Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 140

Thread: Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us. (second edition, with a few corrections)

  1. #1 Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us. (second edition, with a few corrections) 
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    John, you gave me the permission to open a new thread, but I wasn't sure that I could put it in a scientific forum, so I chose the alternative ideas' forum.... Please feel free to upgrade it anytime! What??... No.... Trash is not an upgrade John!

    Thanks to you anyway, and thanks to Robbitybob too for his concern about my idea, and to continue his excellent work, here is wiki on the Mössbauer effect:

    "Mössbauer proposed that, for the case of atoms bound into a solid, under certain circumstances a fraction of the nuclear events could occur essentially without recoil. He attributed the observed resonance to this recoil-free fraction of nuclear events."

    I don't know the physical mechanism for the recoils from gamma rays, but if a mediator that is not supposed to carry any mass can have such an effect on the motion of atoms, why two linked atoms could not use it to move the way I suggest? In the small steps, the recoil is made to absorb the doppler effect. If the light pulses are lengthened by the doppler effect from the steps, the recoil is made in the direction of the incident pulse, if they are shortened, the recoil is made in the opposite direction of the incident pulse. A certain form of doppler effect causes noise in the Mössbauer experiment, but it is due to the atoms vibrating randomly in the lattice. Could Mössbauer recoil be due to a small difference in the frequency of the light compared to that of the atoms' potential steps??

    If we were to observe the small steps in such a lattice, we would see all the atoms move at the same time, at the same frequency, in the same direction, making steps of the same length. But since they would be supposed to execute their steps to justify simultaneously all their motions in the universe at a time, in what direction and at what length could we expect a particular step to be made? Could we for instance observe the rotation motion of the earth while observing them at a distance or while touching the steps? Wouldn't we be in the situation of the Michelson/Morley experiment if we tried to observe them at a distance, and how could we detect the steps in the lattice while touching it with a structure made of atoms that are already making exactly the same small steps?

    Well, Blaghory and John will say, if there is no way to experiment, then, this idea is no use and will not simplify the interpretation of the observations.

    If the small steps exist, it means that their frequency is responsible for some of the frequencies that we observe when we accelerate or excite the atoms, so it means that their study could on the contrary help us to better understand what we observe in this case. If they exist, it means that all the motions that we observe depend on them, not only inertial motion, but also gravitational motion for instance, the one on which depends cosmic doppler effect, dark matter and dark energy, three observations that still wait for a better explanation, and that depends on doppler effect for their measure. Would it simplify these interpretations if, as for the small steps of inertial motion, this kind of doppler effect was not only an effect, but also a cause of the gravitational motion?

    We have a problem to link Quantum theory to Relativity, but if the small steps could explain both inertial motion and gravitational motion, it would necessarily help us to link those two theories, and it would thus be useful to the scientists of both camps. If I was 20, I would most probably not be here trying to convince you, I would study physics and maths and try to experiment to prove my point, but we live in a wonderful period where we can exchange our ideas on internet, lets proceed and try to extirpate some substance out of the process.


    Last edited by Le Repteux; September 26th, 2014 at 04:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    lets proceed and try to extirpate some substance out of the process.
    yep, "extirpate" .

    In the small steps, the recoil is made to absorb the doppler effect. If the light pulses are lengthened by the doppler effect from the steps, the recoil is made in the direction of the incident pulse, if they are shortened, the recoil is made in the opposite direction of the incident pulse.
    ...exactly backwards from the way the Doppler effect actually works, good job


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    This a question for the moderators:

    I have been suspended by John for having posted that OP here, but the reason is not clear, and for the moment, he does not answer my private messages. Here is what he told me to do after having closed my topic. What do I do from now? Wait till he answers or continue posting here?
    Last edited by Le Repteux; October 3rd, 2014 at 02:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    This a question for the moderators:

    I have been suspended by John for having posted that OP here, but the reason is not clear, and for the moment, he does not answer my private messages. Here is what he told me to do after having closed my topic. What do I do from now? Wait till he answers or continue posting here?
    I read that as an invitation to start again as you have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    This a question for the moderators:

    I have been suspended by John for having posted that OP here, but the reason is not clear, and for the moment, he does not answer my private messages. Here is what he told me to do after having closed my topic. What do I do from now? Wait till he answers or continue posting here?
    I read that as an invitation to start again as you have.
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    This a question for the moderators:

    I have been suspended by John for having posted that OP here, but the reason is not clear, and for the moment, he does not answer my private messages. Here is what he told me to do after having closed my topic. What do I do from now? Wait till he answers or continue posting here?
    I read that as an invitation to start again as you have.
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    That was a comment not a warning, so it isn't law as such. A problem (an idea) certainly can be discussed before an experiment is run.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Le Repteux:

    1. You said "John, you gave me the permission to open a new thread." No I didn't. I gave you permission if you followed Blaghory's advice. (But see point 5.)

    2. The advice given by Blaghory is very clear to me. Here is what he said: "I'm sorry, but I also agree with Flick and Howard. Instead of arguing with people who don't believe you, get some evidence and then they will pay attention. Then, try as hard as you can to disprove your theory. If it stands up, as others have stated, you might have a winner."

    That contains two specific and - I believe - very clearly stated recommendations:
    i) Don't argue with people who disagree with you - get some evidence to support your assertions.
    ii)Next try your very hardest to disprove your idea. Attack your own idea. Challenge your own ideas. There is no evidence you have ever done that.

    I have no idea why you are unable to understand that excellent, clearly stated advice. Nor, do I understand why you were unable to understand that my "permission" to restart a thread on the topic was conditional on you following that advice.

    3. Blaghory offered clarification of his advice: "If you want to improve your ideas, instead of coming up with "witty" replies, try to use mathematics and evidence to attempt to prove yourself to people who disagree." Again, very, very clear.

    4. Ignore any comments from RobbittyBob1. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he has reading comprehension difficulties. (Bob, don't respond in this thread, or by pm. If you choose to do so you go on Ignore. If you have a problem with an accurate observational statement use the Report function.)

