontaneously morphing into an electron-positron pair all on its own. That's crazy. All you need to do is look at Faraday rotation and understand that a photon is an electromagnetic wave to understand that a photon can couple to a photon. Two photons pass each other, jinkjink, jinkjink. Oh yes they are. You really can convert a photon into electron kinetic energy and nothing else. And you really can convert two photons into an electron and a positron and nothing else. You really can convert an electron and a positron into two photons and nothing else. Do not dismiss the scientific evidence of Compton scattering, the photoelectric effect, electron diffraction, magnetic dipole moment, the Einstein de-Haas effect, and what Einstein said in favour of something for which there is no evidence, and which fails miserably at explaining why "the Higgs boson" doesn't get its mass from all the kinetic energy we gave the LHC protons. No. Don't put words in my mouth. Photons are waves, waves are always associated with angular momentum. Look at wind waves. See the pictures on the right. A wave makes things go round. It isn't my idea, it's Einstein's idea. The inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. That's what it depends on, not whether it couples with cosmic treacle. You'd have thought they'd have mentioned that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter when they found the Higgs. But they didn't did they? No. Nor did they mention that it's "frightfully ad-hoc" and isn't central to the Standard Model. And nor did they mention the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. And nor did they mention that it gets it mass from all that proton kinetic energy. So what's your fallback argument edd? That the Higgs mechanism must be right because the people trumpeting it don't mention these things? Wake up. This is a forum for skeptics, for rational thinkers, not for suckers who lap up publicity releases and treat it like gospel. |
8th November 2012, 03:24 PM | #345 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No. And if you buy your dinner with paper money it isn't made out of paper either. Your dinner is made out of energy captured by plants from the sun and used to construct starch etc from materials at hand such as CO2 and water. With a bit of plant material that was eaten by things called animals and reprocessed into something called meat.
And gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy when a brick falls down. And before the brick fell down, that gravitational potential energy was in the brick as hidden kinetic energy wherein the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Find a brick made of antimatter and you can annihilate the elevated brick and antibrick to photons, which can be entirely converted into electron motion. So again, the "Higgs boson" is made of kinetic energy. Risible, Clinger. You've got nothing, and you know it. You can't put up a rational argument backed by scientific evidence to counter mine, and it shows. |
8th November 2012, 03:28 PM | #346 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
I don't know why I'm taking the bait here. I have had such negative experiences in the past with a certain Mozina when I have done so -- I will likely regret this. My own (layman's) words for a mathematically developed argument in such a complex area of physics are mostly pointless. But anyway here goes:
As a starting point (not shown in the paper in question), an analysis of a certain Lagrangian of a complex scalar field constructed to be symmetric under phase transformations shows that the spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry generates massless scalars (bosons), which cannot really exist in nature. (I assume you understand why this is so.) The Higgs mechanism solves this problem through a coupling mechanism that I believe is similar to that of fermions (that couple with their anti-particles -- but maybe not?) in order to account for mass. However, a gauge field is postulated to accomplish that for bosons having mass. His equation (4) contains the coupling constant that does the trick. So, now explain where the errors are in his thesis. You have the floor! No more silly comments about photons being kinetic energy in space -- just tell us where Higgs went wrong! |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
8th November 2012, 03:40 PM | #347 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
8th November 2012, 03:46 PM | #348 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Perpetual Student: Huh? LOL! Call that an explanation? You don't understand this at all! What complex scalar field? What does constructed to be symmetric under phase transformations actually mean? And how does the "spontaneous" breaking of a continuous symmetry generate massless bosons? All you've done is had a stab at an explanation that "explains" things in terms of things you don't understand at all. Why do you fool yourself that abstract blather like this is in any way convincing, whilst at the same time fooling yourself into thinking that patent scientific evidence is silly?
Higgs went wrong because he didn't understand classical electromagnetism and four-potential. The A-field is what "bulges" when a photon passes by, that's what's responsible for both photon momentum and electron mass, that's the "Higgs substance" that doesn't fill space, but is space. And he didn't understand the symmetry between momentum and inertia either. Or the wave nature of matter. Or the Einstein-de Haas effect, or electron diffraction, etc etc etc. And yet he's revered like a gospel saint by people like you who have never read the original Einstein and don't understand the first thing about physics. Ye Gods. |
8th November 2012, 03:48 PM | #349 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th November 2012, 04:04 PM | #350 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
For those interested in the truth, here is the BBC documentary about the Higgs Boson.
|
|||
8th November 2012, 04:23 PM | #351 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Not direct coupling.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
8th November 2012, 04:23 PM | #352 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
As usual, you've got no counterargument and resort to abuse.
