uncool

You snipped the part of my post where I challenged you to find the clip. I think you are mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what Polkinghorne said. You have mischaracterized sufficiently many times that I am not going to simply take what you say on faith; when you say there is a clip, I expect you to find the clip. Do you want me to explain exactly what I wrote? It is not incomprehensible; I just chose to use the exact version of the statement, rather than statements like crappy pop-sci from which you seem to have learned about relativity and quantum mechanics. Basically, I am saying that there are points in spacetime where a ray of light starting at that point would arrive on Earth after the death, but similarly that a ray of light starting on Earth at the moment of death would not reach the point in spacetime, even if you allow reflections. That implies that there is no way to say definitively which one is "after" the other, which is the closest I can get to making your version of Polkinghorne's supposed statement true. Now, if you are going to continue making assertions based on Polkinghorne, I expect you to find the clip so that we can all evaluate it on its merits, not on your probable misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. =Uncool-

As demonstrated...nowhere, except in your imagination. Well-known to whom? I certainly had not heard of him before, and I do have a good amount of knowledge of the area. At most, he's well-known within England. Somehow, I doubt that. First, because "all times co-exist" is an absurdly ambiguous statement; second, because "was still alive somewhere in spacetime" is literally nonsense. A technically true way to say it is that the is some point in spacetime which is neither in our causal future nor our causal past (i.e. it is not within our light-cone) such that his death is neither in its causal future nor its causal past. Can you find this clip? Because I have the feeling that either the clip doesn't exist or you've seriously misrepresented what it says. Your prejudices are showing. It is also human instinct to rebel. To believe that you are the only one who sees that everyone else is wrong. And that, too, is a religious instinct. You have yet to demonstrate a religious instinct within physics - everything is subject to confirmation by quantifiable experiment. However, you have definitely demonstrated "religious aspects" in your own posts. =Uncool-

Is a "-pause" a boundary or a boundary layer? For example, is the magetopause the boundary between where the Earth's magnetic field dominates and where the solar influence dominates, or is it the boundary layer between the two? Similarly, is the heliopause a boundary or a boundary layer (i.e. does it have thickness)? =Uncool-

This is a statement in general. Because there is none. No, it's not saying that they're always independent. It's saying that x' is a function of x, y, z, and t - and that if we set x' = x - vt, then x', y, and z are independent of time. There is no trickery. =Uncool-

Try again. I wrote that. Err. No. This is exactly what Einstein said: "To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place and time of an event in the stationary system, there belongs a system of values [MATH]\xi, \eta, \zeta, \tau[/MATH], determining that event relatively to the system k, and our task is now to find the system of equations connecting these quantities." He's saying that [LATEX]\xi, \eta, \zeta, \tau[/LATEX] are functions of x, y, z, and t. And even if he hadn't said it explicitly, it's obvious. =Uncool-

No, but your job is to explain exactly how what we are saying is wrong. Which you have yet to do. D H has explicitly derived the equation which you say has no origin. Either his derivation is correct, or you should be able to point out the first spot where it is incorrect. =Uncool-

I have. I have also read the original paper from Einstein; I assure you that you haven't found an error in it. x' is a variable. Specifically, Einstein is saying that there is a function x'(x, y, z, t), and it turns out that you can determine x, y, z, and t from x'(x, y, z, t), y, z, and t - so as tau is a function of x, y, z, and t, tau can be determined from x', y, z, and t. The second comment wasn't mine; it was a response to mine. Now do you agree that the equation has been sufficiently demonstrated by D H's post? If not, then where in his post is the firs thing wrong? =Uncool-

Now wait a second. We have responded in detail to the "first trickery". You haven't answered the response. Stay on this topic for now. Do you agree that it has been demonstrated that the equation that you have called "the equation of trickery" has been adequately demonstrated, given the assumptions that had been named beforehand? If not, then what is wrong with D H's demonstration? If so, do you plan on making sure that this is corrected? =Uncool-

Because the equation is about what happens when p is 0. E = m c^2 is the equation that relates rest mass with rest energy. =Uncool-

0.000...1 doesn't exist in the real numbers. It simply doesn't make sense. =Uncool-

You haven't attached a document. Also, you can use latex like so: [math]E = mc^2[/math] =Uncool-

As it turns out, it isn't. The entire field of Riemannian geometry exists effectively to answer your question. Curvature can be defined entirely by what happens in an arbitrarily small area of a point - there is no minimum distance. =Uncool-