    5. Le Repteux, I have not been a moderator for many days now. What you can or cannot post is not up to me, though I believe the advice remains good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    John I'd prefer if you put me on ignore. Bye for now. You seem to be hell bent on me reporting you for some reason. I'm upset but I can live with it especially if you ignore me from now on. Bye John.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Thanks John, I take note of what you say.

    But I am in "personal theories and alternative ideas" here, so permit that I decide what is a witty reply. Nobody else can know better than me if an argument has to do with my ideas or not. On the other hand, if people cannot stand new ideas and new ways to defend them, then maybe there should not be a new idea forum at all. Its interesting to have some other point of view on its ideas, but it is not to feel bad all the time because a Howard or a moderator menaces you. If you find that our ideas are not scientifically elaborated, or if you think that they contain contradictions with data, then tell us, and repeat it as often as you want, but don't menace us if we do not agree with you. People that observe the discussions are intelligent enough to determine what is scientific and what is not in them without you menacing us, and if they are not, well then it is no use either to menace. Nobody can behave normally with Damocles around, and nobody learns with menace either, except to be afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Its interesting to have some other point of view on its ideas, but it is not to feel bad all the time because a Howard or a moderator menaces you.
    I "menace" you? I don't "menace" you, I simply point out your gross misconceptions. It is not my fault that you keep posting anti-science "stuff" all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    On the other hand, if people cannot stand new ideas and new ways to defend them
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business posting on a science forum.
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business expecting science to take you seriously.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    On the other hand, if people cannot stand new ideas and new ways to defend them
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business posting on a science forum.
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business expecting science to take you seriously.
    Give him time D, we were working through his theory before pulling it apart one line at a time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business posting on a science forum.
    There is only one scientific method: respect the data.

    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business expecting science to take you seriously.
    There is only one way for science to take an idea seriously: verify if it respects the data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I "menace" you? I don't "menace" you, I simply point out your gross misconceptions.
    It is a menace to say that an idea is anti-scientific on a scientific forum.

    It is not my fault that you keep posting anti-science "stuff" all the time.
    It is your fault not to respect the rules of the forum while menacing me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    It is a menace to say that an idea is anti-scientific on a scientific forum.
    What utter drivel.
    Simple because something is posted on science forum it doesn't mean it's automatically science.
    If you present nonsense as science then, by definition, it's anti-scientific.

    It is your fault not to respect the rules of the forum while menacing me.
    "Not respecting the rules of the forum"?
    Things like expecting everyone to simply take your word for it, not providing evidence... that sort of "not respecting the rules of the forum"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quantum Electrodynamics is the current most useful and accurate theory on the interactions of light and matter.
    Perhaps a person should try to understand the current theory before willy nilly attempting to alter it?
    Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    @Le Repteux and @Robittybob1; I'd say y'all's swim'n in the deep water, but y'all be fools who can't find the ocean.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Menacing you would be to suggest I know where you live and am coming to get you. I have no idea where you live and have no intention, or wish to visit you.

    I have reminded you what the rules of the forum are and - when I was a moderator - indicated how you might best follow those rules. You note that if there are contradictions in your data we should point them out. You haven't given us any frigging data. All we have is unsubstantiated assertion piled on unsubstantiated assertion. Each request for evidence is ignored and greeted with more unsubstantiated assertions.

    Your approach is wholly unscientific and laughable. Where is the evidence? (Where, for that matter is a cogent exposition of your hypothesis?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quantum Electrodynamics is the current most useful and accurate theory on the interactions of light and matter.
    Perhaps a person should try to understand the current theory before willy nilly attempting to alter it?
    Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    @Le Repteux and @Robittybob1; I'd say y'all's swim'n in the deep water, but y'all be fools who can't find the ocean.
    Are you going to be my lifesaver? Can you help us out? Please Please please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I "menace" you? I don't "menace" you, I simply point out your gross misconceptions.
    It is a menace to say that an idea is anti-scientific on a scientific forum.
    You are mistaken, the mere fact that you post BS on a science forum doesn't make it science.

    It is not my fault that you keep posting anti-science "stuff" all the time.
    It is your fault not to respect the rules of the forum while menacing me.
    Exposing BS for what it is doesn't mean "menacing".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I "menace" you? I don't "menace" you, I simply point out your gross misconceptions.
    It is a menace to say that an idea is anti-scientific on a scientific forum.
    You are mistaken, the mere fact that you post BS on a science forum doesn't make it science.

    It is not my fault that you keep posting anti-science "stuff" all the time.
    It is your fault not to respect the rules of the forum while menacing me.
    Exposing BS for what it is doesn't mean "menacing".
    'Why did you get suspended? Was that for being menacing? You are pretty aggressive at the best of times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I "menace" you? I don't "menace" you, I simply point out your gross misconceptions.
    It is a menace to say that an idea is anti-scientific on a scientific forum.
    You are mistaken, the mere fact that you post BS on a science forum doesn't make it science.

    It is not my fault that you keep posting anti-science "stuff" all the time.
    It is your fault not to respect the rules of the forum while menacing me.
    Exposing BS for what it is doesn't mean "menacing".
    'Why did you get suspended?Was that for being menacing?
    Nope, for calling BS for what it is.


    You are pretty aggressive at the best of times.
    I am , like Dywyddyr and PhDemon, BS intolerant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?
    Affected with? What do you mean?

    And why invoke virtual photons? The Mossbauer effect involves simply the emission and absorption of real photons by atomic nuclei. Nothing hard to explain about that, surely?

    More to the point, what mystery is there about the Mossbauer effect that has had scientists stumped until now but which this "small steps" nonsense now brilliantly explains?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?
    Affected with? What do you mean?

    And why invoke virtual photons? The Mossbauer effect involves simply the emission and absorption of real photons by atomic nuclei. Nothing hard to explain about that, surely?

