Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 You won't even read TIME EXPLAINED, yet you insist that time travel is possible. It's absurd. Weren't you complaining about us using red herrings? Or will you go squealing to the moderators to get it kicked into pseudoscience, and you do not even need to read it because you know it's wrong? LOL, you pseudoscientist string-theory quack. Pseudoscience and speculations. All I see is this thread going around in circles. So, Farsight, I'll make a challenge to you: Take all of your various theories (Time explained, relativity+, charge explained, etc.) and bind them up into one cohesive document that provides a model for understanding the universe. You don't need to include all the fun pictures, and you won't even have to make the theory completely comprehensive -- no theory is when it starts out. What I'd like to see is your theory of reality presented in a way that it can be easily examined for correctness. That means it should make predictions (take some upcoming experiment and tell us what you think will happen, using your model) and be in agreement with all of the experimental data. If you do that, and allow us to read through the document, this discussion would be greatly facilitated.
BenTheMan Posted August 25, 2007 Author Posted August 25, 2007 Oh my so many things to respond to. This is, of course, where Farsight begins attacking me personally---as is the way of things, I suppose. I remember once, on another forum, he threatened me with physical violence. HA! If he only knew me. But these things aside. You're wrong. Think how we detect neutrinos. What do we see? A flash of light. Hmm. I don't actually know how one detects a neutrino. So I'll think about it, and let someone else do the google search. The neutrino couples too weakly to matter---it only participates in things like weak interractions (i.e. beta decay). My guess is that that's what they use, namely the reverse beta decay where a proton and a neutrino go to a neutron and a positron. Then the positron annihilates with an electron in the detector and gives your ``flash of light''. Fair enough. Let's assume that this is how it works (perhaps I haven't been creative enough). But if it is, then you're left with a neutron and a photon. But the neutron decays, into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. Hopefully it is painfully obvious to your superior intellect that this logic is circular. And a neutrino doesn't give a photon directly. In fact, I'm confusing myself now trying to decide what is made of what. I can understand how you confuse yourself with pair production---it's a tree level process. But neutrino to photons is suppressed by powers of the Fermi constant. This is probably why it is so hard to see the neutrinos in the detectors, which I know are very large. My point is that the photon is the fundamental "particle", and that explains Lorentz Invariance. All the other particles, most of which last for a fraction of a second, are configurations. The photon is A fundamental particle below the weak scale, sure. But I have shown several cases where the interpretation of particles as ``configurations'' of a photon is experimentally ruled out, cf pion decays. If particles were configurations, pions, for example, would always decay into the same number of photons, and electrons and positrons would always anihilate into the same number of photons. This simply is not the case. Sigh. Way to steal my tag. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the whole point of my RELATIVITY+ model is that I'm challenging the axioms of your mathematics. And the whole point of me spending an hour responding to your posts instead of getting drunk (it is my birthday) is to show you that you have confused yourself. Challenge them all you want. If this really IS your point, you shouldn't be scared to be wrong. I assure you, other great physicists have had your same thoughts flash through their heads. But they knew enough physics to say ``Oh, wait. That's dumb. What about pions?'' You won't even read TIME EXPLAINED, yet you insist that time travel is possible. I read enough of it to know that it was wrong. How much of a song do you have to listen to before you've made up your mind about it? How many bites do you take from a meal you dislike? You KNOW you won't like the food because of past experiences. I've spent five years reading physics papers, and trust me---I know if it's bogus after reading the abstract. No, [the spin is] gone. The electrons have spin and charge. The photon has no charge. Whilst it has a spin, it isn't the spin that the electron had. The electron is a spinning photon, and that's why it has charge and mass. Thank you for the lesson in electrons. The spins have to line up very specifically for the reaction to take place, otherwise they just scatter off of each other. Note that there is a process called Bhabha scattering, e+e- --> e+e-. This happens when the helicities aren't right. The spin of the electrons has to be just right. Again, this is something that can be checked with experiment. Take two polarized beams, one of electrons and one of positrons. Cross them and measure the helicities of the resulting photons. Again, you're falling back to mathematics to try to "prove" me wrong. So you're scared of the math? Your axioms are wrong. I'll show you you're wrong, via experiment. This is nice. You are using my axioms