Re: 'gravitons'

Koobee Wublee, netkook and armchair pundit:

>"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:slrndr9e9q.76c.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Koobee Wublee, idiot of the day:
>> >
>> >"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:slrndr72ec.80.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> Then, you will probably be unhappy with physics in general, since
>> >> the basic idea has always been to reduce several apparently different
>> >> and complex phenomena to few simpler phenomena.
>> >
>> >On the contrary, it is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
>>
>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>It only appears to you because you have no analytical capabilities.

I'm willing to take the opinion of phys. rev. over yours.

>Are you still trying to solve the motion of a planet orbiting the
>sun with only one dimension?

I have no difficulty getting the correct result. You seem to be unable
to do so, even after months of effort and lots of hints. Since your idea
of ``analytical skills' consists of simply declaring everyone is wrong
when you are unable to work a straight forward problem, even when given
the detailed solution, you are welcome to your vastly overestimated
self-assessment of your analytical skills.


>Some would can that feat the mother of all idiocracy.
>
>> [...]
>> >> The static fields are what you will see being referred to as
>> >> ``virtual''
>> >> quanta, like virtual photons, or virtual W's, Z's etc. While the entire
>> >> explanation is rather technical, the idea is relatively straight
>> >> forward.
>> >> It's probably easiest illustrate using a feynman diagram.
>> >
>> >Virtual particles are brainchild of quantumn physics which recognizes the
>> >existence of potential energy.
>>
>> Quite the opposite. There is no potential energy in a relativistic
>> theory.
>
>I never claimed otherwise.
>
>> [...]
>> >Or, there is a lot more about the electron that you are not able to
>> >fathom
>> >yet.
>>
>> Feel free to post that information.
>> [...]
>> >> That gives you just the charged coulomb force q^2/r. (The details are
>> >> a bit more complex than it might appear, since the force can be
>> >> attractive
>> >> or repulsive, but the details would require a bit of a digression on
>> >> polarizations).
>> >
>> >I still don't get what is so complicated with Coulomb's law.
>>
>> Calculate the self-energy of the electron.
>
>Why don't you calculate the foolishness of yourself first.
>
>> >> On the other hand a free photon can only be produced
>> >> in interactions involving at least two photons,
>> >
>> >As an electron trapped in a cyclotron, it keeps emitting X-ray. Since
>> >X-rays are electromagnetic in nature, they are photons.
>>
>> No ***, sherlock. What gave you the first clue.
>
>Long time ago which I don't remember when.
>
>> >It does not take two photons to produce one photon.
>>
>> What do you think is responsible for accelerating the electron such
>> that it radiates a photon? A stick? Idiot.
>
>The problem is more complicated than you think.
>
>
.

Quantcast