    More to the point, what mystery is there about the Mossbauer effect that has had scientists stumped until now but which this "small steps" nonsense now brilliantly explains?
    I kept the Mossbauer effect right out of it. The way I looked at the problem years ago was when an electron zoomed around a nucleus it is held there by the electrical force but how is that force transferred? I was pleased to see the discussion of virtual photons or particles (but today they are not so popular is that right?).
    Do you think in terms of virtual photons in the process of electrical and magnetic forces?
    When I saw this stop start view of motion, by the OP, I was reminded of my dabbling some 15 years ago.
    I personally think motion in a straight line (geodesic if you like) will be constant till acted on by another force, then it will change velocity, this change of velocity is an acceleration.
    A particle circulating (orbiting, cloud, however you like it) is accelerating but how is that acceleration possible without force being applied?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?
    Affected with? What do you mean?

    And why invoke virtual photons? The Mossbauer effect involves simply the emission and absorption of real photons by atomic nuclei. Nothing hard to explain about that, surely?

    More to the point, what mystery is there about the Mossbauer effect that has had scientists stumped until now but which this "small steps" nonsense now brilliantly explains?
    I kept the Mossbauer effect right out of it. The way I looked at the problem years ago was when an electron zoomed around a nucleus it is held there by the electrical force but how is that force transferred? I was pleased to see the discussion of virtual photons or particles (but today they are not so popular is that right?).
    Do you think in terms of virtual photons in the process of electrical and magnetic forces?
    When I saw this stop start view of motion, by the OP, I was reminded of my dabbling some 15 years ago.
    I personally think motion in a straight line (geodesic if you like) will be constant till acted on by another force, then it will change velocity, this change of velocity is an acceleration.
    A particle circulating (orbiting, cloud, however you like it) is accelerating but how is that acceleration possible without force being applied?
    But my post, which prompted your interjected, was about the Mossbauer effect, you nitwit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?
    Affected with? What do you mean?

    And why invoke virtual photons? The Mossbauer effect involves simply the emission and absorption of real photons by atomic nuclei. Nothing hard to explain about that, surely?

    More to the point, what mystery is there about the Mossbauer effect that has had scientists stumped until now but which this "small steps" nonsense now brilliantly explains?
    I kept the Mossbauer effect right out of it. The way I looked at the problem years ago was when an electron zoomed around a nucleus it is held there by the electrical force but how is that force transferred? I was pleased to see the discussion of virtual photons or particles (but today they are not so popular is that right?).
    Do you think in terms of virtual photons in the process of electrical and magnetic forces?
    When I saw this stop start view of motion, by the OP, I was reminded of my dabbling some 15 years ago.
    I personally think motion in a straight line (geodesic if you like) will be constant till acted on by another force, then it will change velocity, this change of velocity is an acceleration.
    A particle circulating (orbiting, cloud, however you like it) is accelerating but how is that acceleration possible without force being applied?
    But my post, which prompted your interjected, was about the Mossbauer effect, you nitwit.
    True, that is why I steered away from the Mossbauer Effect. Just to get away from the issue that caused the problem in the first thread. I didn't want a repeat of that again.
    How do I say this properly? "Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?"
    Is it, "Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus operate with or without the transfer of virtual photons between them?"
    Last edited by Robittybob1; October 4th, 2014 at 06:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    NO! Don't be an idiot. It is an invitation to do so as and when he has evidence of his idea or can propose an experiment to corroborate it, i.e. as Blaghory advised.

    NOT before.
    Thanks to Rob, I had this new information about the Mössbauer effect to show that light could induce the motion of an atom, and one of the objection to the small steps was related to that possibility. The other one had to do with atoms not emitting light constantly, which I thought I had answered properly. Lets wait till John gets back from the moon, he knows what he wants.
    The Mossbauer Effect is already explained perfectly adequately by current physics, so is useless to you.

    I doubt John G will intervene again:he has resigned from being a moderator and I would suspect has better things to do than talk to you about rubbish. But I could be wrong.
    Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?
    Affected with? What do you mean?

    And why invoke virtual photons? The Mossbauer effect involves simply the emission and absorption of real photons by atomic nuclei. Nothing hard to explain about that, surely?

    More to the point, what mystery is there about the Mossbauer effect that has had scientists stumped until now but which this "small steps" nonsense now brilliantly explains?
    I kept the Mossbauer effect right out of it. The way I looked at the problem years ago was when an electron zoomed around a nucleus it is held there by the electrical force but how is that force transferred? I was pleased to see the discussion of virtual photons or particles (but today they are not so popular is that right?).
    Do you think in terms of virtual photons in the process of electrical and magnetic forces?
    When I saw this stop start view of motion, by the OP, I was reminded of my dabbling some 15 years ago.
    I personally think motion in a straight line (geodesic if you like) will be constant till acted on by another force, then it will change velocity, this change of velocity is an acceleration.
    A particle circulating (orbiting, cloud, however you like it) is accelerating but how is that acceleration possible without force being applied?
    But my post, which prompted your interjected, was about the Mossbauer effect, you nitwit.
    True, that is why I steered away from the Mossbauer Effect. Just to get away from the issue that caused the problem in the first thread. I didn't want a repeat of that again.
    How do I say this properly? "Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus are affected with the transfer of virtual photons between them?"
    Is it, "Can you tell us how the electrons and nucleus operate with or without the transfer of virtual photons between them?"
    I'm not a QED expert but this seems to cover it: Static forces and virtual-particle exchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    ... I'm not a QED expert but this seems to cover it: Static forces and virtual-particle exchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I'll look at it tomorrow! Nite mate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Menacing you would be to suggest I know where you live and am coming to get you. I have no idea where you live and have no intention, or wish to visit you.
    Warnings from moderators are always menacing when you do your best.

    Your approach is wholly unscientific and laughable. Where is the evidence? (Where, for that matter is a cogent exposition of your hypothesis?)
    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard
    I am , like Dywyddyr and PhDemon, BS intolerant.
    Your intolerance only shows that some scientists are badly educated, it does not convince anybody. Intolerance is understandable from Talibans, not from educated people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywy
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business posting on a science forum.
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business expecting science to take you seriously.
    If scientists do not want us here, them trash the "New idea" and the Pseudoscience" forums. They do not have those on french scientific forums, and they kick away anybody who has a new idea. Is that what you want?
    Last edited by Le Repteux; October 4th, 2014 at 09:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Menacing you would be to suggest I know where you live and am coming to get you. I have no idea where you live and have no intention, or wish to visit you.
    Warnings from moderators are always menacing when you do your best.