It isn't "stuff". Stuff is made of it. And it was Einstein who told us that matter is made of energy. Yep. And matter is made from it. Can you show me a down quark? No. But I can show you energy. KICK. That's energy. I can show you Compton scattering. KICK. The electron moves and the photon is diminished. I can show you pair production, and now there's no KICK, just an electron and a positron. Learn to put evidence and reality above abstraction ben. You're an experimentalist aren't you? Act like one. Gluons are virtual particles. See above. Next. Oh yes it is a thing. It isn't stuff, but it's the thing from which stuff is made. It's the thing from which matter is made. It's the thing that you can neither create nor destroy. It isn't some abstract thing like money that is merely a tokenised agreement of value. It's real ben. Plants capture it. You consume it to do work and to grow. It isn't just the capacity to do work. Not when work is the energy associated with the action of a force. How many circular arguments do I have to point out to you before you start thinking for yourself? Because it's just energy that is effectively at rest because it isn't getting anywhere, because it's going round and round instead of linearly. That's it, that's all it is. Do you still not understand this symmetry between momentum and inertia? A wave propagating linearly exhibits resistance to change-in-motion called momentum, a wave propagating circularly exhibits resistance to change-in-motion called inertia. Hence the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Can I even put it any simpler? And is there anything that doesn't? Photons? No. Neutrinos? No. Electrons and positrons? No. Protons and antiprotons? No. Neutrons and antineutrons that decay into the above? No. Fast moving electrons made to move fast by photons? No. How about a gravitational field? No? And so it goes ben. No, the experiments tell you that. And you're an experimentalist. Pay attention to that "pure kinematics", because you are made of it. And when it comes to , do not ignore the flipflop between the mass and momentum terms in pair production followed by annihilation.
|
||
8th November 2012, 04:26 PM | #353 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
I forgot that you somehow consider kinetic energy to be more fundamental than other forms of energy
Personally I think ben m's most recent post in this thread sums up my objections to this better than I'm likely to But just to be clear: you're saying that a book sitting on shelf five feet off the floor in my bedroom has more kinetic energy than the same book sitting on the floor? |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th November 2012, 04:28 PM | #354 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th November 2012, 04:29 PM | #355 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Excellent question. You should ask it more often, in front of a mirror.
Oh, this is gonna be good... If that doesn't demonstrate Farsight's superior understanding of classical electromagnetism and four-potential, then I don't know what does. In a discussion of Einstein's most important paper on general relativity, Farsight got lost at the third of 75 numbered equations. While promoting his book, Farsight demonstrated profound ignorance of freshman-level electromagnetism. Why does Farsight continue to remind us of that history by accusing others of not having read Einstein and not understanding the first thing about physics? Maybe he thinks it's one of his more compelling arguments. |
8th November 2012, 04:31 PM | #356 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
8th November 2012, 04:38 PM | #357 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
That's the first law of thermodynamics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th November 2012, 04:39 PM | #358 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
So, you are admitting that you do not understand what a complex scalar field is? You do not understand what it means for a complex function to be symmetric under phase transformations? And -- you actually believe you are qualified to say anything about particle physics?
Quote:
Quote:
When you can explain what the spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry means and tell us why the explanation above is not correct we can proceed. In the meantime, buy yourself a pointed hat with crescent moons and stars painted on it and sell your ignorant rants elsewhere. No one here is buying your make-believe physics. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
8th November 2012, 04:40 PM | #359 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Can you explain why what I've said is wrong? No. Can you explain why the inertia of a body does not depend upon its energy content? No. Can you explain why Einstein was wrong? No. And can you explain that Higgs paper? No.
Edd, take a tip from Feynman. Pay attention to this: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool" You can't explain why I'm wrong and you can't explain why you're right. It must be right because it can't be wrong doesn't cut it. And nore does "crazy". What kind of argument is that? One that dismisses patent scientific evidence and plain-vanilla physics? In favour of something you don't understand and cannot explain, but lap up regardless? You know Feynman was called The Great Explainer? I look up to the guy, and try to emulate him. Now go listen to what he said about cargo-cult science, and pay attention. The ultimate irony of all this is that his QED has been corrupted into saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs, and damn the evidence, to hell with SLAC, dismiss light bends itself into an arc, photons do not couple with photons, QED. One day the penny will drop Edd. But on this day, I'm off to bed. ETA: LOL, Perpetual Student, Emperors New Clothes it is. Abusive words like "ignorant" and "rant" and "make-believe" do not conceal it. |
8th November 2012, 04:46 PM | #360 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Einstein told us that matter has an equivalent energy content.
Energy is a scalar quantity, like mass. Say you weigh 100 kg. Does that mean you are made of 100 kg? No, that is not a meaningful sentence. Nor is it a meaningful sentence to say you are made of 1m 96 cm. Your body temperature is about 37 degrees C but you are not made of 37 degrees C. And in exactly the same way, you are not made of a billion gigajoules. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|