Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Theories

[elas]

BenTheMan

 

You have the same misconceptions as Farsight. The fact is that one can look at the Lorentz group (the SAME Lorentz group that predicts Lorentz Invariance) as .

 

This is very beautiful, and is why we have left handed and right handed spinors.

 

 

No it is not why as the following quotes make clear, it is simply a mathematical prediction that matches observations. To understand why we need a new theory.

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

 

This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

Beyond measure

Jim Baggott

(2003)

“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

 

PS:I have started a debate on my theory on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

[Farsight]

I agree with you and that's why i say it is semantics. the 4th dimension is not spacial and thus to travel in it cannot be done as it is done i nthe first 3 dimensions. however time is the relative motion of objects and the relative motion of the parts of my body dictate the rate at which i age. if i had a twin their parts would have the same relative motion as mine all other things being equal. however if i was accelerated very greatly my parts would be moving at a rate different from those of my twin. since time is the relative motion of parts, then you could say that i have travelled through time. not like travelling through a liquid or a door or anything like that. time is not spacial, as you have stated. however my body ages days come and go entropy increases and the rate at which it increases is variable thus you could say that travel through time is possible, so long as you allow for travel to have meaning in a 4th dimension rather then being limited to dimensions of space. if you do not allow for travel to be used this way then I think yo uare right about that. but clocks do run and days do pass. a clock ticks and that ticking has been named as running. the earth spins and causes the sun to rise and set and that has been named as days passing. time certainly is not a length. you can't travel through travel. but the relative rates of motion can increase or decrease and that is time as you have said, and i think you could call that travelling in time, as i said, if you allow for the word travel to be used for a dimension that is not spacial, if you do not, then you would need to invent a new word. or maybe use a different one, like simply increase or decrease. you might say that the temperature travelled from one temperature to another, particularly if you measure it with the motion of mercury. but usually since mercury goes only up or down people will say the temperature rises or falls. but temperature can technically neither rise nor fall it is also only motion. but i don't think that means you need to go around telling everybody that the temperature cannot rise or fall. what would be the point of that? asserting what temperature is would be time better spent i think. but time is not money so maybe i shouldn't say time can be spent either.

 

i find that language rather than inventing new words all the time just uses the closest word that fits with a slightly different definition and that's how we come to have words that sound the same and are spelled the same but mean different things. or sometimes slang because using the wrong word can be kind of poetic. like in hip hop instead of copy someone they will say byte. because of sound bytes, and integral part of hip hop. but by your actions obviously you could never literally byte my actions, it just sounds cooler.

 

but so far i think all in all i have to agree with your first premise even though i would allow the use of the word travel to signify changes in the 4th dimension.

 

Someguy, thank you for staying on topic. And well done, I think you've got it.

 

OK, we still don't quite see eye to eye. But note that in your first sentence you say "it is semantics". When people say things like "It's just semantics, it doesn't matter", what they ought to do is stop and think about what semantics actually means. It means meaning. And the meaning does matter. That's why I think the choice of words really really matters, and using the word "travel" to talk about time is so very mistaken.

 

ui iThis is dismiss But let mWhen it comes to words like travel, woI have to say dimissing something that "just semantics" is saying the wrong thing.

 

**********************************************************************

farsight I`m stunned, totally Amazed as to How you can lay accusations against someone (Wrongly I might add!) that they run to the Moderators (Staff), when YOU`RE laying nothing short of a Barrage of complaints by reporting posts like some squeely pig being chased by a hungry fat chick with a knife and fork!

 

I think you owe Ben an apology! (he`s never complained ONCE!)

 

Sigh. I showed where Ben ran to the moderators on another forum. You gave me infraction points for abuse, but do nothing about the abuse directed at me. Captain says "no more abuse", so then when I report it, you still do nothing. Now you even let Ben start a thread dedicated to abusing me and do nothing about it, and you're chipping in with your own abuse. LOL, you are totally absurd!

 

I think you ow me an apology, bud.

 

*****************************************************************

If time is not a dimension how come it appears in the 4-vector equations?

 

Because they use the wrong concept. Time is a dimension in that it a measure. I hope we can all agree on that. But the 4-vector equations imply that time is a dimension in the sense of "freedom of movement". There is simply no evidence to support this. We cannot hop around in time like we can hop around in space. We cannot see any world lines, any time travel, or a block universe that debars freewill. Time machines are therefore reduced to crackpot pseudoscience.