    Your approach is wholly unscientific and laughable. Where is the evidence? (Where, for that matter is a cogent exposition of your hypothesis?)
    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    What does "inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else" mean? Does anyone say motion is discontinuous? Or are you just asserting that it is? If so, it is clearly NOT evidence - it is just your assertion!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard
    I am , like Dywyddyr and PhDemon, BS intolerant.
    Your intolerance only shows that some scientists are badly educated, it does not convince anybody. Intolerance is understandable from Talibans, not from educated people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywy
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business posting on a science forum.
    If you're not prepared, or not able, to defend your ideas scientifically then you have no business expecting science to take you seriously.
    If scientists do not want us here, them trash the "New idea" and the Pseudoscience" forums.
    You don't dictate what to do. "Trash" and "Pseudoscience" are perfectly adequate for your threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    What does "inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else" mean? Does anyone say motion is discontinuous? Or are you just asserting that it is? If so, it is clearly NOT evidence - it is just your assertion!
    I see that you too have a problem with understanding the words. If I add that to the way you treat Rob, I wonder if it is judicious for me to precise. Let me put it this way: if everything that we observe is discontinuous but motion, could it be because motion is also discontinuous and we did not theorize it yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard
    You don't dictate what to do. "Trash" and "Pseudoscience" are perfectly adequate for your threads.
    And badly educated is perfectly adequate to describe your behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    What does "inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else" mean? Does anyone say motion is discontinuous? Or are you just asserting that it is? If so, it is clearly NOT evidence - it is just your assertion!
    I see that you too have a problem with understanding the words. If I add that to the way you treat Rob, I wonder if it is judicious for me to precise. Let me put it this way: if everything that we observe is discontinuous but motion, could it be because motion is also discontinuous and we did not theorize it yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard
    You don't dictate what to do. "Trash" and "Pseudoscience" are perfectly adequate for your threads.
    And badly educated is perfectly adequate to describe your behavior.
    Actually I was educated at Caltech. So I can call BS when I see it. Did you ever wonder why your threads end up in "Trash" in ALL forums?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Education begins at home, it is too late to change once you go to school. Did you ever wonder why you had this behavior?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Education begins at home, it is too late to change once you go to school. Did you ever wonder why you had this behavior?
    What "behavior"? Exposing crankery is not a "behavior" , it is an action. Sorry for inconveniencing you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    You are not sorry, you like it! It is not everybody that like to lower others as much as you do. Its such an automatism for you that you don't even recognize it when we show it to you. As much I cannot recognize my scientific mistakes because I focus on my ideas, as much you cannot recognize your social mistakes because you focus on your knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    You are not sorry, you like it! It is not everybody that like to lower others as much as you do. Its such an automatism for you that you don't even recognize it when we show it to you. As much I cannot recognize my scientific mistakes because I focus on my ideas, as much you cannot recognize your social mistakes because you focus on your knowledge.
    If the only "defence" you can present for your *cough* scientific ideas is attacks on the character and personality of those who point out the lack of actual science in your claims then I suggest that your time and effort would be better spent in some pursuit that requires less rigour.
    Try train spotting.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Your approach is wholly unscientific and laughable. Where is the evidence? (Where, for that matter is a cogent exposition of your hypothesis?)
    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    Le Repteux, you do not understand what evidence is. You have simply presented a statement that you believe to be true. You have not demonstrated that such a statement is true, or that is plausible for it to be true. You have made an unfounded assertion. It is unfounded because you have not presented the evidence that would justify the statement.

    I have posted this before for other members on other forums who seem not to understand the nature of evidence.

    Evidence is not a belief.

    Evidence is not a desire.

    Evidence is not an opinion.


    Evidence is not dogma.

    Evidence is not a suspicion.

    Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.

    Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.


    Evidence is not an idea.

    Evidence is not what someone told you in a pub.

    Evidence is not a You-Tube video.

    Evidence is not a majority opinion.


    Evidence is not a minority opinion.


    Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis.

    And you have to provide those observations, ideally in the form of peer reviewed research articles from reputable scientific journals, not simply state that it exists.

    Do you understand, now, that what you have offered as evidence is not evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    What does "inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else" mean? Does anyone say motion is discontinuous? Or are you just asserting that it is? If so, it is clearly NOT evidence - it is just your assertion!
    I see that you too have a problem with understanding the words. If I add that to the way you treat Rob, I wonder if it is judicious for me to precise. Let me put it this way: if everything that we observe is discontinuous but motion, could it be because motion is also discontinuous and we did not theorize it yet?
    Not everything we observe is discontinuous. Quantization applies to stable states that are bound or constrained. But, for example, above the ionisation limit in atomic spectra, where the electron is free, one has a continuum, because there is no quantization.

    Furthermore the size of the gaps, in successive values of the quantized properties of stable states, is determined by the magnitude and type of binding or constraining influence in each case. So we know in each case exactly how and why it arises. Your hypothesised discontinuous motion is thus not required in order to explain these effects.

