Re: Eistein did not write any theory of gravity




"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1138665481.785674.81820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:1138661305.317833.148900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> > > > > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> > > > >
> > > > > > Henry Haapalainen
> > > >
> > > > > << G1
> > > > > Electrical and magnetic interaction has so far been
> > > > > explained by photons. >>
> > > > > Not true. (Sue)
> > > >
> > > > Sue, tell me with your own words about attracting or repelling of
> charged
> > > > particles. Is there some kind of intermediation, and how does it
> happen.
> > > You
> > > > ought to have some opinion of your on. And if you have, then you may
> say
> > > > "not true" to something that is different from yours. "Not true" is
my
> > > > answer, too, but you wrote it in a wrong place. (HH)
> > >
> > > I am glad you asked that. I have never seen a reasonable
> > > explanation why charges behave as they do and so regard
> > > them as fundamental. Magnetism, London and gravity can
> > > be modeled as derivatives of the Coulomb force.
> > >
> > > Photons are by definition, the emission or absorbtion of
> > > energy packets. Magetism doesn't involve the exchange of energy, only
> > > the superposition of Coulomb force.
> > >
> > > If you can show by the exchange of photons what is
> > > clearly explaned in these texts then I suppose I did
> > > indeed write in the wrong place.
> > >
> > > Sue...
> > >
> > > The names of the forces were not asked. At school I was taught that
the
> > > force between charged particles is due to intermediation by photons
> between
> > > them. So, did I get the wrong information?
>
> > > Henry Haapalainen
> > >
> > Wiki has about as a broad a definiton as you'll find:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
> > I don't see anything close.
> >
> > Some refer to the electron-nucleus binding energy
> > as a standing wave of light. That may be where you
> > you aquired the notion. For free charges that is
> > a bit too loose to wrap around a picture like this:
> >
>
http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/e+%20annihilation.png
> >
> > Sue...
>
> So you don't know what your opinion is. You just wrote "not true". (HH)

Read again.
I believe you'll find I offered explanation and references.
You have rejected the opportunity to demonstrate your
theory as it applies to formal physical principles.
There is no worse recommendation a theory can receive
than from its own author.

Sue...

"Demonstrate your theory"? We are not discussing my theory. This is not the
first time you mix my theory with the old claims which I try to prove to be
impossible.

Henry Haapalainen


.