Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "Fabrication" or "Lie" in the IPCC AR4 WGI
Next: Chapt 3, Fiberglass Experiment; using only luminosity for distance measure #62; ATOM TOTALITY
From: PD on 8 May 2010 13:08 On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther.. > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > You would. > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > Physics today: > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > - mistakes energy for cause. Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what physics today really says. > > I have named the 'compressible material' mæther. Matter and aether are > states of mæther. Matter is compressed mæther and aether is > uncompressed mæther. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect.
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 13:41 On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > You would. > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > Physics today: > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > physics today really says. > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical construct and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. Physics today: - mistakes mathematics for nature. - mistakes energy for cause. I have named the 'compressible material' mæther. Matter and aether are states of mæther. Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. Mass is conserved. 'Massenergy equivalence' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence "Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another." So, now we must differentiate between 'mainstream' physics and modern theory. Modern theory states mass may not be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses.
From: PD on 8 May 2010 14:02 On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > You would. > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > Physics today: > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > physics today really says. > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > construct No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or making things up. > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph above supports that contention. As I said, you really should read up on this stuff rather than just make it up as you go along. > > Physics today: > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > - mistakes energy for cause. > > I have named the 'compressible material' mæther. Matter and aether are > states of mæther. Matter is compressed mæther and aether is > uncompressed mæther. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. > > Mass is conserved. > > 'Massenergy equivalence'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence > > "Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, > but only moved from one location to another." > > So, now we must differentiate between 'mainstream' physics and modern > theory. Modern theory states mass may not be destroyed, but only moved > from one location to another. > > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses.
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 14:08 On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > Physics today: > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > physics today really says. > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > construct > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > making things up. > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > above supports that contention. > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an effect of what physically occurs. Here is your unanswerable question: How does mass physically convert to energy? Now, if you do respond to the question you will say something like 'mass and energy are the same'. That is incorrect. Mass and energy are not the same. The effect of mass transitioning from one state to another is energy. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical construct and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. Physics today: - mistakes mathematics for nature. - mistakes energy for cause. I have named the 'compressible material' mæther. Matter and aether are states of mæther. Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. Mass is conserved. 'Massenergy equivalence' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence "Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another." So, now we must differentiate between 'mainstream' physics and modern theory. Modern theory states mass may not be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses.
From: PD on 8 May 2010 15:22
On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > physics today really says. > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > construct > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > making things up. > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy.. > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > above supports that contention. > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > effect of what physically occurs. > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and I'm not your trained monkey. I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because there is no mainstream physics understanding. Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional problems who goes after things the wrong way. PD |