Geddoutofit. Is there anything you won't say in an attempt to discredit? I started that fresh topic by popular demand, and here I am.
But the popular demand was that you explain, in detail, how a photon can turn into something with a charge. You have yet to explain this in any detail.
Nope. I deal with the responses, then when I'm demonstrably right and have exposed cringeworthy ignorance and prejudice, people like ben_m and sol are so embarrassed that they resort to abuse and do a runner. They can't stand up to the evidence and the logic, and can't offer any counter-evidence or any counter-logic. Just like you.
But you don't deal with responses by answering their questions. In my case, I have asked you to explain how you think Minkwoski supports your theory and you have dodged the question repeatedly. You provide the same passage over and over, but it is that passage that you have to explain.
As for providing counter-evidence, it is impossible to provide counter-evidence when you do not provide evidence. We are all waiting for you to provide evidence that a photon could produce a charge. You need to walk us through the physics involved.
Because I'm explaining the reality that underlies the mathematics. You can't do this with mathematics.
But we have no idea what mathematics you are talking about. So go step-by-step through the relevant mathematics so that we know what you are explaining.
Remember that it was your challenge to me to start this thread on the electromagnetic field. It's the experimental evidence and the logic that delivers understanding of what the mathematics means. What you consider to be "Maxwell's Equations" were recast by Heaviside into vector form, discarding the dualism that is vital for understanding the underlying geometry that then takes you places.
So go step-by-step through Heaviside's equations.
Now stop being a troll, and either enter into a sincere discussion, or butt out like those other folk whose physics knowledge is risibly scant.
Since I know that I have completed a PhD on the basis of my physics knowledge, your insults don't really mean all that much. All they do is draw attention to your attempts to avoid answering real questions.
I will repeat my questions since you apparently are trying to doge them again.
You seem unable to understand that the mathematics of two fields accurately describes the measurements that we get. So you have to use a single field explanation that reproduces these results. So far, you have not given any evidence that this is the case.
If you really want to provide evidence, show that your theory can produce the same predictions as standard theory. That's all I ask.
You keep citing the same passage from Minkowski, but you have given no evidence that what Minkowski means is anything like what you have said. All you need to do is go through the actual content of the Minkowski piece and show what parts of that content are relevant to the passage that you have quoted and how they are also relevant to your theory.
So far, the evidence is that you misunderstand the analogy that Minkowski is making in the passage. It is up to you to defend your interpretation. Unless, of course, you want to withdraw your claim because you are unable to defend your claim.
You have to make clear what you actually endorse in Williamson's paper. In the past you have admitted that you do not endorse everything in the papers that you cite, so we need to see exactly what the reasoning it that you are employing in your own theory.
Page 7 of that document does not have any equations governing the transformation of a photon into an electron. This means that either you do not understand any of the relevant mathematics in that paper or you were simply mistaken on the page number. If the latter option is the case, then you can prove to us that you do understand these things by actually taking us through the calculations. If you do not do this, your accumulated errors leave us no choice but to conclude that you have been deceiving us about your ability.
