Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: wrote in message
: ...
: | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: | : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I don't
: have
: | : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big on
: | : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation for
: it
: | : that I have seen yet.
: |
: | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
: | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
: | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their trajectories
: | will intersect or not?

: Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
: "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
: equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact details
: are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining parameter
: right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and is
: all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for a
: "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
: estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
: "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare" electron
: and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to some
: extent.

: FrediFizzx

You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
Do these particles move?

Stephen

wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : wrote in message
| : ...
| : | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : | : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I
don't
| : have
| : | : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big
on
| : | : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation
for
| : it
| : | : that I have seen yet.
| : |
| : | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
| : | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
| : | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their
trajectories
| : | will intersect or not?
|
| : Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
| : "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
| : equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact
details
| : are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining
parameter
| : right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and
is
| : all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for
a
| : "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
| : estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
| : "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare"
electron
| : and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to
some
| : extent.
|
| : FrediFizzx
|
| You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
| have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
| Do these particles move?

What did you not understand about "quantum objects"? Does a quantum object
have an exact location anywhere at some defined interval? Now we might be
able to talk about "averages" or expectation values. There are over 100
million vacuum charge "cells" per hydrogen atom--for discussion purposes
call it an average of 150 million. You can get a rough estimate of
"distances" from that. If you have vacuum quantum objects that are
*defining* spacetime, what does that tell you? Everything is in relative
"motion" constantly. There is absolutely no way to stop it. The so-called
self-energy of matter quantum objects comes from the vacuum energy.

FrediFizzx

wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : wrote in message
| : ...
| : | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : | : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I
don't
| : have
| : | : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big
on
| : | : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation
for
| : it
| : | : that I have seen yet.
| : |
| : | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
| : | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
| : | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their
trajectories
| : | will intersect or not?
|
| : Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
| : "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
| : equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact
details
| : are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining
parameter
| : right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and
is
| : all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for
a
| : "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
| : estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
| : "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare"
electron
| : and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to
some
| : extent.
|
| : FrediFizzx
|
| You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
| have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
| Do these particles move?

What did you not understand about "quantum objects"? Does a quantum object
have an exact location anywhere at some defined interval? Now we might be
able to talk about "averages" or expectation values. There are over 100
million vacuum charge "cells" per hydrogen atom--for discussion purposes
call it an average of 150 million. You can get a rough estimate of
"distances" from that. If you have vacuum quantum objects that are
*defining* spacetime, what does that tell you? Everything is in relative
"motion" constantly. There is absolutely no way to stop it. The so-called
self-energy of matter quantum objects comes from the vacuum energy.

FrediFizzx

In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: wrote in message
: ...
: | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: | : wrote in message
: | : ...
: | : | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: | : | : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I
: don't
: | : have
: | : | : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big
: on
: | : | : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation
: for
: | : it
: | : | : that I have seen yet.
: | : |
: | : | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
: | : | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
: | : | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their
: trajectories
: | : | will intersect or not?
: |
: | : Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
: | : "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
: | : equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact
: details
: | : are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining
: parameter
: | : right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and
: is
: | : all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for
: a
: | : "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
: | : estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
: | : "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare"
: electron
: | : and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to
: some
: | : extent.
: |
: | : FrediFizzx
: |
: | You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
: | have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
: | Do these particles move?

: What did you not understand about "quantum objects"? Does a quantum object
: have an exact location anywhere at some defined interval? Now we might be
: able to talk about "averages" or expectation values. There are over 100
: million vacuum charge "cells" per hydrogen atom--for discussion purposes
: call it an average of 150 million. You can get a rough estimate of
: "distances" from that. If you have vacuum quantum objects that are
: *defining* spacetime, what does that tell you? Everything is in relative
: "motion" constantly. There is absolutely no way to stop it. The so-called
: self-energy of matter quantum objects comes from the vacuum energy.

: FrediFizzx

If your "quantum objects" have any sort of location, even an inexact
one, and the distances between these objects are at all relevant to
your calculations, then you are assuming some geometry. If you
are assuming a geometry in order to explain a different geometry you
really have not gained anything.

How do your quantum objects interact? Does it depend on the "distances"
between them. Do these "cells" have locations? How are the 150 million
"cells" per hydrogen atom related?

In order for them to define spacetime without first assuming some
other shape for spacetime you have to dispense with all notions of
location, distance and motion.