Actually, it does. You specifically claim that protons are collections of electrons, which would mean that QED would fully describe their behavior. Further, your statement definitely does not say that point. Your statement was "As far as I can see QED simply works on the basis that a proton is heavier than an electron but has an equal opposite charge." That implies that QED does predict how protons work. And it can be readily falsified, if you allow for accelerators; if the omega baryon didn't show up, the theory would be falsified. And how would you decide you'd found that? Then you don't know what atomic theory states, either. The specific prediction that demonstrated atomic theory - specifically, the Rutherford model of the atom - was that some very few alpha particles scattered off of a thin gold sheet would be deflected at large angles while most would pass through at the same angle. The few would be the ones that scattered off of the nucleus; the smaller the nucleus, the fewer, but also the wider the angle. You're just a tad outdated; atoms have been found up to ununoctium (118). That depends on how it changes. If you change it so that it has a specific, statistically testable prediction, possibly; if you manage to demonstrate how it explains all of the experiments which QFT explains, as well as the above, then it certainly would be considered. However, you have managed to do neither after having been told this multiple times. =Uncool-

The experiment is done by scattering accelerated electrons off of an area filled with hydrogen; the hydrogen atoms are moving at relativistically low speeds, while the electrons are moving at relativistically high speeds. The math I'm referring to is the math for a collision between an electron and a proton, assuming that the proton does not "break up" in any way, which is what you were groping around in the dark for. No, that is not the argument, and you are mischaracterizing the context of the statement. You specifically said that the Standard Model leads to no conclusions; I showed you one conclusion that the Standard Model leads to. Why do you persist in this lie when it has been pointed out multiple times that they are quite readily falsifiable? People here have repeatedly shown you multiple possible falsifications for quark theory. I am partial to the prediction of the omega baryon two years before it was demonstrated; Bignose is partial to Breidenbach. No, they really don't. There are plenty of experiments involving quarks, several of which have been pointed out to you already, with which the theory has to agree. I have trouble understanding some of it because I am heavily on the theoretical side, while this is heavily on the experimental side. I am having more trouble getting you to actually say anything meaningful. Newts, stop starting from your assumption that quark theory is unfalsifiable. Yes, it's an assumption, not something you came to after reasoned argument; you never even knew that quark theory had backing experiments in the first place, and had never even heard of the Eightfold Way or of Breidenbach before this discussion. You've been shown several predictions that quark theory does make, and you have yet to manage to demonstrate anything wrong with it. To continue stating that when you've been shown otherwise is completely and utterly dishonest. =Uncool-

Just as it can be without assuming it to be right. You don't get to say that the scientific community should assume it's right until you manage to demonstrate that there is good reason to do so. Guess what quark theory has done. Guess what you will probably never do if you keep this mindset. Wrong. First, the Standard Model is actually surprisingly neat and simple compared to how I'd expect the model to go. There are all sorts of complex interactions in our world. The fact that we can simplify all of it - the universe, nebulae, galaxies, solar systems, planets, continents, polymers, molecules, atoms, and all the subatomic particles down to a total of 20 or so fields is nothing short of absolutely amazing. Second, the Standard Model leads to other conclusions, namely that particles interact in very specific calculable ways. This is what gave us the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron - remember that? Yeah, that was from QED, which is a huge part of the Standard Model. Instead of repeating whatever nonsense they may have come up with without any experimental confirmation? I can at least tell you the exact reasons why I think quarks/etc. specifically are experimentally validated and the exact predictions that quarks make. You cannot. You are the one repeating nonsense. Which of course explains why you accept quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics. Oh wait. No, that's not how that works. The experimenters placed detectors at 6 and 10 degrees. See above. The fact that the above says literally nothing about the final direction for the electron speaks magnitudes about your ignorance in the field. If you want, I could do the entire mathematics for this in my next post. It's not even difficult mathematics. In fact, it all involves only two concepts: conservation of energy-momentum and E = mc^2 (or more technically, E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2). They reached two definite conclusions: one, that the "vector dominance model" is wrong, and two, that the other two models left over (one of which is the quark model) can be distinguished by another experiment using a neutron instead of a proton. Err. False. You are trying to model particle physics. You are trying to determine how particles interact. Those interactions will by definition be dynamical, and they will by definition include electrical interaction. That inherently involves electrodynamics. =Uncool-