to prove that my axioms are wrong? How so? Maybe you should call Phys Rev D, and tell them that you've found a glaring inconsistency in the standard model. What are my axioms, exactly? Please, enlighten me, because I have never really stated what axioms I was using. I'm just assuming that the data in the particle data book (http://pdg.lbl.gov/) is correct, and described by a quantum field theory. For details, consult a textbook : http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/ms-qft-DRAFT.pdf. Take one photon. Use it to create an electron and a positron:...Then use other photons to bring the electron and positron back together. Result: two photons. We had one photon. Now we've got two. Very good Farsight, very good. I hope, after careful consideration, that you realize you have pointed out a flaw in your own reasoning. If electrons and positrons are configurations of photons, how can one photon create BOTH an electron and a positron from a single photon? I actually hadn't thought of this process, so I should thank you. You can see a photon, with a detector, such as a CCD, or an eyeball. And you can't show me a gluon. No, the CCD gives you an electrical impulse, which a computer reads out and TELLS you that there was a photon. You never see a photon, you only see evidence for photons. You have a theory, and a detector. You predict that the detector behaves in a certain way (using math, which is very much part of the Axis of Evil, I might add) and you observe that behavior. Repeat. Do statistics. Now you can be reasonably certain that you do, in fact, have a photon, and your theory is correct. Delusional. Hello pot? This is the kettle... That's the size of it. You don't care what I say about mass because you know I'm wrong. You're delusional. And to justify yourself you throw up a snowstorm of distraction trying to catch me out on something I haven't covered. Don't get your knickers in a wad just because you can't ``EXPLAIN'' some data that I have presented you with. This is how science works, love it or leave it. But yes, I have never made any attempt to hide the fact that this is EXACTLY what I am doing. And look at you, you have to resort to telling lies. I don't disagree with experiments. Wait for it... I'm not even saying your mathematical consistency is wrong. I'm saying your axioms are wrong Wait for it... And this absurd Kafkaesque show trial is simply you playing "burn the heretic" quoting from your mathematical bible as evidence. Just a bit more... I'm not the crackpot. You are. You believe in time travel. I don't. You are kidding yourself. Here it comes... Or will you go squealing to the moderators to get it kicked into pseudoscience, and you do not even need to read it because you know it's wrong? LOL, you pseudoscientist string-theory quack. And the payoff. I don't squeal to moderators. I will point out that your ideas contradict a number of experiments, and that you respond to scientific criticisms of your ideas with hand waving and personal attacks. This pretty much DEFINES pseudoscience. What I object to is that you pass yourself off as an expert, and you don't even know what you're talking about. Then you go and tell other people you're an expert, and doop them into believing that you are right. Then those people vote, and I get stuck with 51% of Americans who blieve in things like Creationism, VooDoo, the Bermuda Triangle and Relativity+. Farsight---I get paid to do physics. What you are doing is telling me that I have no position to judge your theories because I get paid to judge theories. You are telling a dentist that he doesn't know anything about teeth, and the umpire that he doesn't know anything about football. And we're still on the first problem that I found with your ideas---namely that there is no well-defined notion of things like pions being made of ``configurations of photons''. You keep attacking my axioms, and I haven't even really said what axioms I am applying here. You attack my character and dodge the questions when you can't think of a way to respond to my criticisms of your ideas. Is this how you treat your grandmother when you try to explain physics to her?
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Farsight, do you mean a Möbius doughnut (or Möbius strip as it is often refered)? Which you can make out of a bit of paper? BenTheMan, I'd just like to say, well done and thanks
Reaper Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 A mobius strip has one side and one edge. I don't know where he got the connection between speed and a mobius strip. Is this how you treat your grandmother when you try to explain physics to her? I feel bad for his grandmother, she is probably being misinformed, or at the very least having to endure with this trash as we speak.
BenTheMan Posted August 25, 2007 Author Posted August 25, 2007 Lockheed--- You can twist a torus as well. It is not as easy to see, but here goes an explanation. Draw a square on a piece of paper. If you imagine indentifying the opposite sides, you have a torus. If you don't believe me, start with an empty roll of paper towels and cut it open. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html What you do it identify the ``up'' arrows and the ``right'' arrows. To twist the torus (like a Moebius strip), take the ``up'' arrow and turn it ``down'', and the ``right'' arrow and turn it ``left''. It's just a generalization of a twisted surface.