Stephen

In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: wrote in message
: ...
: | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: | : wrote in message
: | : ...
: | : | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
: | : | : Well, enough of this for now. I am lucky that he plonked me so I
: don't
: | : have
: | : | : to put up with him doing the same thing directly at me. He is big
: on
: | : | : spacetime geometry but has no fundamental *mechanical* explanation
: for
: | : it
: | : | : that I have seen yet.
: | : |
: | : | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
: | : | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined between
: | : | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their
: trajectories
: | : | will intersect or not?
: |
: | : Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
: | : "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
: | : equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact
: details
: | : are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining
: parameter
: | : right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units and
: is
: | : all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value for
: a
: | : "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a rough
: | : estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
: | : "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare"
: electron
: | : and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to
: some
: | : extent.
: |
: | : FrediFizzx
: |
: | You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
: | have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
: | Do these particles move?

: What did you not understand about "quantum objects"? Does a quantum object
: have an exact location anywhere at some defined interval? Now we might be
: able to talk about "averages" or expectation values. There are over 100
: million vacuum charge "cells" per hydrogen atom--for discussion purposes
: call it an average of 150 million. You can get a rough estimate of
: "distances" from that. If you have vacuum quantum objects that are
: *defining* spacetime, what does that tell you? Everything is in relative
: "motion" constantly. There is absolutely no way to stop it. The so-called
: self-energy of matter quantum objects comes from the vacuum energy.

: FrediFizzx

If your "quantum objects" have any sort of location, even an inexact
one, and the distances between these objects are at all relevant to
your calculations, then you are assuming some geometry. If you
are assuming a geometry in order to explain a different geometry you
really have not gained anything.

How do your quantum objects interact? Does it depend on the "distances"
between them. Do these "cells" have locations? How are the 150 million
"cells" per hydrogen atom related?

In order for them to define spacetime without first assuming some
other shape for spacetime you have to dispense with all notions of
location, distance and motion.

Stephen

wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : wrote in message
| : ...
| : | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : | : wrote in message
| : | : ...
[snip]
| : | : | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
| : | : | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined
between
| : | : | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their
| : trajectories
| : | : | will intersect or not?
| : |
| : | : Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
| : | : "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
| : | : equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact
| : details
| : | : are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining
| : parameter
| : | : right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units
and
| : is
| : | : all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value
for
| : a
| : | : "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a
rough
| : | : estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
| : | : "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare"
| : electron
| : | : and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to
| : some
| : | : extent.
| : |
| : | : FrediFizzx
| : |
| : | You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
| : | have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
| : | Do these particles move?
|
| : What did you not understand about "quantum objects"? Does a quantum
object
| : have an exact location anywhere at some defined interval? Now we might
be
| : able to talk about "averages" or expectation values. There are over 100
| : million vacuum charge "cells" per hydrogen atom--for discussion purposes
| : call it an average of 150 million. You can get a rough estimate of
| : "distances" from that. If you have vacuum quantum objects that are
| : *defining* spacetime, what does that tell you? Everything is in
relative
| : "motion" constantly. There is absolutely no way to stop it. The
so-called
| : self-energy of matter quantum objects comes from the vacuum energy.
|
| : FrediFizzx
|
| If your "quantum objects" have any sort of location, even an inexact
| one, and the distances between these objects are at all relevant to
| your calculations, then you are assuming some geometry. If you
| are assuming a geometry in order to explain a different geometry you
| really have not gained anything.

A contraire. The fundamental geometry configuration of the quantum vacuum
defined by quantum objects would explain much more than just some "emergent"
geometry. Don't you think?

| How do your quantum objects interact?

Pretty much just like the standard model properly applied to the quantum
vacuum.

| Does it depend on the "distances"
| between them. Do these "cells" have locations? How are the 150 million
| "cells" per hydrogen atom related?

Your questions are not making sense. Why would there by any distance
*between* them? It is a system of *coupled* oscillators all linked
together. Maybe that will help you get a picture in your mind. You asked
about distances. Take the volume of a hydrogen atom and divide by 150
million. This will give you an rough volume for a vacuum charge cell. What
goes on in the cell and how the cells are "linked" should be able to be
defined by quantum theory. If I had the exact solution, I wouldn't be here.
For a clue, see Alfred Einstead's post in "Weak Interactions" on sci.physic.

| In order for them to define spacetime without first assuming some
| other shape for spacetime you have to dispense with all notions of
| location, distance and motion.