 

The 4-vector equations employ the very concept of time is a dimension that offers freedom of movement that I challenge in TIME EXPLAINED. They therefore fail as any kind of mathematical evidence against TIME EXPLAINED. Do you understand what I say about axioms? IThey are starting-point presumptions used in mathematics, and I simply cannot use mathematics to examine the axioms it employs.

 

I am right about time you know. Sometime soon you'll get a frisson chill down your spine when you realise it.

 

PS: I have to go. I'll respond to other points later.

 

******************************************************************************

insane_alien

 

because science HAS to ANSWER questions. it is not allowed to pick and choose what to answer and what to ignore.

 

At CERN only 2 (rarely 3 or 1) out of each batch of approximately 80,000 results are selected (by a computer program) for further examination, is that not picking and choosing? Is not the program designed to select those results that closely match a mathematical prediction? Who decided that the predictive theory predicts all possible particles? and where is the evidence that it does so?

 

Farsight might not be the best presenter of an idea, but at least he realizes that we are being tricked into believing something that is far from the whole truth. Mathematics used to be a tool for the use of scientists (and others); but in physics, as in no other science; mathematicians have become the masters and scientist are very much the junior partner. Hence Particle physics has recently been demoted and is now classified as a branch of Quantum physics when, by any logical reasoning it should be the other way around. The search for a clear understanding of particles should precede the acceptance of a mathematical predictive theory, regardless of its accuracy.

 

Bloody well said, elas. I think the problem is that people so "believe" in mathematics, that even though it provides no real answers to many of the mysteries of physics, they simply cannot bring themselves to examine the axioms upon which the mathematics is built, and are hostile to anybody who attempts to do so. This Psychology of Belief aspect of human nature is something that we normally think is only exhibited by religious adherents. But actually, it's far more prevalent than people appreciate.

 

*************************************************************************************

It's pretty sad that this is still going on after 7 pages. The forum staff, however, are in the difficult position of being labelled "censors" if they close the thread. Perhaps a thread title change would be in order?

 

"Attempts at Science-based criticisms of Farsight's Proposals."

 

How about something more apt? Something like:

 

"Absurd attempts to discredit Farsight's model without actually referring to it".

[Reaper]

Here we go again!

 

Do we all have to be sad to Farsight? He may be wrong sometimes but we all make mistakes

 

 

I think people are just losing their patients with him.

 

 

 

He has yet to show math, or preditions, or experimental proof.

[swansont]

ut in physics, as in no other science; mathematicians have become the masters and scientist are very much the junior partner.

 

And you say this as a practicing scientist, or as an outsider parroting someone else? Because it is not true in my experience. It's crap. If it were true, I have to wonder why I spent 2.5 years as a postdoc at an accelerator lab, helping build an experimental apparatus designed to look for physics beyond the standard model. (Scalar interaction limits from the [math]\beta - \nu[/math] correlation and [math]\beta[/math] asymmetry measurements of trapped radioactive atoms. I did the trapping part, not the nuclear physics part). Why do people do experiments if it's only the math? The real answer is that the math tells us where to look, but we still look; it's all subject to experimental confirmation.

 

You can propose anything you want. It boils down to "How do we know if you're right?" And the answer is NOT "Just believe me."

[Farsight]

No, actually, this thread was split off so topics other than time travel could be discussed, as I explained in my first post in the thread. "the discussions are about predictions made and how they fail (or not) to be supported by experiment" Everything being made of photons is a prediction. Discussion of that is most certainly not a red herring. Your response was "Let's select one point to discuss at length without red herrings, then move on to another. For your starter for ten, let's start with the decay of a neutral pion. OK what are the products?" for pete's sake! You AGREED to discuss that! You PROPOSED not changing topics! I would point out that you still need to make a prediction out of this, or list some implications, but I see that Ben has already done this for you.

 

And I DID discuss pions! I said what the products of neutral pion decay are, here. Weren't you listening? And we've been all over the place whilst studiously avoiding the content of my model which starts with time travel, because like BenTheMan's latest thread, this is merely a facile attempt to discredit the competition. You want predictions? Here's some predictions:

 

1) No evidence for time travel will ever be found. I make this prediction because my analysis indicates that time travel is a conceptual flaw that permits absurd impossible paradoxes and is not possible because my analysis exposes time is a derived effect of motion or travel, and you can't travel through travel.

 

2) No wormholes will ever be found or created where these wormholes permit time travel. See above for why.

 

3) All particles decay or can be annihilated, via one or more stages sometimes involving other introduced particles, to yield photons.

 

4) The Higgs Boson will never be discovered.

 

5) Magnetic monopoles will never be discovered.

 

6) Antigravity will be discovered.

 

7) We will never find any evidence for the actual existence of world lines.

 

8) We will never find any evidence for the actual existence of a block universe. I say this because I do have free will, and don't get all absurd on me saying I can't prove it.

 

9) No evidence for fundamental open or closed strings will ever be found.

 

10) No further dimensions above and beyond the known 3+1 dimensions will ever be found.

 

11) No Boltzman Brains will ever be found, because these predictions are quackpot pseudoscience garbage with as much reality as Boltzman TURDS.

 

What would you rather believe? Absurd nonsense like Boltzman Brains that predicts something, but with a get-out clause that says they aren't very likely so we just need to wait longer? Or a feet-on-the-ground view that says we have NO evidence for this supposition and must therefore regard it as speculative pseudoscience? You're treating the common-sense view as pseudoscience and speculation because it doesn't predict absurdity!

 

Absurd!

[swansont]

Here we go again!

 

Do we all have to be sad to Farsight? He may be wrong sometimes but we all make mistakes

 

You mistake attacking the proposal with attacking the person. As far as the personal insults go, Farsight has given much better than he's gotten. Asking for evidence or other scientific support (e.g. tests that could be carried out) for a hypothesis is neither a personal attack nor a red herring. Proposals are supposed to be attacked, vigorously, to see if they are valid.

 

And I DID discuss pions! I said what the products of neutral pion decay are, here. Weren't you listening?

 

"OK, a neutral pion, It's a rubbish particle. In less than a nanosecond it has decayed into an electron, a positron, and a photon."

 

Wow, I am in awe.

 

What about all the followups, after Ben pointed out that there are more decay modes to the pion, that include photons in varying number? All you've done is dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

 

Go back and address the questions. Defend your claim.

[Farsight]

***********************************************************************************

BenTheMan

 

You have the same misconceptions as Farsight. The fact is that one can look at the Lorentz group (the SAME Lorentz group that predicts Lorentz Invariance) as .

 

This is very beautiful, and is why we have left handed and right handed spinors.

 

No it is not why as the following quotes make clear, it is simply a mathematical prediction that matches observations. To understand why we need a new theory.

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

 

This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

Beyond measure, Jim Baggott (2003)

“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

 

PS:I have started a debate on my theory on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

 

Another excellent post, elas. There's some good quotes there. I'll follow them up offline, and contribute to your thread as best I can later.

 

***********************************************************************************

Do you ever listen, Swanson? Here's what I said about a pion. And pray do please remember that I have never mention pions in any of my essays.

 

OK, a neutral pion, It's a rubbish particle. In less than a nanosecond it has decayed into an electron, a positron, and a photon. You want a link? Here’s a link:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/hadron.html#c2

 

On our gedanken workbench we can put the photon in a box labelled "photons". Now we can give our electron and positron a nudge or two to bring them together, using other photons, via the Compton effect:

 

 

Then what happens? What happens is annihilation:

 

 

And we’ve got more photons to put in the photon box. So, what’s left of that pion? Photons. Because all it ever was, was a configuration. It’s the geometric configuration of the fundamental thing that we normally label as "photons" that yielded the properties of that pion, and of the intermediary electron and positron...

 

So I answer a question that is not referenced in "Farsight's theories" and what comes next? Do I get any reference to TIME EXPLAINED or MASS EXPLAINED, or GRAVITY EXPLAINED? Oh no. Just more red-herrings, drilling down to minutae, along with a blinkered blunt dogmatic refusal to address the very work that is supposedly the subject of this thread. You want me to show you my response about multiple photons? Would you even notice it if I did?

[BenTheMan]

Farsight has refused to answer my questions. Perhaps he is brushing up on chirality.

 

To elas---

 

No it is not why as the following quotes make clear, it is simply a mathematical prediction that matches observations. To understand why we need a new theory.

 

We don't need a new theory. If there is a question here to be answered, it is ``why is the Lorentz symmetry SO(3,1)?'', which is the same as ``why do we have four dimensions, with one time directions?''. String theory is the closest thing that answers that question (it predicts 10 dimensions).

 

fatty---

 

Here we go again!

 

Do we all have to be sad to Farsight? He may be wrong sometimes but we all make mistakes

 

Who's being sad? We're pointing out why he is wrong. It is up to Farsight to take criticisms of his ideas personally.

 

And finally, to Farsight, who is aparently no longer talking to me.

 

3) All particles decay or can be annihilated, via one or more stages sometimes involving other introduced particles, to yield photons.

 

What about neutrinos? Don't they live in a separate bucket?

 

Just more red-herrings, drilling down to minutae, along with a blinkered blunt dogmatic refusal to address the very work that is supposedly the subject of this thread.

 

Farsight---you continue to call anything that you can't explain a red herring. This is REAL PHYSICS, REAL EXPERIMENTS, which people can do, which people publish the results of, and which are described in excruciating detail by the standard model. All that I am asking for is that you either say ``I can explain that fully, here.'' or ``I haven't thought about it, but I think it should happen like this''.

 

It is extremely difficult to talk with you about your ideas, because you have this idea that we're all here to crucify you. We only want to crucify your ideas---the fact that you take it so personally is going to give you a heart attack. Ask me how Sakurai (author of a graduate QM textbook) died if you don't already know. Further, you make such vague and hollow predictions like

 

7) We will never find any evidence for the actual existence of world lines.

,

 

and

 

11) No Boltzman Brains will ever be found, because these predictions are quackpot pseudoscience garbage with as much reality as Boltzman TURDS.

.

 

First of all, world lines are graphs that we draw. So if you want evidence, I can draw one for you and show it to you. You have to have a world line because it's how you write down the action, which tells you how to do quantum field theory.

 

Have you ever actually READ a Boltzman Brain paper? Do you understand the timescales that we're talking about? I hear Don Page talking about numbers like 10^30 years. Can you propose an experiment to disprove the existence of Boltzman Brains?

[Reaper]

OK, a neutral pion, It's a rubbish particle. In less than a nanosecond it has decayed into an electron, a positron, and a photon. You want a link? Here’s a link:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...hadron.html#c2

 

On our gedanken workbench we can put the photon in a box labelled "photons". Now we can give our electron and positron a nudge or two to bring them together, using other photons, via the Compton effect:

 

 

Then what happens? What happens is annihilation:

 

 

And we’ve got more photons to put in the photon box. So, what’s left of that pion? Photons. Because all it ever was, was a configuration. It’s the geometric configuration of the fundamental thing that we normally label as "photons" that yielded the properties of that pion, and of the intermediary electron and positron...

 

 

This still doesn't support your position. Compton scattering is when a photon loses energy through interaction with matter, as shown in the diagram you provided. And the link you provided doesn't support your position either.

[Norman Albers]

And you say this as a practicing science, or as an outsider parroting someone else? Because it is not true in my experience. It's crap. If it were true, I have to wonder why I spent 2.5 years as a postdoc at an accelerator lab, helping build an experimental apparatus designed to look for physics beyond the standard model. (Scalar interaction limits from the [math]\beta - \nu[/math] correlation and [math]\beta[/math] asymmetry measurements of trapped radioactive atoms. I did the trapping part, not the nuclear physics part). Why do people do experiments if it's only the math? The real answer is that the math tells us where to look, but we still look; it's all subject to experimental confirmation.

 

You can propose anything you want. It boils down to "How do we know if you're right?" And the answer is NOT "Just believe me."

 

This I am comfortable with. I am proceeding with a mathematical hypothesis and my goal is to find the end of its usefulness.

[swansont]

Do you ever listen, Swanson? Here's what I said about a pion. And pray do please remember that I have never mention pions in any of my essays.

 

You claimed that every particle is made up of photons. This is where that claim takes us. Do you ever listen?