    And, now that you have indeed clarified that the existence of discontinuous motion is merely your hypothesis, and not an observation, it obviously can't be evidence, can it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence, on the contrary, I always said that I was looking for help from scientists to find some. Those who are not willing to help can easily look somewhere else. Why do they ask for evidence if not because they do not want ideas that they don't like to be investigated? What's wrong with investigating an idea if not because it hurts their common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If the only "defence" you can present for your *cough* scientific ideas is attacks on the character and personality of those who point out the lack of actual science in your claims then I suggest that your time and effort would be better spent in some pursuit that requires less rigour.
    Try train spotting.
    I attack personally those who attack me personnally, whether they be human or ducks.
    Last edited by Le Repteux; October 4th, 2014 at 03:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence, on the contrary, I always said that I was looking for help from scientists to find some. Those who are not willing to help can easily look somewhere else. Why do they as for evidence if not because they do not want ideas that they don't like to be investigated? What's wrong with investigating an idea if not because it hurts their common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If the only "defence" you can present for your *cough* scientific ideas is attacks on the character and personality of those who point out the lack of actual science in your claims then I suggest that your time and effort would be better spent in some pursuit that requires less rigour.
    Try train spotting.
    I attack personally those who attack me personally, whether they be human or ducks.
    Have you heard of the RSPCA? You must not beat up on ducks. You may shoot them in season though, "duck shooting season". Game Bird Hunting in New Zealand | Hunting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Its only words Rob, I usually don't even kill flies, I put them outside instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence,
    Then stop whining that they are put into "Pseudoscience", the BELONG in pseudoscience.

    on the contrary, I always said that I was looking for help from scientists to find some.
    But the scientists have ALREADY PROVEN your hypothesis to be pseudoscience.


    Those who are not willing to help can easily look somewhere else.
    We already helped you. So, stop whining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence, on the contrary, I always said that I was looking for help from scientists to find some. Those who are not willing to help can easily look somewhere else. Why do they ask for evidence if not because they do not want ideas that they don't like to be investigated? What's wrong with investigating an idea if not because it hurts their common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    If the only "defence" you can present for your *cough* scientific ideas is attacks on the character and personality of those who point out the lack of actual science in your claims then I suggest that your time and effort would be better spent in some pursuit that requires less rigour.
    Try train spotting.
    I attack personally those who attack me personnally, whether they be human or ducks.
    No, it doesn't work like that. It's up to YOU to provide evidence, because it's YOUR hypothesis.

    As I've said many times before, a scientist is not obliged to listen patiently to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner, any more than anybody else is. So it is up to the proponent of a new idea to provide some evidence that he or she is not just a nutter. If this is not forthcoming we will all just walk on by, shaking our heads. Just as you do when you encounter some nutter, raving on the street corner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence, on the contrary, I always said that I was looking for help from scientists to find some.
    Then WHY should any one help you?
    What basis do you have - other than "I thought of it, I like it" - to make it worth the attention of science?

    I attack personally those who attack me personnally, whether they be human or ducks.
    Then you should learn to stop posting crap, listen to advice and not put yourself in such a position.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    So walk away then, and let those who like this idea play with it. What you do is obstruction, and what Howard do is kicking. Let me develop this idea the way I want, I'm old enough to know what I am doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    So walk away then, and let those who like this idea play with it.
    No one likes your ideas. Because they aren't science, they are crankery. No one is stopping you from playing with your own crankery.

    Let me develop this idea the way I want, I'm old enough to know what I am doing.
    No one is stopping you. As you cannot stop any of us from exposing your crankery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    You need to learn more about psychology Howard. What you do is childish and harmful to others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    You need to learn more about psychology Howard. What you do is childish and harmful to others.
    I learn every day, studying cranks who pretend to be doing science on the internet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    You need to learn more about psychology Howard. What you do is childish and harmful to others.
    I learn every day, studying cranks who pretend to be doing science on the internet.
    Dywyddyr - please show your skill in sorting out this endless to and fro. How would you do it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence, on the contrary, I always said that I was looking for help from scientists to find some.
    Then WHY should any one help you?
    What basis do you have - other than "I thought of it, I like it" - to make it worth the attention of science?

    I attack personally those who attack me personnally, whether they be human or ducks.
    Then you should learn to stop posting crap, listen to advice and not put yourself in such a position.
    D. You must not stifle innovative ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    D. You must not stifle innovative ideas.
    Don't be f*cking ridiculous.
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?

    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    D. You must not stifle innovative ideas.
    Don't be f*cking ridiculous.
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?

    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).
    I thought we would get to the point of agreeing that motion is quantized. I have never agreed with Le Repteux but I still would like to discuss his idea to show if he is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    And a diversion from the point...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    D. You must not stifle innovative ideas.
    This is but one of many reasons you are unable to learn. Novelty for the mere sake of novelty, without regard to quality, is a sure path to filling your head with noise. It's a waste of time.

    Stop embracing all "new" ideas just because they're new. You'll just keep wasting time -- yours and ours -- on bullshit. Develop some critical thinking skills, for Pete's sake. If you reject that core notion of the scientific method, one wonders why you are here at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment springs to mind. The experiment was failure but the result was revolutionary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment springs to mind. The experiment was failure but the result was revolutionary.
    The M-M experiment was not an idea. Stay on topic, Robittybob. Focus!

    And the result was not nearly as revolutionary as you seem to think. FitzGerald and Lorentz explained the null result as still consistent with aether theories, by invoking length contraction.

    Einstein himself took Maxwell's equations as the reason for treating the speed of light as frame-independent. The revolution thus wasn't sparked by the M-M experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment springs to mind. The experiment was failure but the result was revolutionary.
    The M-M experiment was not an idea. Stay on topic, Robittybob. Focus!

    And the result was not nearly as revolutionary as you seem to think. FitzGerald and Lorentz explained the null result as still consistent with aether theories, by invoking length contraction.

    Einstein himself took Maxwell's equations as the reason for treating the speed of light as frame-independent. The revolution thus wasn't sparked by the M-M experiment.
    Can you do an experiment without an idea? I'd like to see you try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment springs to mind. The experiment was failure but the result was revolutionary.
    How so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment springs to mind. The experiment was failure but the result was revolutionary.
    How so?
    I read that, was it Michelson, didn't like the result and tried for the next 30 years to find out where it went wrong. Something like that where the results are opposite to what you'd expect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    [Can you do an experiment without an idea? I'd like to see you try.
    Robittybob, your inability to mount a logical argument is truly appalling.

    I cannot live without food, but that does not mean food is life.

