Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[DeiRenDopa]

Sometimes they don't move.

They always do. Even when you're not moving, light is moving into your eyes, your thoughts are there because of motion at the electrochemical level, electrons have a magnetic dipole moment,

The electron's magnetic dipole moment is an example of motion?

The only exception to this is a black hole,

Here's my carbon atom. Its nucleus contains six protons and eight neutrons. It's just sitting there, not moving. Suddenly, whoosh, an electron and an anti-neutrino go zipping off, leaving a nitrogen atom.

What was moving, in the C14 nucleus, before it decayed?

Here's my muon, just sitting there. Suddenly, whoosh, no more muon.

What was moving, in the muon, before it decayed?

(and so on)

but let's not talk about black holes because we've done them to death on another thread.

Yeah, after failing, dismally, to provide hard scientific evidence to support your wild claims; failing to explain what you meant; repeatedly not answering the questions asked (about your own ideas); failing to clarify the multiple inconsistencies in what you'd written; (and so on), you did a runner.

Not unlike the behavior of a troll, right?

 

[Farsight]

It's called spin. The muon has a magnetic moment. And like I said, a "radioisotope clock" is like a warehouse full of unstable machines which have an average lifetime, but which eventually break down. You count how many machines are still going to gauge the time.

 

[Farsight]

The electron's magnetic dipole moment is an example of motion?

Yes.

Here's my carbon atom. Its nucleus contains six protons and eight neutrons. It's just sitting there, not moving...

Like a gyrocope isn't moving.

Here's my muon, just sitting there. Suddenly, whoosh, no more muon. What was moving, in the muon, before it decayed?

Stress-energy.

Yeah, after failing, dismally, to provide hard scientific evidence to support your wild claims; failing to explain what you meant; repeatedly not answering the questions asked (about your own ideas); failing to clarify the multiple inconsistencies in what you'd written; (and so on), you did a runner. Not unlike the behavior of a troll, right?

I'm not the troll here, Dopa.

All: this guy is dishonest. See this post for what I was saying on the black hole thread. There was scientific evidence, they weren't wild claims, and there weren't any inconsistencies.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's called spin.

It is.

Despite the name, however, nothing is moving.

It's a property like charge, completely analogous to charge in fact. Are you trying to say, in some indirect way, that charge is also just a form of motion?

The muon has a magnetic moment.

It does.

Where's the motion?

And like I said,

(bold added)

You did? When? Where?

a "radioisotope clock" is like a warehouse full of unstable machines which have an average lifetime, but which eventually break down. You count how many machines are still going to gauge the time.

Clocks work by "some kind of regular cyclic motion and show you a cumulative display that you call "the time"".

Your own words Farsight, if I'm not mistaken.

Where's the "regular cyclic motion" in that warehouse?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The electron's magnetic dipole moment is an example of motion?

Yes.

Here's my carbon atom. Its nucleus contains six protons and eight neutrons. It's just sitting there, not moving...

Like a gyrocope isn't moving.

I'm going to quote something someone here said, recently, concerning an analogy (you've just used an analogy to respond, right?): "And still you persist with pseudoscience! It's a cargo-cult analogy that is totally at odds with" quantum mechanics!

Could it be that your ideas concerning the relationship between time and motion are founded on a profound misunderstanding of quantum mechanics?

Here's my muon, just sitting there. Suddenly, whoosh, no more muon. What was moving, in the muon, before it decayed?

Stress-energy.

Huh?

I have no idea what this means. Would you be kind enough to explain, in some detail please?

All: this guy is dishonest. See this post for what I was saying on the black hole thread. There was scientific evidence, they weren't wild claims, and there weren't any inconsistencies.

Ah, the post in which you did your victory dance, eh?

Pity that you omitted to mention this post earlier in that same thread (for those who don't want to read it, it contains a list (sample) of Farsight's inconsistencies ...)

 

[dafydd]

They always do. Even when you're not moving, light is moving into your eyes, your thoughts are there because of motion at the electrochemical level, electrons have a magnetic dipole moment, and so. The only exception to this is a black hole, but let's not talk about black holes because we've done them to death on another thread.

If I'm not moving then my eyes are not moving. Quite simple. When are you going to demonstrate some knowledge of quantum mechanics instead of spinning woo? What exactly is your new theory?