I apologize; having lived at universities for the past 5 years (4 years undergrad, almost a year grad), I've gotten used to having free access to most journals. The first paper describes the actual data from the scatterings; what happens is that electrons are scattered off of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom; measurements are made at 2 angles, 4 energies at 6 degrees and 5 energies at 10 degrees. The second paper describes the basic form of scattering from the proton as coefficients called "form factors"; form factors can be determined by scattering experiments or calculated directly from theories. One of the most famous examples of form factors was the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, which deals with the second of four form factors for an electron in an electric field; QED calculated the form factor to 11 decimal places, while experiments were able to determine it to 12. They agreed on the 11 common decimal places. The paper then puts limits on the form factors simply based on limiting cases. Finally, it discusses the predictions of three different models. The first model it discusses is a generalized parton model, in which a proton is made up of multiple pointlike objects. The second I do not understand off the top of my head, but it is stated "Another approach relates the inelastic scattering to off-the-mass-shell Compton scattering which is described in terms of Regge exchange using the Pomeranchuk trajectory." The final model is "a vector -dominance model which primarily utilizes the p meson." It first notes that the final model conflicts with the data in the report. It then notes that of the parton models, the 3-parton model (the quark model) is the most accurate of the parton models; finally, it notes that neutrons also have relevant form factors, and that the two models discussed above have different predictions for the ratios of form factors of protons and neutrons. I assume that a later paper is the one that specifically distinguishes between the two theories by measuring the neutron form factors. Yes, the use of form factors does assume a use of QFT. However, Breidenbach was not a test of QFT; it was a test of QCD. QFT had already been tested and proven with QED calculations, including the aforementioned anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Note that the entire above explanation is a simplification, and that there are several parts of the paper that I do not understand; as such, take the above with a grain of salt, especially should someone more experienced in the field state something about it. Bignose, would you mind trying? Newts, are you even going to attempt to address any of the rest of my post? Once again, are you saying that your entire theory is based on electrostatics without any consideration of electrodynamics? Further, what precisely do you think is so difficult about electrodynamics? =Uncool-

Actually, electrodynamics is one of the simplest and most aesthetically pleasing aspects of relativity. The fact is that all of electrodynamics can be boiled down to a single statement, which oddly enough corresponds exactly with a statement in mechanics: The action is locally minimized, where the action is [LATEX]\int \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} + J_\mu A^\mu[/LATEX] where [LATEX]F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu[/LATEX] , [LATEX]J_\mu[/LATEX] is the 4-current, and [LATEX]A_\mu[/LATEX] is the 4-potential. Further, are you saying that your entire theory is based on electrostatics without any consideration of electrodynamics? No, they haven't. You've been linked directly to the two relevant articles and told to go read for yourself. http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v23/i16/p930_1 http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v23/i16/p935_1 A relevant quote from page 930:

As I said, it's not isolating a quark - it's determining that the quark is there by how objects bounce off of it. The quarks are still sufficiently close together to not have enough energy to make another quark. It is possible to determine that the quark is there without isolating it by noticing that a stream of particles scatter off of the baryons in certain patterns. =Uncool-

You do it by scattering things off of the baryon; the way in which charged objects scatter can determine the internal structure of the baryon. It's similar to how the nucleus was discovered - although they never actually separated the nucleus from the electrons, they were able to determine that there was a nucleus by scattering charges off of the atom and noting that only in a very small percentage of cases were they repelled. The quark is never isolated - it's still very close to the other quarks - but it's far enough away to be noticed. =Uncool-

No, it shouldn't, and your claim that it should is the exact problem with claiming that your idea is science. No idea is "assumed to be right" until it is tested to its limits by experiment. Not just that, but that your theory doesn't even address those experiments in the first place. Err. Briedenbach. We've linked you to it many times. You have yet to even talk about it. I have yet to see evidence that you have any free will to change your opinion. On the other hand, I have seen multiple times where people have given you the ability to change their opinion by showing how your theory agrees more closely with experiment than quark theory does; you have failed to do so. Do not confuse your inability to convince people with their inability to be convinced. First, no, it shouldn't. Non-isolatable does not mean non-detectable, as you have been repeatedly told and shown. 3 point-like bodies, remember? Prima facie evidence that they do not exist is evidence that the theory behind them is wrong - in other words, experiments contradicting the theory. Guess what don't exist? Second, there's a reason "prima facie" is not the same as "conclusive". Do not confuse your inability to meaningfully challenge existing ideas with an inability of scientists to do the same. There are plenty of challenges to existing ideas; the reason they are taken seriously while your idea isn't is that they clearly understand the current theories and explain why they are so accurate, while your theory has offered nothing to explain experiments. Err. The quark version of the diagram of a proton is ridiculously trivial: two up quarks and a down quark. Hell, wikipedia has a picture of it on its front page. Yes, explaining the full theory is quite a bit harder, but that's not a reason to abandon a theory at all. =Uncool-

It exists and was predicted - this is the first time it's been experimentally found (via analysis of decay products). =Uncool-

Since it's relevant to this thread: another one of the baryons has been found: the neutral xi star (beauty, strange, and down, if I'm not mistaken). http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3926 =Uncool-

This is exactly what newts is rejecting with his idea. =Uncool-

Err. That is quite false. You've misread the thread. The problem is not just that newts is proposing an idea (note: not a theory) that (so far as I have seen so far) has no proposed statistical test even in the future, but that newt's idea is attempting to replace a theory that has already done so with enormous amounts of confirming evidence. Accepting his idea would require removing the explanation for many, many experiments and replace it with literally nothing, as newts has not been able to explain a single experiment in terms of his theory. First, it is not consistent with other theories. Second, where is the "solid maths"? Personally, I find it a good thing that you don't have a vote on this; newts does not appear to understand the scientific process, has lied and has derided people who are doing the exact thing that you are talking about in this thread. =Uncool-