Farsight Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Norm: Of course, it's not actually stopped. It's still travelling at c. But round and round. It's going nowhere fast. Klaynos: re perturbation theory. Maybe. Re the moebius doughnut, see pictures below. The one one the left depicts an electron, but note that there are no surfaces. Note the line with the arrowhead, and the resemblance to the ballon knot. Captain: That's no red herring. Time Explained is the most important element of RELATIVITY+. It tells you about Einstein, and what he thought about time. It ends up by saying But now we can move on. Because now we’ve got the key' date=' Einstein’s key, the key that unlocks all the doors in physics: [i']spacetime is a space[/i]. Re your challenge, I am collating these essays into one cohesive document. It's the "paper" I mentioned earlier. But it's not a quick job. And whilst this thread is Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories, nobody will actually refer to my material. You even think Time Explained is a red herring! So even if I did put up a document here, I fear it would languish in pseudoscience and speculations. I don't think anybody would read it, and I'd still be getting the "crackpot" abuse. I don't squeal to moderators. I will point out that your ideas contradict a number of experiments, and that you respond to scientific criticisms of your ideas with hand waving and personal attacks. This pretty much DEFINES pseudoscience. What I object to is that you pass yourself off as an expert, and you don't even know what you're talking about. Then you go and tell other people you're an expert, and doop them into believing that you are right. Then those people vote, and I get stuck with 51% of Americans who blieve in things like Creationism, VooDoo, the Bermuda Triangle and Relativity+. Oh yes you do squeal to moderators. And you are always the first with personal attacks. How many people have you called crackpot now? And you are so arrogant you put me in the same pot as Creationism. Your sneering arrogant dishonesty is utterly breathtaking. Farsight---I get paid to do physics. What you are doing is telling me that I have no position to judge your theories because I get paid to judge theories. You are telling a dentist that he doesn't know anything about teeth, and the umpire that he doesn't know anything about football. You're paid to do String Theory. It isn't a theory and strings are long gone. It's The Trouble with Physics remember? I'm not telling you you have no position to judge. I'm telling you that before you judge, you should examine the information. Instead you merely prejudge. But whatever else would I expect from a String Theorist? Especially one with a proven track record of seeking to rubbish the competition. Like LQG and the thread where Martin picked you up. You're so full of yourself you're like a dentist who thinks he can judge teeth without looking at them. And we're still on the first problem that I found with your ideas---namely that there is no well-defined notion of things like pions being made of "configurations of photons''. You keep attacking my axioms, and I haven't even really said what axioms I am applying here. You attack my character and dodge the questions when you can't think of a way to respond to my criticisms of your ideas. Is this how you treat your grandmother when you try to explain physics to her? Geddoutofit. The first problem you found with my ideas was that you didn't like the title TIME EXPLAINED. And that's as far as you got, and as much as you read. Where have I ever talked about pions in RELATIVITY+? Absolutely nowhere. The number one axiom you hold is time is the fourth dimension. It isn't. You simply cannot move through it. It means spacetime is a space. It changes everything. You don't criticise my ideas, you won't address them, you attack my character, without even reading my ideas. You don't want to read it, and you don't want anybody else to read it, because you can't bear the thought that somebody is coming up with something good and you've wasted years on String Theory. And you convince yourself that you're an open minded rational scientist? LOL. You're losing this argument Ben. Because your arrogance and absurdity is oh so plain.
Reaper Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Then you go and tell other people you're an expert, and doop them into believing that you are right. Then those people vote, and I get stuck with 51% of Americans who believe in things like Creationism, VooDoo, the Bermuda Triangle and Relativity+. We also have to worry about witches too: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/24/pseudo Lockheed--- You can twist a torus as well. It is not as easy to see, but here goes an explanation. Draw a square on a piece of paper. If you imagine indentifying the opposite sides, you have a torus. If you don't believe me, start with an empty roll of paper towels and cut it open. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html What you do it identify the ``up'' arrows and the ``right'' arrows. To twist the torus (like a Moebius strip), take the ``up'' arrow and turn it ``down'', and the ``right'' arrow and turn it ``left''. It's just a generalization of a twisted surface. Oh, ok, my misunderstanding. I was only acquainted with one definition. Visualizing that gets annoying though.
