Mystery111

Yeah, the matrices was by me. It was only to give you a taste of the dynamics of an evolution without a time variable. It was a demonstration that you don't need to infer on a time variable to explain how something evolves. There are other cases which this holds true, like the time-independant schrodinger equation.

Yeah, Planck Time, as others have noticed the answer.

Well, I have come to realize, but not realized in hindsight that I will actually have some time over the christmas periods to participate for a number of weeks before my studies begin again. Until my christmas holidays are over, I will need to resume back to my work. So for now, you may consider me back for a short spell.

I plan to come back in 4 months. Will miss you.

As I has suspected, I am really buisy now. So I am going to say fairwell and peace be with you all.

Swansont, I can't help but feel you might be being a bit pedantic. I won't fully know what you meant until you answer my questions. I know what was meant when I said, ''the photon is the smallest unit of energy'' - I am not talking about units where we might talk in terms of joules or electronvolts. ''The photon is the quantum (the smallest possible unit) of electromagnetic'' http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electromagnetic+radiation Saying that, I know no smaller possible unit. I haven't bothered looking either, however, I thought this anyway, so I assume I thought it for good reason.

I am quite aware a photon has no mass. Give me some credit please. Anyway, what is the smallest unit of energy. I thought it was a photon. Do you know of a smaller unit? I take it by saying ''a photon has energy'' you mean this E=pc? A photon is energy though. Can you divide the system into parts and say that the photon has an energy? Mass to me is different however. Mass can have an energy, but when the mass is removed, why continue saying an energy has an energy? What is a photon if not a unit of energy? mmmm... it is both a particle and a wave. Fascinating issues of definition could come out of these discussions. Let's see if we can come to any agreement. I actually agree. A vacuum is not nothingness, and even when you remove all the matter, there still remains some definition of energy in the form of virtual particles. But a vacuum if we are to believe big bang, did come from nothingness.

Yeah, I never googled, but thanks that you did.

Oh dear oh dear...atleast an hour of me should be spent from here on in.

God bless you... ... I wrote more as well.... ''Ridicule should be a no-no anyway. Why would a respectable scientist take time out their own hands to correct and then ridicule another member? If anything, you should correct and then move on, waste your time on more, valuable aspects. If not, what goal are you acheiving really? One might say, ''well atleast we are putting in the ground a false scientific prophet!'' But again, what are you achieving? Your words will not hit a scientific community. The scientific community are already aware of who the phonies are, so who and what are you trying to prove with all the debates against a crank? Cranks are understood by cranks and by no less. Any attempt to fight one crank might as well lead you on a crusade to fight all cranks on the web. And why would one do this, other than waste time? I find myself coming to this, even though really I have very little time, but still, I come here and I answer posts that are valuable enough to answer and sometimes these posts are lead by people with very little knowledge on physics. These posts don't make them automatically cranks, but a scientists which cannot retain the ability to discern a crank post from another isn't worthy of being called a scientist.''

Not understanding when a question is posed, is a reflection on someone who may suffer from the Autistic Spectrum. As I said, this does not make him ignorant. It's a condition. Maybe not medically classed as a mental condition, but still a condition nontheless. I should know, I have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder. Well said mooey. You're not in the wrong and neither was Dirac. It is simply a case where normal operative people can understand something quicker than another. Least to say, Dirac was probably quicker than most of his peers concerning other pivotal subjects. Ridicule should be a no-no anyway. Why would a respectable scientist take time out their own hands to correct and then ridicule another member? If anything, you should correct and then move on, waste your time on more, valuable aspects. If not, what goal are you acheiving really? One might say, ''well atleast we are putting in the ground a false scientific prophet!'' But again, what are you achieving? Your words will not hit a scientific community. The scientific community are already aware of who the phonies are, so who and what are you trying to prove with all the debates against a crank? Cranks are understood by cranks and by no less. Any attempt to fight one crank might as well lead you on a crusade to fight all cranks on the web. And why would one do this, other than waste time? I find myself coming to this, even though really I have very little time, but still, I come here and I answer posts that are valuable enough to answer and sometimes these posts are lead by people with very little knowledge on physics. These posts don't make them automatically cranks, but a scientists which cannot retain the ability to discern a crank post from another isn't worthy of being called a scientist.

Oh dirac wasn't ignorant, but he certainly suffered from some issues. Most probably the medical term today would be, ''aspergers''. Sorry, don't know why swansont said what he said, but all I can say is if I think it has anything to do with his condition, it probably has a direct link to his social incapabilities.

Yes, indeed sweetness! lol... I wouldn't dare

Oofftt... so many negativities in this thread... I mean seriously is there any need?

It will probably not even exist. Atleast, in my opinion.

http://www.stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5777:physicists-create-light-from-nothingness&catid=43:science&Itemid=82 This might have implications for a theory of matter made from light. To believe that all matter converted/decayed from light requires that photons can come out of the vacuum nothingness. The idea is that the radiation period in Cosmology gave rise to all fundamental particles of nature. We have been able to create matter from light, now we have coaxed it from the vacuum itself.

Well, I was right... atleast I think I was. The experiment has now been replicated showing the same faster-than-light results. I am very happy. I have had debates with several scientists stating that the experiment should be taken as a true result, that we should believe in science and our ability to test nature. One scientist even called me a crackpot for denying the paper written by Sheldon Glashow on an analogue Cherenkov Radiation. I have been made a very happy man!

Rough as it is, you can take my calculation as something at, either more or less, the value I gave. All space is saturated with energy. What this calculates is the observable mass. The stuff we see.

Yes...loosely agreed.

Respect, I was as knowledgable as morgs.... .... obvously nowadays I can conduct things to a better intellect.

I will later. Doctor rocket is not the be all and end all.

If there is something you don't understand, just say my friend.

Of course -1 exists. If you wanted, you can plug in some imaginary numbers in there. The second law of thermodynamics must be violated billions of time. This is not a statement of evolutionist else it is statement of "Pseudo Evolutionists" ( Objection may posted with proof of scientific rules not true. none of the physical principles are violated.

I've shown he was wrong. Don't speculate something which has been proven incorrect.

You don't need to explain yourself. Bottom line is, he is wrong.