    Try again. Think first, then post. You keep failing because you get the order backwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    [Can you do an experiment without an idea? I'd like to see you try.
    Robittybob, your inability to mount a logical argument is truly appalling.

    I cannot live without food, but that does not mean food is life.

    Try again. Think first, then post. You keep failing because you get the order backwards.
    Can you do an experiment without an idea? You have to have ideas on how the experiment is to be run, the methods and the measurements and what it is you're testing. You can't do any of these things without ideas. Even if you say they are instructions they are ideas thought up by someone else.

    What gets into you TK421? What bee is in your bonnet that you become a Robittybob wrecking machine. Pick on someone else for a change please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And a diversion from the point...
    What was your point?
    The point (as noted in my previous post):
    What use are "innovative ideas" if they're incorrect and anti-scientific?
    The mere fact that an idea is "innovative" does NOT mean that it's valid OR worth pursuing.
    (Or even worth spending time on).



    Some ideas deserve to be stifled.
    The Michelson–Morley experiment springs to mind. The experiment was failure but the result was revolutionary.
    How so?
    I read that, was it Michelson, didn't like the result and tried for the next 30 years to find out where it went wrong. Something like that where the results are opposite to what you'd expect.
    My question was , how was the result "revolutionary"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    [Can you do an experiment without an idea? I'd like to see you try.
    Robittybob, your inability to mount a logical argument is truly appalling.

    I cannot live without food, but that does not mean food is life.

    Try again. Think first, then post. You keep failing because you get the order backwards.
    Can you do an experiment without an idea?
    Again, rbob, that isn't the issue. The issue is not whether something requires something else.

    If you can't be bothered to stay on topic, that is your problem. Please don't make it ours.

    What gets into you TK421? What bee is in your bonnet that you become a Robittybob wrecking machine. Pick on someone else for a change please.
    If you would stop crapping all over every thread with utter nonsense, it would be unnecessary to clean up after you.

    The choice is yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    [Can you do an experiment without an idea? I'd like to see you try.
    Robittybob, your inability to mount a logical argument is truly appalling.

    I cannot live without food, but that does not mean food is life.

    Try again. Think first, then post. You keep failing because you get the order backwards.
    Can you do an experiment without an idea?
    Again, rbob, that isn't the issue. The issue is not whether something requires something else.

    If you can't be bothered to stay on topic, that is your problem. Please don't make it ours.

    What gets into you TK421? What bee is in your bonnet that you become a Robittybob wrecking machine. Pick on someone else for a change please.
    If you would stop crapping all over every thread with utter nonsense, it would be unnecessary to clean up after you.

    The choice is yours.
    It was Dywyddyr that make the thread go off track. I was only responding to him all along.
    It was Le Repteux's idea so how can there be peer reviewed articles about it? That was my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It was Dywyddyr that make the thread go off track. I was only responding to him all along.
    It was Le Repteux's idea so how can there be peer reviewed articles about it? That was my point.
    I know how much you love pigeon chess. I am less fond of the game.

    To review:

    You defended Le Repteaux's ideas on the basis of NOVELTY.

    I have pointed out -- and others have, too -- that mere novelty of an idea is a crappy criterion.

    Your response was to offer the M-M experiment as an example of an idea.

    I pointed out that an experiment is not the same as an idea.

    Your weak retort was that every experiment requires an idea.

    If your retort actually makes sense to you, then your logical apparatus is broken, perhaps irreparably so. I cannot fix it. Only you can, but you have to grow intellectually first. There is unfortunately no evidence that you are prepared to take the necessary steps. That's why you continue to have problems with nearly everyone on this science-based site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence....
    In post #31, after I had asked you for the evidence, you said this.

    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    I asked for evidence, you offered an assertion as evidence. From my grasp of the English language you were claiming/pretending/declaring that you were offering evidence. Please avoid such ambiguous and confusing langauge issues in future.

    Advice 2: If you had wished to get input on possible evidence for your hypothesis, then you needed to phrase your posts completely differently. From the outset you have been making assertions about your hypothesis as if it were true. Naturally, that leads to demands for evidence. You should have made it clear that you wished to explore the possibility of a certain hypothesis and asked members "what could falsify this idea".

    The foregoing piece of advice is the most important thing I have said in this thread. I urge you to consider it and ask for clarification if any is required.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    It was Dywyddyr that make the thread go off track. I was only responding to him all along.
    It was Le Repteux's idea so how can there be peer reviewed articles about it? That was my point.
    I know how much you love pigeon chess. I am less fond of the game.

    To review:

    You defended Le Repteaux's ideas on the basis of NOVELTY.

    I have pointed out -- and others have, too -- that mere novelty of an idea is a crappy criterion.

    Your response was to offer the M-M experiment as an example of an idea.

    I pointed out that an experiment is not the same as an idea.

    Your weak retort was that every experiment requires an idea.

    If your retort actually makes sense to you, then your logical apparatus is broken, perhaps irreparably so. I cannot fix it. Only you can, but you have to grow intellectually first. There is unfortunately no evidence that you are prepared to take the necessary steps. That's why you continue to have problems with nearly everyone on this science-based site.
    If that is how you think our interaction has gone you obviously have problems in understanding me. I am sorry about that but from now on (for a while), I will not respond to anything you say about me, for it seems pointless. Good bye for now TK. Please ignore me too thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence....
    In post #31, after I had asked you for the evidence, you said this.

    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    I asked for evidence, you offered an assertion as evidence. From my grasp of the English language you were claiming/pretending/declaring that you were offering evidence. Please avoid such ambiguous and confusing langauge issues in future.

    Advice 2: If you had wished to get input on possible evidence for your hypothesis, then you needed to phrase your posts completely differently. From the outset you have been making assertions about your hypothesis as if it were true. Naturally, that leads to demands for evidence. You should have made it clear that you wished to explore the possibility of a certain hypothesis and asked members "what could falsify this idea".

