pwagen Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) And how do you know? you dont even know my knowledge of physics and you're saying thatSensei mentioned your experience, not your knowledge. You say you're in high school. This means that, regardless of how much extra hours you've put into studying physics, and how much you think you know, you simply haven't worked with it long enough to grasp it at the level that's required. Meanwhile, you have real, live, working physicists explaining to you why the paper is wrong. You'd do well to listen to them, instead of dismissing everything they say and throwing jabs around, like "you probably don't know what quantisation is" or "does it use too much logic for you?". Throwing a fit is a bad argument for any case. Edited for spelling. Edited March 9, 2014 by pwagen
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Sensei mentioned your experience, not your knowledge. You say you're in high school. This means that, regardless of how much extra hours you've put into studying physics, and how much you think you know, you simply haven't worked with it long enough to grasp it at the level that's required. Meanwhile, you have real, live, working physicists explaining to you why the paper is wrong. You'd do well to listen to them, instead of dismissing everything they say and throwing jabs around, like "you probably don't know what quantisation is" or "does it use to much logic for you?". Throwing a fit is a bad argument for any case. Well the author is a physicist so we can well say the spacetime model and relativity is wrong
John Cuthber Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Well the author is a physicist so we can well say the spacetime model and relativity is wrong Nonsense. Quite a few physicists here have pointed out that the paper is wrong.
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Well the author is a physicist so we can well say the spacetime model and relativity is wrong I'm starting to smell a troll
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Do you know any physicist who can explain this, no you refuse to listen to other ideas. You haven't commented about time or the new atomic model and here's the evidence, when any charged particle starts accelerating it's apparent charge becomes less as it approaches the speed of light that's why the quarks charge is higher the mass is less (1/3 and 2/3) you can check.
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Well the author is a physicist Do we know this? The affiliation is Unergy Limited, which doesn't have a big presence on Google other than some "find a business listing" sites, and the email contact is a gmail account. IOW, there is no professional affiliation. There is a patent listing for an inventor by that name in the same area, but the patent is for an osmotic pressure device. so we can well say the spacetime model and relativity is wrong Well technically we can, because we have the ability to say silly things that aren't true. But from a more pragmatic view, anyone can write a paper and it's not hard to get stuff published in crappy journals whose peer review has a low bar for publication. This one is on a list of possible/probable predatory journals that will print things just to get the fee from the author. But even that doesn't matter all that much. Even peer review in a well-respected journal is not a guarantor of correctness. Theory isn't accepted as valid until it's confirmed by experiment, and beyond the slipshod explanations in the paper what's missing here is the long list of experiments that confirm that these claims are true, and also that other claims must be false. Do you know any physicist who can explain this, no you refuse to listen to other ideas. You haven't commented about time or the new atomic model and here's the evidence, when any charged particle starts accelerating it's apparent charge becomes less as it approaches the speed of light that's why the quarks charge is higher the mass is less (1/3 and 2/3) you can check. Good: a specific prediction. Problem: we don't see this when we accelerate electrons, protons or ions to relativistic speeds. The prediction is falsified. The approach of singling out one effect and basing a theory on it is that it ignores all of the other related effects. Physics (and science in general) is a network of inter-relatedness. Coming up with a neat idea to explain the charge on a quark is only a start. If it's true you have to be able to apply it elsewhere, and you have to be able test it in a falsifiable way, which is missing here. It's like a fitted sheet on a bed. You can't declare victory simply because you got one corner tucked in. If the sheet is the wrong size, the other three corners are still a problem. You aren't done until all four corners are covered. 4
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Do we know this? The affiliation is Unergy Limited, which doesn't have a big presence on Google other than some "find a business listing" sites, and the email contact is a gmail account. IOW, there is no professional affiliation. There is a patent listing for an inventor by that name in the same area, but the patent is for an osmotic pressure device. Well technically we can, because we have the ability to say silly things that aren't true. But from a more pragmatic view, anyone can write a paper and it's not hard to get stuff published in crappy journals whose peer review has a low bar for publication. This one is on a list of possible/probable predatory journals that will print things just to get the fee from the author. But even that doesn't matter all that much. Even peer review in a well-respected journal is not a guarantor of correctness. Theory isn't accepted as valid until it's confirmed by experiment, and beyond the slipshod explanations in the paper what's missing here is the long list of experiments that confirm that these claims are true, and also that other claims must be false. Good: a specific prediction. Problem: we don't see this when we accelerate electrons, protons or ions to relativistic speeds. The prediction is falsified. The approach of singling out one effect and basing a theory on it is that it ignores all of the other related effects. Physics (and science in general) is a network of inter-relatedness. Coming up with a neat idea to explain the charge on a quark is only a start. If it's true you have to be able to apply it elsewhere, and you have to be able test it in a falsifiable way, which is missing here. It's like a fitted sheet on a bed. You can't declare victory simply because you got one corner tucked in. If the sheet is the wrong size, the other three corners are still a problem. You aren't done until all four corners are covered. You cant accelerate an electron the charge gets low... and from the authors view you are not showing respect just because this guy's company isn't on google doesn't mean he is not qualified to do physics. Judge him by the content not by his background.