 

[Farsight]

It is. Despite the name, however, nothing is moving.

Yes it is. See the Einstein-De Haas effect which demonstrates "that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

It's a property like charge, completely analogous to charge in fact. Are you trying to say, in some indirect way, that charge is also just a form of motion?

No. Charge is topological. Go do some research.

The muon has a magnetic moment.

It does. Where's the motion?

In the muon. You need to read up on magnetic moment, Dopa. Here, try this. Once the muon decays the motion is apparent. Note however that this is wrong: "There simply is no internal structure of the electron that will explain its properties!". It's one of those fables I'm afraid.

[bold added) You did? When? Where?

Here: black holes, page 13. Timewaster.

Clocks work by "some kind of regular cyclic motion and show you a cumulative display that you call "the time"".

Your own words Farsight, if I'm not mistaken. Where's the "regular cyclic motion" in that warehouse?

In the machines that break down.

All: this guy is trying to waste my time and trash the thread. He isn't sincere, and cannot be trusted. He's a scornmonger not a sceptic, and his physics knowledge is scant.

 

[dafydd]

Yes it is. See the Einstein-De Haas effect which demonstrates "that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

No, despite the name, nothing is spinning.

 

[ben m]

Yes it is. See the Einstein-De Haas effect which demonstrates "that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

It's the same angular momentum, in that it obeys the same conservation law. It is not generated by internal motion. An electron's hbar/2 spin does NOT mean that there's an internal mass for which |v x r| = hbar/2. This is a standard, well-studied feature of quantum field theory and has been accepted for something like 80 years.

If you want to believe it does, go ahead, but you are the outlier.

No. Charge is topological.

Topological charge is a not a topological explanation for electric charge. Many additively-conserved quantum numbers are called "charges"---electric charge, weak charge, color charge, for example. If there is a field theory configuration in which some property (a winding number, for example) were additively conserved, this property gets called "topological charge".

Electric charge is NOT thought to be a topological charge. You are welcome to think that it is, but you are the outlier.

But you saw some google hits for "topological charge", guessed that this proved you right and proved your opponents stupid, and ran with it. Good lord. Have you no shame?

 

[catsmate]

Are you refuring to this post below and Gobekli Tepe?

Yes I was. It's an interesting site with potentially significant implications for the history of development of human civilisation, the transition form nomadic hunter/gatherer to mixed cultivation/pastoral to settled agricultural society.

Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres, your saying 'carved by flint tools and put in place by??' I am am saying that without a lost technology the cavemen did not, nor would have any reason to construct this site 11 thousand years ago period. Flint tools, and a few strong cavemen LMFAO!

Just because you're unwilling to accept this, as it contradicts your beliefs, is no reason at all to invoke gods, ancient aliens or magic as you seem to want to.
Perhaps you should actually read the article, and additional material? Do you wonder why the actual archaeologists and other experts don't jump to the same conclusions as you?

This is why in so many area's (yes this but the very tip of the iceberg) science is losing its credibility amoung many the masses. It's less of a big deal that science can't explain something IMO.

Science explains it just fine the problem is people don't want to accept reality but rather their own fantasies of gods, magic, aliens et cetera.

<irrelevent repetition snipped>

Repeating this doesn't change anything.

 

[catsmate]

Ancient people built huge monuments. We already know that. So what? What does this have to do with crackpot physics?

This has nothing to do with crackpot physics, but it is a classic example of crackpot archeology!

I believe tedlazer thinks aliens constructed various megalithic structures because he can't understand how primitive humans could build them.

 

[jhunter1163]

Address the argument, not the arguer, and be civil and polite. Also, do not change usernames in order to insult others.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[tsig]

Nah. It goes something like this:

1) I show you the evidence, which is as clear as a crystal stream.
2) You dismiss it.
3) I challenge you to show me the evidence to support what you believe.
4) You get all slippery and evasive and start calling me names.

OK, show me some time flowing through a clock.

We seem to be stuck on 1).

You've made a lot of assertions but I've not seen any evidence.

 

[Tubbythin]

1) I show you the evidence, which is as clear as a crystal stream.

You seem to have a high opinion of your own evidence. And yet you lack knowledge of quantum mechanics and relativity that a student would learn in introductory degree courses.

 

[Dancing David]

to show that the old theories of human origin and evolution have been wrong. Humans obviously did not emerge from caves and they had some kind of tools in hand even before the Mesopotamian Empire existed, and the desire to create massive monuments, including artistic carvings in the stone.

Um, yeah, so some old theories are wrong.

Homo sapiens sapiens roamed the landscape and did not always live in caves?

So what?

Rollers and rope will move large stones.

It has been established for quite a while that 'civilization' started elsewhere than europe and that stonehenge is no big deal.

So why you act like this is big deal is strange.
Have you heard of Mohenjo-daro?

Big cosmopolitan area at about 4,500 years ago.

Catal Hyuk has been known for a long time as have many neolithic sites in the 'middle east' area.

So maybe you did not know, but gosh this is something at least 50 years old, that civilization started in the fertile crescent, the indus valley and the yellow river basin.

Now yes, many victorian brits and germans made up a lot to say that they were the successors to the the rise of civilization, but they weren't.

 

[Dancing David]

So cavemen tech. did this huh with no issue either? Dudes I don't have the time.........

maybe you want to watch Wally Wallington


And he isn't even using rollers.

 

[Farsight]

It's the same angular momentum, in that it obeys the same conservation law. It is not generated by internal motion. An electron's hbar/2 spin does NOT mean that there's an internal mass for which |v x r| = hbar/2. This is a standard, well-studied feature of quantum field theory and has been accepted for something like 80 years.

There's certainly no internal mass. But there certainly is internal motion.

If you want to believe it does, go ahead, but you are the outlier.

Here we go again. I'm with Einstein, and I'm the outlier? How did that happen?

Topological charge is a not a topological explanation for electric charge. Many additively-conserved quantum numbers are called "charges"---electric charge, weak charge, color charge, for example. If there is a field theory configuration in which some property (a winding number, for example) were additively conserved, this property gets called "topological charge". Electric charge is NOT thought to be a topological charge. You are welcome to think that it is, but you are the outlier. But you saw some google hits for "topological charge", guessed that this proved you right and proved your opponents stupid, and ran with it. Good lord. Have you no shame?

LOL! Do you seriously think I just googled something at random? Oh are you in for a shock. OK, let's have a thread on electromagnetism. Afterwards you can withdraw your ad-hominem aspersions, eat some humble pie, apologise, then crawl off to lick your wounds again.

But later, because I gotta go. Ciao.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Nah. It goes something like this:

1) I show you the evidence, which is as clear as a crystal stream.
2) ...

There's certainly no internal mass. But there certainly is internal motion.

I wonder if Farsight thinks "But there certainly is internal motion" is "evidence, which is as clear as a crystal stream"?

Earlier he posted this (concerning "the internal motion" being "spin"):

Despite the name, however, nothing is moving.

Yes it is. See the Einstein-De Haas effect which demonstrates "that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

From the same reliable source (NOT! It's Wikipedia): "Calculations based on a model of electron spin as a circulating electric charge underestimate this magnetic moment by a factor of approximately 2, the Landé g-factor. A correct description of this magnetic moment requires a treatment based on quantum electrodynamics." Quantum electrodynamics, a.k.a. QED.

In QED, nothing is moving; the electron (muon, etc) has no "internal motion".

So, even within the same source Farsight cites as "evidence", there is an apparent contradiction, when you try to use that source as evidence of the certainty of internal motion.

May one conclude that, to Farsight, "as clear as a crystal stream" has a meaning quite different than it does to you and I?

Shades of MM, again.

 

[ben m]

Here we go again. I'm with Einstein, and I'm the outlier? How did that happen?

Your claim to be with Einstein is a figment of your imagination. You are welcome to think "Farsight is with Einstein" is true, and you'll be an outlier in that, too.

 

[Tubbythin]

Your claim to be with Einstein is a figment of your imagination. You are welcome to think "Farsight is with Einstein" is true, and you'll be an outlier in that, too.

[Pedantry]Well, strictly his claim to be with Einstein is entirely real, not a figment of his imagination. What isn't real is him actually being with Einstein. [/Pedantry]