Re: Is Photon = no mass because its a wave?? Electron is a wave with mass?


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149793268.316735.266440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| tomgee wrote:
| > PD wrote:
| > > tomgee wrote:
| > >
| > > > You don even know what that mud is, so how can you
| > > > say it's "pretty successful"? All of my posted ideas do it
| > > > better and predict the same effects.
| > >
| > > Your posted ideas predict *nothing*. When pressed, you say that your
| > > ideas *allow* those effects, and that those effects are *consistent*
| > > with your ideas, and that your ideas *might* predict this or it might
| > > predict that, depending. Of course, on what it depends and in which
| > > way, you don't say.
| > >
| > Of course they do. Just because you don't wish to see
| > them does not mean they aren't there.
| > You believe that
| > physical theories must be supported by what that which
| > is observed, and none of my ideas conflict with that.
|
| That has nothing to do with what I said about *prediction*. As I said,
| TomGee, you have no idea what science is about.
|
| > >
| > > You have no idea what a quantitative prediction is, TomGee. A *real*
| > > theory allows you to *derive* a method for calculating the value of a
| > > measurable quantity, in such a way that the theory predicts it will
| > > have a certain value and no other value.
| > >
| > Just because my ideas do not give you what you want
| > does not mean they are invalid, but you believe they are,
| > even while knowing the fallibility of math constructs wrt
| > reality.
| > To you, if an idea contains no quantitative
| > predictions other than those already given, it cannot be
| > said it is consistent with those already there, even though
| > that idea contains no conflicts with what has previously
| > been confirmed.
|
| That's right, TomGee, if an idea provides no quantitative predictions
| other than those already given, it is worthless. Would you like a
| reading reference on the basics of science? Or do you simply wish to
| reject it even if it is a requirement of science?
|
| > That is a picture of a closed mind, PD,
| > and that mind is your mind and that of your kind. You
| > have exposed yourself as one of the many naked
| > Stooges walking the streets loose nowadays.
|
| Sorry, TomGee, it's a rule of science, just like dribbing a basketball
| is a rule. You can scream that it's unfair all you like. It's still a
| rule.
|
| > >
| > >A real theory does *not* say,
| > > "Well, if the observed value is 2.5, that's compatible with the
theory,
| > > and if the observed value is 16.8, then that's compatible with the
| > > theory, too, and if the observed value is 0.0028, when then by golly,
| > > my theory allows that, too."
| > >
| > You're either incredibly stupid or else you think everyone
| > else is, if you are saying that is what my model states. I
| > have numerous times stated that my model offers alternative
| > explanations for what I believe are wrong conclusions the
| > observed effects. There is no argument regarding facts 'n
| > figures, just the conclusions. For some reason, your widdle
| > head will not hold that in, and so you complain that I have
| > not given you the samo samo numbers you already have.
|
| TomGee has it backwards. He thinks that one derives explanations from
| mathematical models, rather than the other way around. He does not
| understand that when an explanation is built, one *derives* the
| mathematical model from it, as a quantitative expression of the
| explanation. He also does not understand that this is how one
| explanation is distinguished from another explanation, in that there is
| a *different* quantitative prediction that sets it apart from previous
| explanations, and it is this difference that is tested in experiment.
|
| Of course, TomGee doesn't have the slightest idea how to build a
| quantitatively predictive model from an explanation, and so he pretends
| that it doesn't go this way, and that he can simply adopt a
| quantitative model and ascribe a different explanation to it. He thinks
| the explanation has value in itself, without the burden of having to
| provide quantitative predictions *in addition to* the explanation. He
| has no idea that both are required, or does know that but simply
| refuses to do it.
|
| He is either incredibly stupid, or thinks that everyone else is, in
| taking this approach to science.
|
| >
| > It is clear your widdle brain cannot function with ideas that
| > accept what is already observed and only offer better ideas
| > as to their causes, but no additional math constructs to
| > light your way. You are a true Theoretical Physicist in that
| > you must have quantities stated for your mind to stay on
| > track. Without them in your face, you cannot think, period.
| > >
| > > Your ideas have not allowed you to *derive* a single formula for
| > > calculating a single observable quantity of any kind.
| > >
| > So what? Theories have waited centuries for formulas
| > to be invented to explain observed quantities.
|
| Really? Name ONE.
|
| >You
| > think that a theory is valid IFF its creator gives you all
| > that it involves, even though few if any have ever been
| > able to offer such a complete package. Note that AE
| > did not confirm Relativity himself, he had to leave that
| > for others to accomplish.
|
| Check again. In AE's original papers, he provided an *explicit*
| derivation of calculations that distinguished his model from others,
| and he quantitatively predicted things *in those original papers* that
| had not yet been observed. It is that prediction that was later tested
| in experiment. You have done nothing of the sort.
|
| > >
| > > You have no idea what a real physical theory is. This doesn't matter
in
| > > the least to you, because you will also say, "Is not! Is not! A
| > > physical theory is what *I* say it is, not what *you* say it is. I
will
| > > play by *my* rules for as long as *I* want to, and you can't stop me!"
| > > Which is of course true. However, if you want anybody to care, then
| > > you're in for a rude shock.
| > >
| > You're an ***.
|
| You may not like it, TomGee. You may scream that it is unfair. Doesn't
| change the rules.
|
| > >
| > > I recall a boy in middle school who wanted to play basketball with the
| > > other boys. But he did not like the rule about having to dribble, and
| > > he did not like the rule about not grabbing the arm of the one with
the
| > > ball. He desperately wanted to play basketball, but only if everyone
| > > played with the rules *he* wanted. And when the others either kicked
| > > him out of the game or left him on the court to play basketball all by
| > > himself, he screamed at the others that they weren't playing fair.
| > > Needless to say, he was not thought of very highly.
| > >
| > And a big-ass liar to boot.
|
| Nope, it really happened. And now you can ask yourself why I was
| reminded of him.

It was snippety snip Phuckwit Duck?

|
| > >
| > > Your choice, TomGee. Go away or play by yourself or stay here and be
| > > taunted.
| > >
| > Aw gee, PD, and I thought you enjoyed my company here. I have
| > a better idea than yours, why don't you leave and I'll stay?
|
| No, you're much too fun to taunt, and you give me plenty of
| opportunity. Your choice.

I see Tom has a big ass lying 'coon treed.
Androcles.


.

Quantcast