    The foregoing piece of advice is the most important thing I have said in this thread. I urge you to consider it and ask for clarification if any is required.
    Thanks John.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    @le Repteux In a universe consisting of two hydrogen atoms can they move toward each other with your idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If that is how you think our interaction has gone you obviously have problems in understanding me. I am sorry about that but from now on (for a while), I will not respond to anything you say about me, for it seems pointless. Good bye for now TK. Please ignore me too thanks.
    It doesn't work that way on the forum. Choosing to ignore those who challenge what you say does not entitle you to post what you want without challenge.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    So walk away then, and let those who like this idea play with it. What you do is obstruction, and what Howard do is kicking. Let me develop this idea the way I want, I'm old enough to know what I am doing.
    I will, eventually. What I and other have been trying to explain to you is that you need not just a new idea but a scientific reason why it helps advance understanding. New ideas are cheap. New ideas that advance understanding are very rare and precious.

    You seem unable to provide any evidence that your idea belongs in the latter category. In fact, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between evidence and assertion.

    You can call my criticism obstruction if you wish, but what I have been trying to do is challenge you to show that your notion is scientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    I never pretended that my hypothesis had scientific evidence....
    In post #31, after I had asked you for the evidence, you said this.

    To me, evidence is with inertial motion being as discontinuous as anything else. We observe the same discontinuity in the mechanics of electrons, in light pulses, in massive particles, in living systems: it is everywhere, so why not in motion?
    I asked for evidence, you offered an assertion as evidence. From my grasp of the English language you were claiming/pretending/declaring that you were offering evidence. Please avoid such ambiguous and confusing language issues in future.
    Language is a very subtle thing, everybody picks up what he wants to hear. Some words do not even mean the same for scientists than for plebe. French is also my native language and I very seldom had to speak or read english until now. The evidence I was talking about is certainly not about data, and it is not a claim either, it is only a way to convince people to accept my invitation, because nobody has yet even thought it could be interesting, except Rob of course. When you are convinced that something is wrong, you certainly don't try to understand how it works.

    Advice 2: If you had wished to get input on possible evidence for your hypothesis, then you needed to phrase your posts completely differently. From the outset you have been making assertions about your hypothesis as if it were true. Naturally, that leads to demands for evidence. You should have made it clear that you wished to explore the possibility of a certain hypothesis and asked members "what could falsify this idea".
    Here is how I proceed, you tell me if it is a normal way: first, I try to convince scientists that the idea is interesting, second, I try to convince them to study it, thus to learn what I imagined until now, third, I ask them to use what they know about the data to establish the limits of the idea. If there is no liberty inside these limits, then the idea may be rejected. It is no use to try to falsify an idea before it is studied and expressed scientifically, and I can't do that as precisely as scientists can. Remember that this idea is only an embryo and that I am not a scientist.

    First then, I ask you if you like the idea! If you don't, it is no use that you insist, and it is the same for everybody here. If you don't even like the idea, then find some other idea you like and discuss it. If some want to discuss about bullshit, then find some bull herd and study their shit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Here is how I proceed, you tell me if it is a normal way: first, I try to convince scientists that the idea is interesting,
    You can't convince any scientist. Because your ideas are deeply flawed, as already explained to you. So far, how many scientists have you convinced?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    I have a theory, entirely my own:

    F=ma

    I tried to explain it mathematically. Drunkenness is my native language and nobody understands me and just pats me on the head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    @le Repteux In a universe consisting of two hydrogen atoms can they move toward each other with your idea?
    Hi Rob, thanks for the support! If my idea is accepted one day, I will share the honors with you!

    Yes, your two hydrogen atoms could execute small steps. If they form a molecule, they will execute steps between them that will carry their molecule straight line from the point it was accelerated. If they do not, it is their components that will execute steps, but to account for gravitation this time, so they may orbit or crash or form a molecule or get lost in space depending of their original direction and speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    @le Repteux In a universe consisting of two hydrogen atoms can they move toward each other with your idea?
    Hi Rob, thanks for the support! If my idea is accepted one day, I will share the honors with you!
    Your ideas cannot be accepted since they are contradicted by existent science and its experimental verification.

    Yes, your two hydrogen atoms could execute small steps. If they form a molecule, they will execute steps between them that will carry their molecule straight line from the point it was accelerated. If they do not, it is their components that will execute steps, but to account for gravitation this time, so they may orbit or crash or form a molecule or get lost in space depending of their original direction and speed.
    Mainstream science says that gravitational attraction plays no role in the motion of the two atoms. Something else does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    So walk away then, and let those who like this idea play with it. What you do is obstruction, and what Howard do is kicking. Let me develop this idea the way I want, I'm old enough to know what I am doing.
    I will, eventually. What I and other have been trying to explain to you is that you need not just a new idea but a scientific reason why it helps advance understanding.
    This idea is about mass, and by who knows what chance, it also accounts for inertial motion. This is basic science. If you cannot understand what it means, how can you understand complicated ones?

    You can call my criticism obstruction if you wish, but what I have been trying to do is challenge you to show that your notion is scientific.
    If, with calculations, it is possible to demonstrate that doppler effect can produce the small steps, then it is scientific. The question about the mediator is secondary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post

    You can call my criticism obstruction if you wish, but what I have been trying to do is challenge you to show that your notion is scientific.
    If, with calculations, it is possible to demonstrate that doppler effect can produce the small steps, then it is scientific. The question about the mediator is secondary.
    1. You have no calculations, you only have stories.
    2. You have the Doppler effect backwards, this has been explained to you several times. You clearly do not understand how the Doppler effect works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    First then, I ask you if you like the idea! If you don't, it is no use that you insist, and it is the same for everybody here. If you don't even like the idea, then find some other idea you like and discuss it. If some want to discuss about bullshit, then find some bull herd and study their shit.
    Here is the nub of your problem: you have not asked yourself what would make your notion appealing to scientists. The answer is a demonstration that you could explain observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained today or that you can simplify an area of science that is today very complicated.

    Unless you do one of these, no scientist is going to "like the idea".

