Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists


David Thomson wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Well ***, pretty much your entire post is arrogant nonsense. Since you
> > refuse to go to the library to read the literature, you conclude what
> > you are told to look for doesn't exist.
>
> Don't make yourself look worse than you already do. I don't refuse to
> read the literature on neutrino interactions, I just don't have access
> to the particular article presented for discussion.
>
> I have a full library of physics textbooks and engineering books. I
> study the literature daily.

I think the question posed to you is, what constitutes "the literature"
for you? It is my contention that you may be reading something but it
is not the literature that physicists refer to in their research.

>
> I also do something you don't, I use critical analysis when I read the
> literature. I don't just simply believe everything I read. I check
> the data, check the equations, and review the logic that is used to
> develop the theory. How else do you think I knew there were six
> isotopes of hydrogen? It's because I take the time to read lots of
> physics literature.
>
> If you take the time to read what I wrote, rather than expect me to
> copy verbatim the literature you worship, you would see the logic in my
> posts. The literature tells us that neutrino-electron interactions are
> not observed by themselves, but alongside other interactions. Use your
> brains. Also, you cannot have a kinetic neutrino interaction with an
> electron and not have a change of velocity. It is impossible and
> violates the conservation of energy laws. And this is aside from a
> neutrino not being able to interact with an electron at all.
>
> In the SM, neutrinos were first thought to have no mass at all and no
> charge. There is nothing left for the neutrino to use for interacting
> with electrons.

You are quite wrong about neutrinos not having any charge. It does not
have any *electromagnetic* charge, that is correct. But it does have
weak charge, a property that is shared with electrons and quarks,
though the latter also have electromagnetic charge. It is precisely the
weak charge that not only permits but also demands interactions between
neutrinos and electrons, between neutrinos and quarks.

> Even if the neutrinos do have a very tiny mass as the
> SM now proposes, it is orders of magnitude smaller than the electron
> mass, and thus could have no effect.
>
> The evidence, however, shows the neutrino has angular momentum, even
> more than the electron. Which means that if the neutrino and electron
> could interact, the collision would be clearly obvious and easy to
> detect. But as I point out, the physics, when done properly, shows the
> neutrino angular momentum exists outside of the quantum Aether unit.
> Since the neutrino is effectively outside of our space-time, it cannot
> interact with the electron.
>
> That's not arrogance. That is logic, based upon a mathematically
> correct quantum theory, which in turn is based upon empirical data.
> The arrogance comes from ignoring the math and data I'm presenting and
> blindly swearing allegiance to a theory that defies logic.
>
> Dave

.

Quantcast