Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: Energy is never pushed faster than light by gravity
From: john on 5 Aug 2010 14:49
On Aug 5, 12:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes:
> >Let's try inputting the dual gravity
> >idea into the 95% missing mass problem.
> >Don't listen to PD- anyone run with this ball!
>
> Once again, you are trying to get others to do
> your work.
>
> It's your so-called "theory".  Come up with predictions, and an experiment
> that can show a measurable difference between what we'd see if electrons
> were full of little "suns" with fusion, and the "status quo" which states
> electrons are featureless and point-like. If you can't come up with an
> experiment that make predictions about your ideas, then you really don't
> have anything more than poetry.
>
> Also, don't hijack previously defined words.  For example, photons and
> neutrinos have specific meanings in physics, and neutrinos specifically
> aren't even force carriers (they're fermions).  

Any theory is better than featureless and point-like.
F**k, man, both of those are
impossibilities, as is suck gravity, BHs, DM,
and just about every other part of today's
story.

Neutrinos may not be force-carriers for atoms
but they are for galactic centers.

That's the point.
:)
john
From: PD on 5 Aug 2010 15:11
On Aug 5, 1:49 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes:
> > >Let's try inputting the dual gravity
> > >idea into the 95% missing mass problem.
> > >Don't listen to PD- anyone run with this ball!
>
> > Once again, you are trying to get others to do
> > your work.
>
> > It's your so-called "theory".  Come up with predictions, and an experiment
> > that can show a measurable difference between what we'd see if electrons
> > were full of little "suns" with fusion, and the "status quo" which states
> > electrons are featureless and point-like. If you can't come up with an
> > experiment that make predictions about your ideas, then you really don't
> > have anything more than poetry.
>
> > Also, don't hijack previously defined words.  For example, photons and
> > neutrinos have specific meanings in physics, and neutrinos specifically
> > aren't even force carriers (they're fermions).  
>
> Any theory is better than featureless and point-like.

Well, yes, any *theory* would be better than poetry. That's just the
problem. What you have isn't a theory. It's just cocktail-napkin
poetry.

Not sure what you mean by "featureless", as fermions definitely have
features. And again, I'll reiterate that the only thing that is "point-
like" about, say, electrons, is their apparent lack of volume. In
every other way, they are not like a mathematical point. Mathematical
points do not have electric charge, for example, John.

> F**k, man, both of those are
> impossibilities, as is suck gravity, BHs, DM,
> and just about every other part of today's
> story.

I'm still curious why you are so convinced that lack of volume,
attractive forces, black holes, dark matter, and other things from
today's story are just flat impossibilities. There's nothing self-
contradictory about them, and whether they are possible or not hinges
on whether they are compatible with experimental measurements.
Consistency with your common sense just does not enter into an
evaluation of impossibility at all. Why would it?

Are you taking the stance that something you do not understand is just
impossible?
Do you understand gene activation processes? Are they impossible?
Do you understand solid-state diode lasers? Are they impossible?

>
> Neutrinos may not be force-carriers for atoms
> but they are for galactic centers.
>
> That's the point.
> :)
> john

From: john on 5 Aug 2010 18:37
PD says:

'I'm still curious why you are so convinced that lack of volume,
attractive forces, black holes, dark matter, and other things from
today's story are just flat impossibilities. There's nothing self-
contradictory about them, and whether they are possible or not hinges
on whether they are compatible with experimental measurements.
Consistency with your common sense just does not enter into an
evaluation of impossibility at all. Why would it? '

Apparently it doesn't.

john
From: Y.Porat on 6 Aug 2010 04:43
On Aug 5, 8:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> writes:
> >Let's try inputting the dual gravity
> >idea into the 95% missing mass problem.
> >Don't listen to PD- anyone run with this ball!
>
> Once again, you are trying to get others to do
> your work.
>
> It's your so-called "theory".  Come up with predictions, and an experiment
> that can show a measurable difference between what we'd see if electrons
> were full of little "suns" with fusion, and the "status quo" which states
> electrons are featureless and point-like. If you can't come up with an
> experiment that make predictions about your ideas, then you really don't
> have anything more than poetry.
>
> Also, don't hijack previously defined words.  For example, photons and
> neutrinos have specific meanings in physics, and neutrinos specifically
> aren't even force carriers (they're fermions).  

--------------------
Moroney

how about some innovations of yours ??
lets see even a tiny bit of it ......
(and then
for instance i will have to pass the examination of say -- me
(:-)

for instance how about some
finding some mass less particles ??

say like a Higgs ??

or confirming the W or Z particle??

---
and beside being a parroting parasite??

or beside lurking to steal some material from others ???

Y.P
------------------------


From: Autymn D. C. on 6 Aug 2010 07:57
Anget, fastness is metet in newtons.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: Energy is never pushed faster than light by gravity