YT2095 Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 this also doesn`t seem right, and electron can Never be "at rest" can it? so your "target electron at rest" cannot occur surely? perhaps it can Hit an electron dead center as it`s buzzing around, and do it that way, but then you`ve just shown (to My knowledge) how a PV cell works
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Captain: That's no red herring. Time Explained is the most important element of RELATIVITY+. It tells you about Einstein, and what he thought about time. Appeal to authority. Re your challenge, I am collating these essays into one cohesive document. It's the "paper" I mentioned earlier. But it's not a quick job. And whilst this thread is Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories, nobody will actually refer to my material. You even think Time Explained is a red herring! So even if I did put up a document here, I fear it would languish in pseudoscience and speculations. I don't think anybody would read it, and I'd still be getting the "crackpot" abuse. Your presentation isn't exactly the best. It reminds me of children's books, with all the pictures and little detail. You need to create mathematical models of what happens in various situations so we can see how right your theory is. Oh yes you do squeal to moderators. And you are always the first with personal attacks. How many people have you called crackpot now? And you are so arrogant you put me in the same pot as Creationism. You sneering arrogant dishonesty is utterly breathtaking. Speaking as a moderator, he hasn't squealed to anyone. The person who split this thread off in the first place was swansont (a resident expert), I believe, and BenTheMan has not reported any posts, sent any PMs to mods, or otherwise requested that we do anything here. You're paid to do String Theory. It isn't a theory and strings are long gone. It's The Trouble with Physics remember? I'm not telling you you have no position to judge. I'm telling you that before you judge, you should examine the information. Instead you merely prejudge. But whatever else would I expect from a String Theorist? Especially one with a proven track record of seeking to rubbish the competition. Like LQG and the thread where Martin picked you up. Ad hominem. Stop attacking Ben and get on with the argument's he's presented. You don't want to read it, and you don't want anybody else to read it, because you can't bear the thought that somebody is coming up with something good and you've wasted years on String Theory. And you convince yourself that you're an open minded rational scientist? LOL. You're losing this argument Ben. Because your arrogance and absurdity is oh so plain. Rule #1 of the Internet: Assume good faith. This is not a conspiracy to prevent your brilliant ideas from going anywhere. (You could just publish them, even if we do tell you they're stupid. Our opinions are irrelevant in the long run.) This is us trying to tell you that you're misguided.
Reaper Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 this also doesn`t seem right, and electron can Never be "at rest" can it? so your "target electron at rest" cannot occur surely? perhaps it can Hit an electron dead center as it`s buzzing around, and do it that way, but then you`ve just shown (to My knowledge) how a PV cell works No, an electron is never at rest. They typically occupy the lowest possible energy state in an atomic orbital. Uncertainty principle doesn't allow it to have a definite speed or position. You can, however, deflect them or hit them, just as you do in a PV cell.
Farsight Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 It isn't an appeal to authority. Time Explained is giving you history. Quotes. The mathematical model is very difficult. I don't know how to revise Minkowski spacetime to say you have no freedom of motion in the time dimension. The issues are to do with interpretation, like the curved spacetime that isn't in The Foundation of General Relativity. What argument has Ben presented? He hasn't actually read Time Explained, and he isn't referring to it or any other element of RELATIVITY+. He never has. This is no Science-based criticism of Farsight's Theories. It's Call Farsight a crackpot and bombard him with Standard Model. It's Kafkaesque absurdity, not a rational scientifc debate of the subject. There is no good faith. You want to see some history? See Ben's post above? See this little portion of it? I remember once, on another forum, he threatened me with physical violence. HA! If he only knew me. But these things aside... Here's the thread he was referring to: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64240&page=4&highlight=time+explained But you’ve picked on the wrong guy this time bud. I’m streetwise. I'm fast. I’m strong. Literally. I’ve spent my last few weekends doing a patio' date=' nobody beats me at arm wrestling, and I’ve never lost a fight. Oh, and I’m smart. You can see I’m smart. Ten times smarter than you are. You think you know it all about space and time? You don’t know the first thing about space and time. And I’ll prove it. I’ll wipe the floor with you. Here’s the ring: RELATIVITY+. Come on, step into my ring. Examine the ideas, look at their merits. Be rational. Then watch me knock you flat on sneering preening back. LOL, you won’t. Because despite all the intellectual arrogance, you’re afraid to. All you can do it hurl abuse and sacred incantations from the safety of your ivory tower. Bah, you're just a chickenshit bully.[/quote'] I got this sort of stuff: If there is a moderator floating around here, by Farsight's own admission, this thread belongs in the pseudoscience bin. And this: (Hint: I am a redneck and sleep with a loaded .357 under my bed. No shit.) Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 What argument has Ben presented? He hasn't actually read Time Explained, and he isn't referring to it or any other element of RELATIVITY+. He never has. This is no Science-based criticism of Farsight's Theories. It's Call Farsight a crackpot and bombard him with Standard Model. It's Kafkaesque absurdity, not a rational scientifc debate of the subject. There is no good faith. He's objecting to you labeling particles as configurations of photons. That's fair enough to attack. I got this sort of stuff: You did provoke it. This thread is degenerating rapidly on both sides of the argument. There is no need for personal insults on either side. What Farsight needs to do now is address some of the arguments made against his theories: If electrons and positrons are configurations of photons, how can one photon create BOTH an electron and a positron from a single photon? If they are only made of photons, and in your specific example an electron is one photon, then explain how electrons give off or exchange photons when they leap from specific energy states in atomic orbitals, or when they interact with each other. As you can already see, an electron is not a photon. this also doesn`t seem right' date=' and electron can Never be "at rest" can it? so your "target electron at rest" cannot occur surely? perhaps it can Hit an electron dead center as it`s buzzing around, and do it that way, but then you`ve just shown (to My knowledge) how a PV cell works [/quote'] There. Explain those, calmly, in detail. We will read your response carefully (I will begin moderating this more seriously). Let's drop the allegations against each other and discuss the theory.