Sort of but not exactly. We do have clues and can make some assumptions
based on the clues.

FrediFizzx

wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : wrote in message
| : ...
| : | In sci.physics.relativity FrediFizzx wrote:
| : | : wrote in message
| : | : ...
[snip]
| : | : | What is the mechanical explanation for your geometry? Are their
| : | : | objects that have locations, and are their distances defined
between
| : | : | objects? If two objects are moving, what determines if their
| : trajectories
| : | : | will intersect or not?
| : |
| : | : Vacuum quantum objects. Or, I suppose, in the old terminology,
| : | : "ultra-mundane particles". It is like ordered chaos. They form an
| : | : equilibrium state that you could liken to a supersolid. The exact
| : details
| : | : are still being worked on but I will tell you the main determining
| : parameter
| : | : right now is vacuum fermionic charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units
and
| : is
| : | : all bound charge throughout the entire Universe. This is the value
for
| : a
| : | : "cell". There are over 100 million cells per hydrogen atom by a
rough
| : | : estimate. It is the quantum vacuum equilibrium that determines what
| : | : "particles" can be what. There is no difference between a "bare"
| : electron
| : | : and a "bare" quark. All fermions are a mix of all other fermions to
| : some
| : | : extent.
| : |
| : | : FrediFizzx
| : |
| : | You did not answer the question. Do these "ultra-mundane particles"
| : | have locations, and are there distances between these particles?
| : | Do these particles move?
|
| : What did you not understand about "quantum objects"? Does a quantum
object
| : have an exact location anywhere at some defined interval? Now we might
be
| : able to talk about "averages" or expectation values. There are over 100
| : million vacuum charge "cells" per hydrogen atom--for discussion purposes
| : call it an average of 150 million. You can get a rough estimate of
| : "distances" from that. If you have vacuum quantum objects that are
| : *defining* spacetime, what does that tell you? Everything is in
relative
| : "motion" constantly. There is absolutely no way to stop it. The
so-called
| : self-energy of matter quantum objects comes from the vacuum energy.
|
| : FrediFizzx
|
| If your "quantum objects" have any sort of location, even an inexact
| one, and the distances between these objects are at all relevant to
| your calculations, then you are assuming some geometry. If you
| are assuming a geometry in order to explain a different geometry you
| really have not gained anything.

A contraire. The fundamental geometry configuration of the quantum vacuum
defined by quantum objects would explain much more than just some "emergent"
geometry. Don't you think?

| How do your quantum objects interact?

Pretty much just like the standard model properly applied to the quantum
vacuum.

| Does it depend on the "distances"
| between them. Do these "cells" have locations? How are the 150 million
| "cells" per hydrogen atom related?

Your questions are not making sense. Why would there by any distance
*between* them? It is a system of *coupled* oscillators all linked
together. Maybe that will help you get a picture in your mind. You asked
about distances. Take the volume of a hydrogen atom and divide by 150
million. This will give you an rough volume for a vacuum charge cell. What
goes on in the cell and how the cells are "linked" should be able to be
defined by quantum theory. If I had the exact solution, I wouldn't be here.
For a clue, see Alfred Einstead's post in "Weak Interactions" on sci.physic.

| In order for them to define spacetime without first assuming some
| other shape for spacetime you have to dispense with all notions of
| location, distance and motion.

Sort of but not exactly. We do have clues and can make some assumptions
based on the clues.

FrediFizzx

Paul Stowe:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:03:04 -0000, :
wrote:

That's self-serving bull****. The reason I think your entire concept
of nature is ridiculous is precisely because I understand a lot more
of the overall framework than you seem to think exists.

You ARE entitled to your opinion & views.

And I think I just expressed those views.

If you insist upon talking to others you are NOT entitled to act as
if you never heard a word they say.

Why not? You do.

That's rude a.k.a. being an ass, thus don't be surprised if they
say so by calling you such.

I'm not surprised. I assume that will be exactly what is substituted
for a request to support unsupportable assertions.

You have NO idea what I think no more than I what you think from JUST
the posting made in these newsgroups. This forum and medium does NOT
lend itself to highly complicated discussions.

I'll bear that in mind if you post something that might require
a highly complicated discussion. So far, ``highly simplistic'' seem
to much to ask for.

Your completely naive and superficial view of a physical process is
the problem.