 

The fact that you do not address pions, or a multitude of other physics, in your essays does not relieve you of the burden to make your idea actually be consistent with what is observed in nature. You would have to defend the premise that pions are outside of the scope of the claim that all particles are made of photons.

[someguy]

hold on you're getting away from the time post. if you have beef with pions we'll get there don't worry. first is that time post, then is the next that follows. if you have no objections to that one. I think farsight could write the next one since that seems to be the case.

 

P.s. Farsight about semantics, you say i can't say that time travel is something. but you would say that temperature can rise and fall, you would say that time is spent, glimpses are caught, and so many other things like that. and yet temperature can neither rise nor fall. time is not money nor can it be possessed and neither can glimpses. yet you can use these words. i think you are being too strict with the word travel. perhaps we should tell everybody that they cannot say that time is spent or glimpses caught. wouldn't that be just ridiculous?

 

anyways that's minor and honestly i don't care whether you agree with me on that point it has nothing to do with your theory. I would like to hear your next premise.

[Farsight]

Semantics is not minor, someguy. It's really important when you're trying to analyse something with precision and understand it. Trust me on this.

 

But since nobody has come up with any response to my precit of time...

 

Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel.

 

..and nobody can produce any evidence for time travel, I will presume that everybody here now accepts that time travel is absurd crackpot pseudoscience, and therefore agrees with TIME EXPLAINED. Round one to Farsight, methinks.

 

So, moving on to energy:

 

Energy, in its barest essence, is stress, quantified by volume. We see it in a spring and in a chemical bond, and in the end, it is a volume of stressed space. In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels with the tension that always accompanies stress, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We usually call it a photon. It is energy moving from one place in space, to another place in space. The energy you measure depends on your motion with respect to it, on how you are also moving from one place in space, to another place in space.

[someguy]

Semantics is not minor, someguy. It's really important when you're trying to analyse something with precision and understand it. Trust me on this.

 

But since nobody has come up with any response to my precit of time...

 

Time, in its barest essence, is a relative measure of motion. It’s an emergent property, a derived effect, and it exists like heat exists. But it’s only a dimension in the sense of measure. It isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space which offer freedom of movement. Clocks don’t run, days don’t pass, and time doesn’t flow. Time is not a length. You cannot travel in time, you can only travel in space, because time is merely a relative measure of motion against other motions through space, and you can’t travel through travel.

 

..and nobody can produce any evidence for time travel, I will presume that everybody here now accepts that time travel is absurd crackpot pseudoscience, and therefore agrees with TIME EXPLAINED. Round one to Farsight, methinks.

 

So, moving on to energy:

 

Energy, in its barest essence, is stress, quantified by volume. We see it in a spring and in a chemical bond, and in the end, it is a volume of stressed space. In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels with the tension that always accompanies stress, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We usually call it a photon. It is energy moving from one place in space, to another place in space. The energy you measure depends on your motion with respect to it, on how you are also moving from one place in space, to another place in space.

 

first of all, you have never proved that unmoving is impossible. therefore you haven't proven that time travel doesn't exist. you have just shown that it is unlikely since it would require anti-motion. honestly your time premise seemed nothing more than common knowledge to me. i wasn't really that impressed. all of that because you don't like to use travel for time because time is not spacial. science gives definitions to words. you can choose to allow the word travel for referring to the time dimension. I do, and my understanding of time I don't think is lacking. but i seem to remember your time explained was much longer than that. you never explained anything, i had known that for years, it seems to me a basic principle for understanding relativity.

 

now for your energy one.

 

energy is all things it is matter it is stress, it is motion, it is everything. energy is space or rather space is energy, the universe is energy, a "solid" block of energy. there is no such thing as empty space. perhaps you would try to convince me that there exists such a thing as nothing, whereas nothing cannot exist since were it to exist then it would be something. there is no empty space, it is all energy. energy is just another word for all that stuff which exists. because all things that exist are interchangeable, convertible one to the other. all things. all things are different manifestations of the same thing. the fact they seem different is somewhat of an illusion. just like hydrogen and helium are made of the same things just in different quantities and "shape" and yet their properties are so different.

 

if you wanna say that light is a stress of space-time that is different.