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) You cant accelerate an electron the charge gets low... and from the authors view you are not showing respect just because this guy's company isn't on google doesn't mean he is not qualified to do physics. Judge him by the content not by his background. We are, the contents is junk. It's another crackpot theory that will never be proven, because it is wrong in a lot of ways. Like the decay of his particle into an electron. He saying that is saying that the electron is the building block.(As I understand it, I might be wrong) Edit:clarified something I said Edited March 9, 2014 by Lightmeow
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 We are, the contents junk. It's another crackpot theory that will never be proven, because it is wrong in a lot of ways. Like the decay of his particle into an electron. He saying that is saying that the electron is the building block.(As I understand it, I might be wrong) Edit:clarified something I said He says the UDP is the building block
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 You cant accelerate an electron the charge gets low... Um, we do it all the time. Any old-fashioned CRT accelerates electrons. Particle accelerators, by definition, accelerate charged particles. and from the authors view you are not showing respect just because this guy's company isn't on google doesn't mean he is not qualified to do physics. Judge him by the content not by his background. I am judging him by the content, which is crackpottery. I was merely answering your claim that we know he's a physicist. We don't.
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 He says the UDP is the building block But he's saying the UDP decays into an electron
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 He says the UDP is the building block What we need is a way of testing this that can show this this, and not some other model, is true.
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Um, we do it all the time. Any old-fashioned CRT accelerates electrons. Particle accelerators, by definition, accelerate charged particles. I am judging him by the content, which is crackpottery. I was merely answering your claim that we know he's a physicist. We don't. thats why they cant accelerate at the speed of light.. (because the charge gets low) u can only get to 0.999995c What we need is a way of testing this that can show this this, and not some other model, is true. Go test in a lab, you are a physicist after all.
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) thats why they cant accelerate at the speed of light.. (because the charge gets low) u can only get to 0.999995c Go test in a lab, you are a physicist after all. The thing is, he can't. You need a way to test it. And you apparently don't know the meaning of charged particles. And the reason why we can't accelerate something to the speed of light is theoretically you would need an infinite amount of energy, not because the charge gets low. Edited March 9, 2014 by Lightmeow
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 thats why they cant accelerate at the speed of light.. (because the charge gets low) u can only get to 0.999995c No. You can't accelerate them to c because of relativity. The models used for these interactions — which works really, really well — have constant charge as their explanation. Also, there are uncharged particles out there, that would not suffer from this restriction, and yet they don't exceed c, either. From an even simpler point of view, electrons in heavier atoms have relativistic energies. According to this model, they should have less charge, meaning that atom shouldn't be neutral. This isn't observed. 1
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 No. You can't accelerate them to c because of relativity. The models used for these interactions — which works really, really well — have constant charge as their explanation. Also, there are uncharged particles out there, that would not suffer from this restriction, and yet they don't exceed c, either. From an even simpler point of view, electrons in heavier atoms have relativistic energies. According to this model, they should have less charge, meaning that atom shouldn't be neutral. This isn't observed. If you have read the theory it states that relativity is false and their is only 2 constants Planck's constant and maxwell's speed of light and also you have not taken into account that electrons are made by UDP'S you have obviously not read the theory.
