swansont Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 we would like to move this atom or particle or any smallest amount could be, from point a to point b , there are only two possible ways to move this object, classical mechanics continuous motion and Yahya's discrete motion there is not any other ways for this particle to move , if it did not move by continuous motion , and if it actually moved then it indeed moved by Yahya's discrete motion. False dichotomy. however our previous object and because Mr Sawnsont said that the nearby point should be the smallest point to the left in order for this object to move continuously , one scientist suggested it should be 5e-60 meters , because if we suggest something greater we will follow yahya's discrete motion theory, they continued suggestions without the object moving and our time reference became, 4e46 seconds, that means they spend (4e46-2e46) = 2e46 seconds =(approximately) 6e36 years. and the object did not move and will never move by this concept. Um, what? Assuming you mean me, where did I post that? As far as I can tell and recall, I've asked you for a testable model, and not made any specific claims. I want a clear explanation for the above problem. and in my opinion you won't find one, because with your all knowlege of atomic physics and quantum mechanics, you are like the others , left classical mechanics uncomplete and jumped to atomic physics and quantum mechanics leaving classical mechanics uncomplete and poor. I am the one who will focus on classical mechanics and explain it deeply . I thought you were providing a solution to the alleged problem. And I'm not interested in hearing you say what you will explain. We're more than 2 dozen posts in — explain it already, in terms of science and in accordance with the guidelines for posting here.
Mordred Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Here is the thing, we have experimental proof quarks and gluons exist. We have even determined the mass of each quark (they don't have the same mass) we also have a solid means of using the current standard model to predict particles we discover AFTER they were predicted. So obviously our current standard model works extremely well. Your however fails to recognize years of study, measurements and experimental evidence. You won't recognize that the atom can be split into smaller constituents. You don't acknowledge the basic relations shown in Sensei's post. Based on your personal lack of knowledge. As well as feelings toward QM. Well if you wish to prove QM and the standard model wrong, then you must compare your model to the existing models. You have to show how your model improves upon our understanding. You can't do this by ignoring the existing. You can only do this by mathematics and experimental comparisions.
yahya515 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Um, what? Assuming you mean me, where did I post that? I thought you were providing a solution to the alleged problem. And I'm not interested in hearing you say what you will explain. do not take it as personal attack, the thing which I present above is both using mathematics to explain my idea and presenting a problem which is weired and I can not find its solution ,only by using my concept. so please get into the road. I invite Mordred as well. Here is the thing, we have experimental proof quarks and gluons exist. We have even determined the mass of each quark (they don't have the same mass) we also have a solid means of using the current standard model to predict particles we discover AFTER they were predicted. So obviously our current standard model works extremely well. Your however fails to recognize years of study, measurements and experimental evidence. You won't recognize that the atom can be split into smaller constituents. You don't acknowledge the basic relations shown in Sensei's post. Based on your personal lack of knowledge. As well as feelings toward QM. Well if you wish to prove QM and the standard model wrong, then you must compare your model to the existing models. You have to show how your model improves upon our understanding. You can't do this by ignoring the existing. You can only do this by mathematics and experimental comparisions. I think I am being attacked Edited February 17, 2015 by yahya515
andrewcellini Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I think I am being attacked. i don't think so. what mordred said is reasonable and helpful. you should actually try to make an effort and learn the models you are trying to overthrow because without understanding them, how can you know what predictions they make? how can you make comparisons between these mainstream models, your model and reality? Edited February 17, 2015 by andrewcellini
swansont Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 do not take it as personal attack, the thing which I present above is both using mathematics to explain my idea and presenting a problem which is weired and I can not find its solution ,only by using my concept. so please get into the road. I invite Mordred as well. You claimed I said something, and I didn't. I'm going to ignore that for now. Either post something substantive, that follows our guidelines, with your next post, or this thread will be locked. 1
yahya515 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) You claimed I said something, and I didn't. I'm going to ignore that for now. Either post something substantive, that follows our guidelines, with your next post, or this thread will be locked. OK, I understand. and I apologise. i don't think so. what mordred said is reasonable and helpful. you should actually try to make an effort and learn the models you are trying to overthrow because without understanding them, how can you know what predictions they make? how can you make comparisons between these mainstream models, your model and reality? I did not overthrow anything, and I did not make any step in that, so it is a direct personal attack. and I think the reason is the post above about that calculus fails to determine the slope of a vertical line to PREDICT the instantanous velocity for an object at stationary Edited February 17, 2015 by yahya515
Mordred Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 No it isn't any new model must be compared to current models. If you like look at any peer reviewed paper. Let's use say MOND as an example. You will see comparisions on what MOND would predict then what LCDM would predict. This is part of the process of proving a model. What were doing is poking holes in your model as well as supplying the materials to correct and refine the model. This is also part of model development.
yahya515 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) No it isn't any new model must be compared to current models. If you like look at any peer reviewed paper. Let's use say MOND as an example. You will see comparisions on what MOND would predict then what LCDM would predict. This is part of the process of proving a model. you tell me , what do you think about calculus failing to determine the instantanous velocity of an stationary object, while it is equal to zero, if you do not have an answer then your model fails, talking about scientists are great and doing hard work, and yahya uses a lot of philosophy and lack knowledge will not change the fact and will not help, attacking others will help only yourself , because it will give you an imaginary victory and imaginary feeling of changing the fact. What were doing is poking holes in your model ......... great!! Edited February 17, 2015 by yahya515
swansont Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 OK, I understand ! Moderator Note Apparently not.
Recommended Posts