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


PD wrote:
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.

As I've said countless times, another one of your unsupported
and nonsensical opinions.

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.

You have said many stupid things in these ngs, but I believe
that one takes the cake. If I had given you nothing but
quantitative predictions, you would have refuted my ideas on
the basis that I gave no alternative explanations! All the
quantitative predictions pertaining to my ideas have already
been given to you. If you think not, then use some to overturn
my ideas, why doncha. You can't, either because you don't
know enough of them to argue with, or you're just blowing out
more hot air. It is your unsupported opinions are worthless,
PD, not my ideas.

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.

Oh oh, TomGee has evidently struck a nerve, as PD is now
again talking to him in the third person!

He thinks that one derives explanations from
mathematical models, rather than the other way around.

Oh? You derive math constructs from explanations? No
wonder your models are so screwed up, since your
explanations are based on the wrong conclusions of what
is being observed.

He does not
understand that when an explanation is built, one *derives* the
mathematical model from it, as a quantitative expression of the
explanation.

So when you have blind men feeling up an elephant, and
each explains what that elephant is, you build a model
based on their explanations. No wonder physics is so
screwed up and so many physicists are running around
naked in the streets.

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.

If that was so, how is it then I can tell you the difference between
your bull*** and my ideas?

Of course, TomGee doesn't have the slightest idea how to build a
quantitatively predictive model from an explanation,

If you knew how you would have done so already just to show
where I am wrong. As it is, you can't even make decent arguments
against a single one of my ideas.

and so he pretends
that it doesn't go this way,

While you pretend it does go that 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.

Well let's test your bs to see how it holds up. Let's examine the
Inflationary Period concept as a quantitative prediction. As I
recall, it states that the space all of a sudden exploded into a huge
size (how many miles across exactly does the concept tell us, PD,
and for exactly how long is that number?). Of course, it must have
given us a quantitative prediction as to just exactly how it managed
to expand so much in such an incredibly small amount of time, so
what was that number?

Before I go on, let's address your little fantasy about the explanation

coming first, then the quantitative predictions. What did actually
happen to cause the creation of the IP concept? First, it was the
observation that the elements appear to be well spread out through-
out the known universe. The question came next, and it asked, "How
is it that the elements in the universe are so well spread out in such
a
homogeneous way?" Next came the explanation, which was the idea of
the IP. But if the IP concept itself is the explanation, where is the
math
model of it? The IP predicts a FTL expansion of the space of the
universe, but according to your little story above, for it to have
survived
at all in physics, it must have made quantitative predictions as well
that
should explain how FTL speeds could have occur then. You know a lot
more physics than I do, PD, so tell us where and what those figures are

that show how it is that matter went faster than light.

He is either incredibly stupid, or thinks that everyone else is, in
taking this approach to science.

That's your approach, not mine. I've shown you mine, and it ain't
that.

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.

Why, don't you know one at least?

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.

Yes, I have. I have predicted alternative explanations for the
silliness of massless photons, string theory, s-t interdependence,
and a host of other fairy tales currently in vogue in Modern Physics.

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.

Doesn't matter whether I like it or not, PD, tomorrow I can stop
screaming, but you will still be an ***.

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.

No, you made it up.

.

Quantcast