A problem that has lead to some unique emperical equations. Even if
I'm totally 'out to lunch' as Feynman once said, those equations still
stand.

So do the claims of yuri geller as far as yuri geller is concerned.

To the best I can determine, you really have no idea what the strong
and weak interaction are ...

Good, enlighten little'ole me!

I really don't think that's possible.

Take it from the top, baby steps, and describe in detail WHAT those
processes are that give rise to the weak & strong interaction.

Start with electromagnetism. Explain what you don't understand in,
Message-id: . I'm
guessing all of it. Since I'll expect you to agree to each step in
the derivation prior to going to the next step, I expect I'll have to
begin with classical mechanics, circa 1800, so this will take the
better part of the next quarter century. If you don't understand
what is in that message-id, how about hamilton's principle and
variational calculus? The sooner I can get through the poisson bracket
formulation of classical mechanics and into the 20th century, the
sooner I wrap up qed and get to the strong and weak interaction.
Of course, if you're already certain that poisson brackets are just
nathematical abstractions, I'll leave to your hypocrisy in using plus
and minus operations as if those weren't abstractions.

You can quantify this with equations but be sure to explain the
processes!

That isn't a problem except when trying to explain it to someone who
only has the world view of a naive 12 year old. It's not a problem for
anyone willing to accept the fact that the universe might look different
at the atomic scale than it does in everyday life. You seem to assume that
equations you don't understand are abstractions while treating addition
and subtraction as physically meaningful. I can't enlighten a hypocrite.

I've said several time that I don't HAVE a model of matter yet. Example,

So what?

Yet you keep harping... One OF the main reasons I post is to get others
thinking. Science is suppose to be a cooperative effort. You'd never
know that lurking around here!

Then cooperate by learning enough physics to figure out what there is
to explain. So far, you seem to lack any perspective on what physics
was discovered in the last hundred years and don't have any idea what
there is _to_ explain.

... or that it might be necessary to explain them. Don't kid yourself
about having some profound understanding of some deep concept. You
don't. So far, it hasn't been possible to explain the more superficial
ones like what a neutrino is and what it has to do with anything.

WHAT IS a neutrino Bilge?

It's a fundamental particle which is similar to an electron, except
without charge.

Why are there more than one type?

As I said, you don't even know that much. Of course there is more than
one type. Each charged lepton has a neutrino that corresponds to it.
That makes three types, an electron neutrino, a muon neutrino and a
tau neutrino.

How is it that they can change flavors? Please, again, explain the
underlying process(es) that cause this! You arrogant sanctimonious
twit, show your stuff!!!

The same way that any quantum mechanical superposition occurs.
The neutrinos that correspond to states with well-defined masses
are superpositions of the neutrinos I just listed and vice-versa.
If you refuse to accept the fact that particles can be superposed,
then there is nothing I can do for you. It's a fact that is seen
experimentally all the time in every quantum system.

The difference between a ``concept person'' and a physicist, is that
a physicist is a ``concept person'' who applies concepts to physical
things to explain them. If you just want to have ``concepts'', get a
job writing for star trek.

Bilge...

You have a better shot at writing for star trek than doing physics.

[...]
Probably a zillion. However, the number of times you've actually
shown you can do that by using for something that could reproduce an
experimental number is zero. You can tell me a zillion more times
and your ``vortex lattice'' would still means the same thing as
``tooth fairy''.

Nuff said!

That's what I thought, but so far you haven't figured it out.
[...]
Excuse me if I consider the theory of the ``hard spheres'' themselves
to be the only theory which is relevant and that is what you seem to
think is satisfactory as an assumption. Anyone can make up a theory
by starting with some imaginary entity that acts as nothing but a
container for empirically determined properites.

If those emerically determined properties match the properties required
by the physical process model what's the problem?

So long as you aren't interested in trying to promote the idea
as relevant to physics, nothing. In fact, the existing physical
theories are already much more fundamental than that. You simply
aren't aiming to solve anything that wasn't solved long ago with
much more physical theories.

[...]
Oh. Did I say that? If so, then what I should have said was you're
explanation at least doubled the number of free parameters you have
available to describe the single parameter relevant to E&M. You should
be able to find a fit.

BTW, what's the difference between PSIG & PSIA? Isn't it that PSIG used
the Earth's atmoshpere as itsseline? The same is quite true for
so-called free space. We set our baseline to it. That does NOT remove
the properties, just allows use to normalize them to that equalibrium
state just like PSIG.