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Klaynos: re perturbation theory. Maybe. Re the moebius doughnut, see pictures below. The one one the left depicts an electron, but note that there are no surfaces. Note the line with the arrowhead, and the resemblance to the ballon knot. Isn't that a surface around the urmmm well surfaces? Depicts an electron in what way? Where does this equation come from? What situation is the electron in? this also doesn`t seem right, and electron can Never be "at rest" can it? so your "target electron at rest" cannot occur surely? perhaps it can Hit an electron dead center as it`s buzzing around, and do it that way, but then you`ve just shown (to My knowledge) how a PV cell works When talking about electrons, classical physics breaks down, so describing it as at rest is not really physical. This is why you need the perturbation theory of scattering because it takes into account the fact you've got to work with wave functions.
swansont Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Speaking as a moderator, he hasn't squealed to anyone. The person who split this thread off in the first place was swansont (a resident expert), I believe Yes, I split it off. It's speculation, and the funny thing is that if you go to the link Farsight himself provided in post 62, he does not disagree with his material being called speculation, and you'll find identical criticism of his ideas over on that other board: they don't contain predictions and there's no math, thus they do not belong in the science section. And one should not find it difficult to find several posts of mine where I've pointed out that it's not science but rather speculation and metaphysics. this also doesn`t seem right, and electron can Never be "at rest" can it? so your "target electron at rest" cannot occur surely? perhaps it can Hit an electron dead center as it`s buzzing around, and do it that way, but then you`ve just shown (to My knowledge) how a PV cell works Physically, no, you'll never be able to see that, but from an analysis standpoint, using the frame where the electron is at rest is perfectly valid.
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Considering the photon electron situation, depending on the electron situation, Fermi's golden rule might be worth mentioning also...
swansont Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Take one photon. Use it to create an electron and a positron: If the electron is made of a photon, why can't we take that photon and just create an electron from it? Is the electron a higher or lower energy state than the photon? Why doesn't whichever direction of the reaction [math]e^- \rightarrow \gamma[/math] or [math]\gamma \rightarrow e^-[/math] that gets you to a lower energy state happen spontaneously?
BenTheMan Posted August 25, 2007 Author Posted August 25, 2007 Kalynos--- You can treat all of these processes perturbatively. It corresponds to taking more and more complicated interractions of photons and electrons. For most purposes, the tree level result (i.e. leading term in the perturbative expansion) is pretty accurate, though---usually to around 10-15%. You're paid to do String Theory. It isn't a theory and strings are long gone. It's The Trouble with Physics remember? I'm not telling you you have no position to judge. I'm telling you that before you judge, you should examine the information. Instead you merely prejudge. But whatever else would I expect from a String Theorist? Especially one with a proven track record of seeking to rubbish the competition. Like LQG and the thread where Martin picked you up. You're so full of yourself you're like a dentist who thinks he can judge teeth without looking at them. Did you actually read that thread? Did you read the places where I claimed many times that the argument against LQG wasn't mine, and the places where I asked for clarifications of points? It seems not. And if string theory is dead, you might want to tell the thousands of people who are working on it. You're losing this argument Ben. Because your arrogance and absurdity is oh so plain. My arrogance comes from having worked hard enough so that I know the right answers. Where does yours come from? Either way, I'll repeat my point---if a pion is just a configuration of a photon, why can it decay into so many different photons?
YT2095 Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 If the electron is made of a photon, why can't we take that photon and just create an electron from it? Is the electron a higher or lower energy state than the photon? Why doesn't whichever direction of the reaction [math]e^- \rightarrow \gamma[/math] or [math]\gamma \rightarrow e^-[/math] that gets you to a lower energy state happen spontaneously? isn`t that also what I asked him here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=354901&postcount=45 without the Maths stuff obviously (I suck at that kinda thing). or is it a different question?
swansont Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 isn`t that also what I asked him here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=354901&postcount=45without the Maths stuff obviously (I suck at that kinda thing). or is it a different question? Yes, asking how a photon can be turned into an electron, but Farsight hasn't addressed it (yet). All I've seen is some bit about how the photon becomes a loop of some sort, but that doesn't explain anything.
BenTheMan Posted August 26, 2007 Author Posted August 26, 2007 Farsight's theories are strikingly similar to another, ummm, alternative scientist with which I have had extensive discussions. His stuff is at einsteinhoax.com.
Farsight Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 Captain: here are my answers to the questions you listed. If electrons and positrons are configurations of photons' date=' how can one photon create BOTH an electron and a positron from a single photon?[/quote'] Because a photon isn't an indivisible "particle" like the electron. It can be divided, as evidenced by pair production and subsequent annihilation which transforms one gamma photon into two. A photon can be viewed as a transverse wave in an "elastic medium" that we call space, with an energy of 1022KeV or 511KeV or any other value. A free electron moving at non-relativistic or very low velocity has an energy of 511KeV, and can be viewed as a moebius soliton configuration of a 511KeV photon accounting for both charge and mass. An electron's charge is not something that is possessed by a billiard-ball point particle. It is part of what the electron is. The mass is simply a measure of the 511KeV when momentum is re-presented as inertia by virtue of tying the photon to one location. If they are only made of photons, and in your specific example an electron is one photon, then explain how electrons give off or exchange photons when they leap from specific energy states in atomic orbitals, or when they interact with each other. As you can already see, an electron is not a photon. A bound electron can be viewed as a stretched elastic loop, and changes in the degree of stretch are achieved via the transmission of photons. In this geometrical model, there are no billiard-ball particles, and no solid surfaces. There are only waves, and stable soliton configurations of those waves. There is nothing other than waves to effect a change in the bond of the stable soliton we call an electron. this also doesn`t seem right, and electron can Never be "at rest" can it? So your "target electron at rest" cannot occur surely? perhaps it can Hit an electron dead center as it`s buzzing around, and do it that way, but then you`ve just shown (to My knowledge) how a PV cell works At "rest" is a relative term. If I am moving in line with an electron, I can consider it to be at rest. Internally however, the component photon is always travelling in a tight half-wavelength moebius loop, and the electron exhibits zitterbewegung. In this respect the electron is never at rest. But note that this thread is a Science-based criticism of Farsight's theories. And yet it has pointedly avoided the very topic it pretends to address. Here is an essay that describes the psychological issue associated with belief that makes people unable to examine their convictions: BELIEF EXPLAINED And here is the first "theory", an essay that explains why time travel is impossible: TIME EXPLAINED Yes, I class this essay as a speculation, because it isn't in accord with accepted theory. But can we have a science-based criticism of it please? Can somebody show, using a rational argument, why this essay is wrong and why time travel is possible?
YT2095 Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 I understand what you were trying to say now, it`s just I`m fairly sure in Physics, the term "At Rest" has a special meaning, outside of the everyday common usage. I think you`de need something like 0 kelvin to bring an electron to rest, in which case hitting it with an energetic photon would probably just start the electron oscillating again and the photon would bounce off, that would be My guess
Klaynos Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 A free electron moving at non-relativistic or very low velocity has an energy of 511KeV, and can be viewed as a moebius soliton configuration of a 511KeV photon accounting for both charge and mass. How do you get to this equation? I'd quite like to see a rigourse mathematical approach instead of "it can be viewed as x" A bound electron can be viewed as a stretched elastic loop, and changes in the degree of stretch are achieved via the transmission of photons. In this geometrical model, there are no billiard-ball particles, and no solid surfaces. There are only waves, and stable soliton configurations of those waves. There is nothing other than waves to effect a change in the bond of the stable soliton we call an electron. See above. How does either of these situations match the predictions of quantum mechanics? Also it's very difficult to scientifically critisis something that claimes to be science yet makes no mathematical predictions.
Recommended Posts