A perfect example in the slide about how crackpots have "terminal reasoining". Farsight will never give up the idea that he holds the one truth, even when continually confronted by descriptions of his own behaviour. Even when confronted with questions about his own theory that, if he were to think of them for a minute, should make immediately plain to him that he doesn't understand the topic well enough to justify his claims.
You're not to notice a correlation between engineers and woo science, especially IDiocy; it's referred to as the Salem Hypothesis.
I ask, what tool specifically are you thinking of. You made the claim, what tool, cognitive of technological should be considered that isn't?
Indeed.
Yes. That's what Einstein said. The mass of body is a measure of energy content. He even referred to the electron as a body. So the mass of the electron is a measure of its energy content. Not something else.
Yes. Ask around elsewhere about this. I'm appalled that the guys here don't have the honesty to say I'm right about this. It's just bog-standard E=mc².
Hellbound, go look it up: "In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions.[1][2] The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction,[3] radiation,[4] and convection".
I'll presume there was a "not" missing from the last bit. Answer: because you can make an electron (and a positron) from photons in gamma-gamma pair production. The mass of the electron is 511keV. The mass of the "Higgs boson" is 125GeV. So the electron mass can't be because of the Higgs boson. Now can it?
They aren't my arguments. They're Einstein's.
My maths isn't hopelessly limited. I've explained maths behind things like SR time dilation which employs the Lorentz factor
You must be thinking of somebody else mate. And no, you're not a physicist. You don't have to tell me that.
No, Bob's wrong and I'm right. Because I'm telling you what Einstein said, and Einstein was right. The mass of a body is the measure of its energy content. It isn't the measure of something else. It isn't the measure of how that body interacts with some kind of "cosmic treacle".
And I repeat: I'm telling you what Einstein said. Now I suggest you go and read Einstein's E=mc² paper, and pay attention. Here's an excerpt:
So if a body gives off radiation it loses mass. If a body absorbs radiation it gains mass. So Hellbound's heated chunk of iron gains mass.The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity.
Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may place
From this equation it directly follows that:—
If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that
The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10²°, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.
And I'm afraid it can't do that without saying Einstein was wrong. He said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. Not something else. It's that simple. And after all, where does the mass of the "Higgs boson" itself come from? Duh, the kinetic energy supplied to LHC protons. If you believe the Higgs mechanism is responsible for mass you're effectively walking around wearing a T-shirt like this:
They've never been broken, and you know it. We know that we can make an electron and a positron from light in pair production, we know that we can diffract an electron, we know it's got a magnetic moment, we know about the Einstein-de Haas effect which “demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies”. We also know that in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves". And that the electron and the positron have the opposite chirality. We know about the wave nature of matter. And about electron-positron annihilation to gamma photons. Whence it's pretty obvious that the electron and the positron are a couple of radiating bodies losing mass. Only they lose all of it, then they don't exist any more. There's oodles of evidence. What's the evidence for the Higgs boson? Damn statistics and a bump on a graph.
The Higgs mechanism is a dead man walking, ct. Because it's going up against E=mc². Guys like me try to steer people away from it or at least revise it so that it's responsible for photon momentum as well as electron mass. You know, where momentum is a measure of how easily you can change the state of motion of a wave moving linearly, and mass is a measure of how easily you can change the state of motion of a standing wave going round and round. But other people just won't listen. It's going to end in tears, and it will not be pretty.
There's no problem with charge conservation. The electron and the positron have opposite chiralities. See figure 2 on page 6 of the paper. You just reverse the direction of the arrowheads. Then the positron is a "time reversed electron". It isn't going back in time or anything ridiculous like that, the stress-energy just goes the other way.
Garbage. Einstein said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. How do you misread that? How on earth do you miss Einstein's reference to the electron as a body, and all the hard scientific evidence as per my post above? And then how do you fall for the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with magic cosmic treacle ?