Yet another inappropriate analogy.
[...]

Which makes it all the more odd that you seem to lack any basic
understanding of nuclear processes.

Oh, I got by & scored high on exams. But the "shut up & calculate"
mentality NEVER satisfied me.

Then you should have studied more, since all it takes to get by and
score high on exams is to shut up and calculate. I referred to those
type of students as point grinders.

[...]
It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

Of course not. All that is required to be original is,

adjective: being or productive of something fresh and unusual;
or being as first made or thought of
(Example: "A truly original approach")

Which of course mean that one must show that they are the first to think
of it. Like, for example, in the SI system,
_______
/ --
1 / / z
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3u

where q = Elemental Charge
h = Planck's Constant
z = Premitivitty
u = Permeability
m = electron's mass

(and because I don't use those stupid back-slashes) pi = 3.1415926...

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession.

No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

[...]
Well you might think I'm full of **** but I do get rather unique expressions
from that **** that DO match observation. Don't think so, do the math and
tell us the value of the above!

Now show me some of your unique physical expressions...

Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Paul Stowe:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:03:04 -0000, :
wrote:

That's self-serving bull****. The reason I think your entire concept
of nature is ridiculous is precisely because I understand a lot more
of the overall framework than you seem to think exists.

You ARE entitled to your opinion & views.

And I think I just expressed those views.

If you insist upon talking to others you are NOT entitled to act as
if you never heard a word they say.

Why not? You do.

That's rude a.k.a. being an ass, thus don't be surprised if they
say so by calling you such.

I'm not surprised. I assume that will be exactly what is substituted
for a request to support unsupportable assertions.

You have NO idea what I think no more than I what you think from JUST
the posting made in these newsgroups. This forum and medium does NOT
lend itself to highly complicated discussions.

I'll bear that in mind if you post something that might require
a highly complicated discussion. So far, ``highly simplistic'' seem
to much to ask for.

Your completely naive and superficial view of a physical process is
the problem.

A problem that has lead to some unique emperical equations. Even if
I'm totally 'out to lunch' as Feynman once said, those equations still
stand.

So do the claims of yuri geller as far as yuri geller is concerned.

To the best I can determine, you really have no idea what the strong
and weak interaction are ...

Good, enlighten little'ole me!

I really don't think that's possible.

Take it from the top, baby steps, and describe in detail WHAT those
processes are that give rise to the weak & strong interaction.

Start with electromagnetism. Explain what you don't understand in,
Message-id: . I'm
guessing all of it. Since I'll expect you to agree to each step in
the derivation prior to going to the next step, I expect I'll have to
begin with classical mechanics, circa 1800, so this will take the
better part of the next quarter century. If you don't understand
what is in that message-id, how about hamilton's principle and
variational calculus? The sooner I can get through the poisson bracket
formulation of classical mechanics and into the 20th century, the
sooner I wrap up qed and get to the strong and weak interaction.
Of course, if you're already certain that poisson brackets are just
nathematical abstractions, I'll leave to your hypocrisy in using plus
and minus operations as if those weren't abstractions.

You can quantify this with equations but be sure to explain the
processes!

That isn't a problem except when trying to explain it to someone who
only has the world view of a naive 12 year old. It's not a problem for
anyone willing to accept the fact that the universe might look different
at the atomic scale than it does in everyday life. You seem to assume that
equations you don't understand are abstractions while treating addition
and subtraction as physically meaningful. I can't enlighten a hypocrite.

I've said several time that I don't HAVE a model of matter yet. Example,

So what?

Yet you keep harping... One OF the main reasons I post is to get others
thinking. Science is suppose to be a cooperative effort. You'd never
know that lurking around here!

Then cooperate by learning enough physics to figure out what there is
to explain. So far, you seem to lack any perspective on what physics
was discovered in the last hundred years and don't have any idea what
there is _to_ explain.

... or that it might be necessary to explain them. Don't kid yourself
about having some profound understanding of some deep concept. You
don't. So far, it hasn't been possible to explain the more superficial
ones like what a neutrino is and what it has to do with anything.

WHAT IS a neutrino Bilge?

It's a fundamental particle which is similar to an electron, except
without charge.

Why are there more than one type?

As I said, you don't even know that much. Of course there is more than
one type. Each charged lepton has a neutrino that corresponds to it.
That makes three types, an electron neutrino, a muon neutrino and a
tau neutrino.