 

but, how do you suppose you could produce a stress like the one i think you're describing? why would that cause a photon to seem both like a particle and a wave?

 

yes all things move in space relative to one another.

[Severian]

2 comments:

 

No it is not why as the following quotes make clear, it is simply a mathematical prediction that matches observations. To understand why[/b'] we need a new theory.

 

This was in response to Ben's comment: " This is very beautiful, and is why we have left handed and right handed spinors."

 

The point here is that all particles we have ever observed have been representations of various symmetry groups. The left and right handed spinors are separate representations of the Lorentz group, so if every fundamental symmetry should have particles corresponding to its irreducible representations, then we must have left and right handed spinors.

 

So this is a prediction of Lorentz symmetry and is confirmed.

 

In your rebuttal, Rae is pointing out that QM is only a structure within which theories should be built, not a theory in itself. So you need a Lagrangian to together with QFT to provide predictions. I would agree with that, but it in no way invalidates that point Ben made.

 

To Farsight: May I ask for your prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (or muon if you like)?

[BenTheMan]

To Farsight: May I ask for your prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (or muon if you like)?

 

Severian---LOL. This is a red herring and you are nitpicking and not actually adressing the issue. You are to be reprimanded for your Kafkaesque ad hominem attack. Further, using your own mathematical axioms to attack Farsight's position is invalid, your point is stupid, and should be ignored outright.

[YT2095]

Ben, my man, you`re forgetting the Fingers in the ears and the LALALALA bit!

 

nevermind, at least you didn`t come running to the Moderators for help this time!

[Farsight]

To Farsight: May I ask for your prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (or muon if you like)?

 

I can't give it, Severian. It would take me hours to look it all up from wikipedia or elsewhere:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_function

 

..and compose something that might stand a chance of passing muster. And even then I'd perhaps get something wrong and get laughed at. Maybe Albers could rattle something off. What can I offer instead? Oh, I'll probably still get the usual opprobium, but what the heck: take a look at the picture below:

 

 

The anomalous magnetic moment is because it's looping, not spinning.

[swansont]

hold on you're getting away from the time post. if you have beef with pions we'll get there don't worry. first is that time post, then is the next that follows. if you have no objections to that one. I think farsight could write the next one since that seems to be the case.

 

I will point ou yet again: Pions is where we started; this thread was split off from the time travel thread so that it wouldn't be off-topic. Farsight could have addressed time travel in a TIME EXPLAINED thread, but his defense of scientific predictions there is no different, or he could have started a new thread in speculations to deal with it.

 

Particles made of light and the implications thereof is the topic at hand, though. Shifting the discussion to avoid dealing with the issues does not reflect well upon the robustness of the idea. A simple "I haven't gotten there yet, I'll obviously have to deal with that soon" would have been preferable to the onslaught of colorful fish and Czech novelist diatribes.

[BenTheMan]

Farsight---

 

Just a guess, but I'm sure Severian knows very well what the vertex correction to QED looks like.

 

Again, just a guess

[Severian]

And even then I'd perhaps get something wrong and get laughed at.

 

The anomalous magnetic moment is because it's looping, not spinning.

 

For once, it appears that your predictions have born fruit.

[Farsight]

Very droll, Severian.

 

Ben, my man, you`re forgetting the Fingers in the ears and the LALALALA bit!

 

nevermind, at least you didn`t come running to the Moderators for help this time!

 

Oh cringe. This guy has now given me 20 infraction points. Ten previously for abuse, another ten just now for trolling. Because I replied to someguy with something that is utterly pertinent to the thread title. Absurd!

 

Swanson: start a new thread with an appropriate title of your choice, and I will employ my best endeavours to stay on topic. You'd better hurry up about it before I get banned, or shall we say censored. Which of course, must be because I'm winning this argument.

[BenTheMan]

Index = 373.

 

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

 

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

 

Index += 50.

Index = 423.

[YT2095]

I gotta ask, is "Absurd" the word of the day or something, I count at least 17 times across the posts on this site that you`v used it in the last 24 hours! (there may be more).

 

as for Banning you, NO WAY! you are NOT getting off that Lightly pal!

you WILL answer these good people that have taken Plenty of their time (and patience) to afford you the time of day even.

[BenTheMan]

Yeah---that and ``Kafkaesque''