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 If quark charge is lower because of their energy, what about the particles that have the same quarks in them but larger masses, such as the delta particles (comprised of uud and udd, just like protons and neutrons)? They have more energy, but the same overall charge! If you have read the theory it states that relativity is false and their is only 2 constants Planck's constant and maxwell's speed of light and also you have not taken into account that electrons are made by UDP'S you have obviously not read the theory. Anyone can simply state that relativity is false. A lunatic on the streetcorner can state this. Nobody cares unless you have experimental evidence to show it, and there's lots of evidence to show it's correct. GPS works. "Not reading" and "not naively accepting as true" aren't the same thing, anyway. The burden of proof is on the presenter. It's considered to be untrue until adequate evidence is presented, and this falls way, way short of that. Why are you so invested in this, anyway? Go test in a lab, you are a physicist after all. The predictions are either not specific enough to test, or they have already been falsified. I've given a few examples. 2
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) If quark charge is lower because of their energy, what about the particles that have the same quarks in them but larger masses, such as the delta particles (comprised of uud and udd, just like protons and neutrons)? They have more energy, but the same overall charge! Anyone can simply state that relativity is false. A lunatic on the streetcorner can state this. Nobody cares unless you have experimental evidence to show it, and there's lots of evidence to show it's correct. GPS works. "Not reading" and "not naively accepting as true" aren't the same thing, anyway. The burden of proof is on the presenter. It's considered to be untrue until adequate evidence is presented, and this falls way, way short of that. Why are you so invested in this, anyway? yes now if you READ the paper you will see the anatomy of the proton neutron and how the up quarks and the down quarks and etc. are composed their is evidence for relativity being wrong and it is in the paper where he talks about the decay that occured in time dilation and is also in his next paper about absolutism which goes into more detail. Can you prove to me why relativity works? The experiment was proved wrong (7 day relativity experiment) because the clock was an atomic clock therefore there was a decay but you perceived it as time dilation when time dosen't even exist it is a tool created by man to describe rotation, not saying its not helpful without it many things would be very difficult but it has nothing to do with physics. Edited March 9, 2014 by zidzad1
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 yes now if you READ the paper you will see the anatomy of the proton neutron and how the up quarks and the down quarks and etc. are composed their is evidence for relativity being wrong and it is in the paper where he talks about the decay that occured in time dilation and is also in his next paper about absolutism which goes into more detail. Can you prove to me why relativity works? The experiment was proved wrong (7 day relativity experiment) because the clock was an atomic clock therefore there was a decay but you perceived it as time dilation when time dosen't even exist it is a tool created by man to describe rotation, not saying its not helpful without it many things would be very difficult but it has nothing to do with physics. In a search of the paper I see dilation mentioned only twice. Anything appearing in his "next paper" is not part of this discussion. Science doesn't "prove" things, but relativity stems fro the speed of light being the same in all inertial frames of reference, something that is also the basis for electrodynamics. IOW, if it wasn't true, cell phones and radios wouldn't work. This isn't something you generally learn in high school, since it requires a little more background and there are some tough concepts attached to it. We observe time dilation in a number of different clocks of different compositions, so we know it's not an artifact of some particular design or mechanism. It's a real effect. What 7-day experiment are you referring to? Atomic clocks don't rely on radioactive decay, though the effect has been observed in decays, as you would expect.
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 In a search of the paper I see dilation mentioned only twice. Anything appearing in his "next paper" is not part of this discussion. Science doesn't "prove" things, but relativity stems fro the speed of light being the same in all inertial frames of reference, something that is also the basis for electrodynamics. IOW, if it wasn't true, cell phones and radios wouldn't work. This isn't something you generally learn in high school, since it requires a little more background and there are some tough concepts attached to it. We observe time dilation in a number of different clocks of different compositions, so we know it's not an artifact of some particular design or mechanism. It's a real effect. What 7-day experiment are you referring to? Atomic clocks don't rely on radioactive decay, though the effect has been observed in decays, as you would expect. How does relativity make cell phones and radios work? it has something to do with time, now if you have read what the UDT says about time and gravity then einsteins argument is false. You have to understand perspectives and understand that relativity is pure imagination and mathematics and should not be applied in physics. -2
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 How does relativity make cell phones and radios work? it has something to do with time, now if you have read what the UDT says about time and gravity then einsteins argument is false. You have to understand perspectives and understand that relativity is pure imagination and mathematics and should not be applied in physics. Relativity has been proven. Time dilatation has been proven through experiment. It is not pure imagination. 1
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Relativity has been proven. Time dilatation has been proven through experiment. It is not pure imagination. And whats the experiment?
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 You have got to be kidding me, you haven't heard about Einsteins eclipse experiment? http://simonsingh.net/media/articles/maths-and-science/1919-eclipse-and-general-relativity/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Come on, do some research and don't be naive
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I'm asking for your summary, and yes I have done some research, but it seems you haven't even attempted to read the paper. The theory also talks about relativity and proofs it wrong just like i did above. Relativity is false because it depends on time, and time dosen't exist.
Recommended Posts