How is it that they can change flavors? Please, again, explain the
underlying process(es) that cause this! You arrogant sanctimonious
twit, show your stuff!!!

The same way that any quantum mechanical superposition occurs.
The neutrinos that correspond to states with well-defined masses
are superpositions of the neutrinos I just listed and vice-versa.
If you refuse to accept the fact that particles can be superposed,
then there is nothing I can do for you. It's a fact that is seen
experimentally all the time in every quantum system.

The difference between a ``concept person'' and a physicist, is that
a physicist is a ``concept person'' who applies concepts to physical
things to explain them. If you just want to have ``concepts'', get a
job writing for star trek.

Bilge...

You have a better shot at writing for star trek than doing physics.

[...]
Probably a zillion. However, the number of times you've actually
shown you can do that by using for something that could reproduce an
experimental number is zero. You can tell me a zillion more times
and your ``vortex lattice'' would still means the same thing as
``tooth fairy''.

Nuff said!

That's what I thought, but so far you haven't figured it out.
[...]
Excuse me if I consider the theory of the ``hard spheres'' themselves
to be the only theory which is relevant and that is what you seem to
think is satisfactory as an assumption. Anyone can make up a theory
by starting with some imaginary entity that acts as nothing but a
container for empirically determined properites.

If those emerically determined properties match the properties required
by the physical process model what's the problem?

So long as you aren't interested in trying to promote the idea
as relevant to physics, nothing. In fact, the existing physical
theories are already much more fundamental than that. You simply
aren't aiming to solve anything that wasn't solved long ago with
much more physical theories.

[...]
Oh. Did I say that? If so, then what I should have said was you're
explanation at least doubled the number of free parameters you have
available to describe the single parameter relevant to E&M. You should
be able to find a fit.

BTW, what's the difference between PSIG & PSIA? Isn't it that PSIG used
the Earth's atmoshpere as itsseline? The same is quite true for
so-called free space. We set our baseline to it. That does NOT remove
the properties, just allows use to normalize them to that equalibrium
state just like PSIG.

Yet another inappropriate analogy.
[...]

Which makes it all the more odd that you seem to lack any basic
understanding of nuclear processes.

Oh, I got by & scored high on exams. But the "shut up & calculate"
mentality NEVER satisfied me.

Then you should have studied more, since all it takes to get by and
score high on exams is to shut up and calculate. I referred to those
type of students as point grinders.

[...]
It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

Of course not. All that is required to be original is,

adjective: being or productive of something fresh and unusual;
or being as first made or thought of
(Example: "A truly original approach")

Which of course mean that one must show that they are the first to think
of it. Like, for example, in the SI system,
_______
/ --
1 / / z
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3u

where q = Elemental Charge
h = Planck's Constant
z = Premitivitty
u = Permeability
m = electron's mass

(and because I don't use those stupid back-slashes) pi = 3.1415926...

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession.

No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

[...]
Well you might think I'm full of **** but I do get rather unique expressions
from that **** that DO match observation. Don't think so, do the math and
tell us the value of the above!

Now show me some of your unique physical expressions...

Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:45:30 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

{Big snippo...]

It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

Of course not. All that is required to be original is,

adjective: being or productive of something fresh and unusual;
or being as first made or thought of
(Example: "A truly original approach")

Which of course mean that one must show that they are the first to think
of it. Like, for example, in the SI system,
_______
/ --
1 / / z
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3u

where q = Elemental Charge
h = Planck's Constant
z = Premitivitty
u = Permeability
m = electron's mass

(and because I don't use those stupid back-slashes) pi = 3.1415926...

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

Give the definition and connection of dimensionful expression to numerology...
Then go for it, show us a dimensionful expression that matches WITHOUT using
an arbitrary dimensionless number 'to make it fit'. I'll be waiting to see
your 'originality'.

this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession. Thus we don't need it,
we simply use,

_______
/ --
1 / 3 / z
------ / h / --
m8pi^2 \/ \/ 3u

To define the electron's magnetic moment!



this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession.

No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

Yes, it is. Go back a show references where you say anything but superficial
BILGE on this!

[...]

Well you might think I'm full of **** but I do get rather unique expressions
from that **** that DO match observation. Don't think so, do the math and
tell us the value of the above!

Now show me some of your unique physical expressions...

Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Make'em up WITHOUT arbitrary fudge factors. Show your stuff...

Paul Stowe