    ….as we have seen in this thread, in fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    So walk away then, and let those who like this idea play with it. What you do is obstruction, and what Howard do is kicking. Let me develop this idea the way I want, I'm old enough to know what I am doing.
    I will, eventually. What I and other have been trying to explain to you is that you need not just a new idea but a scientific reason why it helps advance understanding.
    This idea is about mass, and by who knows what chance, it also accounts for inertial motion. This is basic science. If you cannot understand what it means, how can you understand complicated ones?

    You can call my criticism obstruction if you wish, but what I have been trying to do is challenge you to show that your notion is scientific.
    If, with calculations, it is possible to demonstrate that doppler effect can produce the small steps, then it is scientific. The question about the mediator is secondary.
    You are still missing the point: this has fuck-all to do with calculation, it has to do with observation. What observation, what phenomenon in physics, can you explain that can't be explained today or that you can explain more simply? Without some reference to that you have nothing to offer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Mainstream science says that gravitational attraction plays no role in the motion of the two atoms. Something else does.
    Good argument for once. You are right, I forgot about the EM force. So the two atoms will be forced to form a molecule after a while if I understand well. You can see that I accept a fact when it is presented, but you can also see that I am not very careful with precision, which you may say is not a scientific behavior, but you don't need to be that precise to elaborate an idea at first. All you have to know is the facts, and you have to take them into consideration, what I already did before for the EM force. I am not looking for all the answers at once, I want to discuss mass before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Mainstream science says that gravitational attraction plays no role in the motion of the two atoms. Something else does.
    Good argument for once. You are right, I forgot about the EM force.
    You are in no position to patronize. I have just proved to you, one more time that your basic physics knowledge is lacking.


    So the two atoms will be forced to form a molecule after a while if I understand well. You can see that I accept a fact when it is presented, but you can also see that I am not very careful with precision, which you may say is not a scientific behavior, but you don't need to be that precise to elaborate an idea at first.
    The problem was not one of precision, the problem was that you were totally wrong.

    All you have to know is the facts, and you have to take them into consideration, what I already did before for the EM force. I am not looking for all the answers at once, I want to discuss mass before.
    So, instead of posting BS, why don't you go take a physics class? Much better use for your time. At 68, it is not too late to start learning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    You are still missing the point: this has fuck-all to do with calculation, it has to do with observation. What observation, what phenomenon in physics, can you explain that can't be explained today or that you can explain more simply? Without some reference to that, you have nothing to offer.
    Physics does not even explain a fraction of the beginning of what is inertial motion: it is due to mass, that's all it says about it. Small steps are about striding across a distance at a certain pace. It is a physical explannation of inertial motion, and in the same token, it explains mass. It thus has fuck-all to do with calculations, and fuck-all to do with observation also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    So, instead of posting BS, why don't you go take a physics class? Much better use for your time. At 68, it is not too late to start learning.
    I leave it to youngsters to suffer uneducated teachers like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    2. You have the Doppler effect backwards, this has been explained to you several times. You clearly do not understand how the Doppler effect works.
    Describe how doppler effect would not produce the small steps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    So, instead of posting BS, why don't you go take a physics class? Much better use for your time. At 68, it is not too late to start learning.
    I leave it to youngsters to suffer uneducated teachers like you.
    Maybe you'd be better received if you posted nicer things?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    2. You have the Doppler effect backwards, this has been explained to you several times. You clearly do not understand how the Doppler effect works.
    Describe how doppler effect would not produce the small steps.
    I already did that for you, earlier in the thread. I suggest that you go back and study the answer. Or you can continue posting fringe stuff. The choice is yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Maybe you'd be better received if you posted nicer things?
    I answer nice things to people who post nice things. What you posted first was borderline. Do you have nice things to say about my idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    2. You have the Doppler effect backwards, this has been explained to you several times. You clearly do not understand how the Doppler effect works.
    Describe how doppler effect would not produce the small steps.
    I already did that for you, earlier in the thread. I suggest that you go back and study the answer. Or you can continue posting fringe stuff. The choice is yours.
    No you did not, and I know you are not going to because you refuse to discuss the small steps to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    2. You have the Doppler effect backwards, this has been explained to you several times. You clearly do not understand how the Doppler effect works.
    Describe how doppler effect would not produce the small steps.
    I already did that for you, earlier in the thread. I suggest that you go back and study the answer. Or you can continue posting fringe stuff. The choice is yours.
    No you did not, and I know you are not going to because you refuse to discuss the small steps to begin with.
    I debunk fringe theories only once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I debunk fringe theories only once.
    Then if you think you already did, why do you stay here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Maybe you'd be better received if you posted nicer things?
    I answer nice things to people who post nice things. What you posted first was borderline. Do you have nice things to say about my idea?
    I can say that I like to indulge ludicrous ideas, like black holes exploding like atomic bombs because of dark energy. The shear depth of the theoretical physics involved makes me realize I have better things I should study first. If I told this idea to Stephen Hawking, he'd jump out his chair and slap me in the face.

    Scientists and mathematicians are not walking calculators to indulge whims.

    :EDIT:

    And my first post? Even though Newton was before Maxwell and Einstein, F=ma is the equation experimentally tested a gazaillion billion times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I debunk fringe theories only once.
    Then if you think you already did, why do you stay here?
    To see what new fringe ideas you post and debunk them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore Le Repteux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Val David, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    183
    Go on then, show me how doppler effect cannot produce the small steps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Repteux View Post
    Go on then, show me how doppler effect cannot produce the small steps.
    You need to stop trolling and to start learning how to read posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us.
    By Le Repteux in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: September 20th, 2014, 06:51 AM
  2. Mass: a tiny step for atoms, but a huge leap for us.
    By Le Repteux in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: September 16th, 2014, 07:33 PM
  3. Do atoms lose mass as they slow down?
    By Quantime in forum Physics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: July 15th, 2012, 11:07 AM
  4. Need help on making a tiny, tiny fridge
    By Raziell in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 5th, 2012, 06:52 AM
  5. Errors in surface temperature records. Corrections coming.
    By cypress in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 16th, 2010, 09:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •