Is this another lie, or can you provide the references? In the past, you have only provided links to crank papers from non-peer reviewed sources. For example, you called this paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 , a paper by an ex-CERN physicist, but it is clearly not peer reviewed.
Huh? It predicts a decay rate of zero. Like the measured decay rate. And that says charge is conserved. I suppose the next nasty problem will be that "my model" doesn't predict the price of eggs.
No, in a physics competition.Mashuna said:
No. Nobody can. You demonstrate it with scientific evidence. Like the right-hand rule, pair production. At which point some deny the scientific evidence and take refuge in "the proper mathematics".Kwalish Kid said:
Intrinsic explains nothing. It totally fails to address pair production and magnetic dipole moment. How can any rational person be satisfied with intrinsic ? It is exactly equivalent to surpasseth all human understanding.ben_m said:
I'm really not the one exhibiting blind faith here.ben_m said:
That's the physics of billiard-ball point particles. There's another classical physics of waves that isn't.ben_m said:
Absolutely wrong. You're dismissing the evidence that challenges your faith in intrinsic spin. If you weren't, I'd be enjoying a sincere physics discussion instead of being shouted down and bored to death with statements like this:ben_m said:
I explained the electromagnetic field. Once you see the twist and turn, everything else is easy. That's if you sit down and think about it instead of treating your textbook like a bible and behaving like a mumin.ben_m said:
Sigh.Tubbythin said:
You can capture an electron, and have it sitting there in front of you. You can't do that with a photon. And you can't do that with a neutrino.Tubbythin said:
I'm not rejecting QED, I'm giving you the underlying meaning that's always been missing. That's what you're rejecting, along with the evidence of pair production, in favour of mysticism. What would you rather do, understand the twist/turn dualism of the electromagnetic field wherein action in space causes motion, or believe in parallel universes and time travel and things not existing until you look at them?Tubbythin said:
Yes, the wrong inference was drawn. It's like looking for a cannonball in the middle of a whirlpool, and when you probe down to a 10cm resolution and still can't find it, proclaiming that the cannonball must be smaller than that.TubbyThin said:
Tell Lorentz from me: it isn't a cannonball.TubbyThin said:
But if we look at any real physics paper or book, the evidence that the authors present is all about making measurements (using mathematics). You have never tried to provide any physics evidence. So I ask again, why do even you believe in your theory if you have nothing like evidence given your own standards?
Why is the decay rate zero? Your model has a photon in a bound state, so there is an amplitude per unit time that it will tunnel out of the state and become a free particle. No?
You refusal to define what you mean as "explain" so that I can answer the question you asked is noted.
The neutrino is stationary in its reference frame. This should be fairly obvious.
Yes you are. You might not know that you're rejecting it because you clearly know almost nothing about physics. But rest assured, there is absolutely no room in QED for electrons and protons to be made of photons.
I'm sorry, but you're the one rejecting the evidence of pair production. Remember?:
And remember the fact that this is not true since a 1022 keV photon will most likely Compton scatter.
Nice false dichotomy fallacy.
That may be true. But you also have not even the slightest idea what you're talking about.
For believing repeated, quantified experimental data over your salad of words, pretty pictures, ignorance, false dichotomies and insults?
Please show explicitly how every experiment that has ever measured the size of the electron is wrong.
Pardon.
Why bother with such pitiful opposition?
That's not true ben. I know my relativity. You might measure length contraction, but you're smart enough to know that measurements are affected by relative velocity, just as they're affected by distance. If you're in a very fast spaceship and you see a star looking flattened, you know it can't be flat from every angle of approach. And you know it doesn't flatten more when you speed up. Just as you're smart enough to know that this is not oval:ben_m said:
The math of special relativity is trivial. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_d...nce_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity for some arithmetic, though it isn't expressed as simply as it could be. Pythogoras' theorem applies because the hypotenuse is the light path with length of c=1 in natural units, and the base represents your speed as a fraction of c. Work out the height for a length contraction factor and take a reciprocal for a time dilation factor. The "space-time interval" is said to be invariant, but actually both space and time are defined using the motion of light. It all comes down to motion. I'll see about posting up Time Explained.ben_m said:
Now pay attention and listen: when you're observing a spaceship, and you move, you don't affect that spaceship one iota. Your measurements change. That's all.sol invictus said: