Re: The Three Faces of Light Speed Unification.

On Jan 21, 9:24 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 20, 4:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 20, 2:38 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 2:56 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 1:50 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 11:52 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:41 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 11:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 9:36 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 9:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 20, 8:30 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:55 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But then, QM states light is particulate and therefore ballistic.

No, it doesn't. Wherever did you get that foolish idea?

Problem solved.  No need for ether, no need for SRT.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"QM states light is particulate"... that is a fact

No, it doesn't. Wherever did you get that foolish idea?
Don't be shy. Tell us your reference where you extracted this
information?

Ask Feynman you blustering idiot.

That's fine. I've got a number of his books. From which reference did
you extract this information? Feynman appears to say something else
entirely.

PD is lying again.  Let me call and raise you there.

I called. You need to show your hand. Stop bluffing.

 Where does
Feynman say otherwise?  Remember, the advantage of QED over QM was
that it dispensed with the wave part of particle-wave duality..

Whatever gave you THAT crazy idea?

So far you've made three completely goofy statements:
1. QM states that light is particulate
2. Being particulate demands source dependence of speed.
3. QED removes the wave part of wave-particle duality.

Are you arguing with me?  Where is your counter argument?

No, I'm not arguing with you. I'm laughing at you. Do not take the
unwillingness to argue with you to be an indicator of assent or
agreement.

If you are just picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight, then
there are playgrounds where you can do that all you want.






 But
then, this is thin ice for you.  Your knowledgonly goes as far as the
twin parrot.

"and therefore it is ballistic"... that is a logical inference.

And a bad one. Being particulate in no way implies ballistic.

You may be having some elementary logical problems.

The logical shortcoming is your my friend.  Only a wave is source-
independent in terms of velocity.  Particles are source dependent.

Well, that's the second time you've stated that "particle implies
ballistic", in two different ways. Doesn't mean it's right. Wherever
did you get THAT idea?

Are you arguing with me?  Where is your counter argument?



You keep asking about my idea.  It looks like you're at a loss for a
rebuttal :-)

Why would I even waste the breath to rebut a goofball statement?

You seem to be on a campaign to make as many goofball statements in as
short a time as possible, while demanding that somebody prove you
wrong. Sounds like a pretty insane hobby to me.

Go ahead, try for a fourth and let's see how productive your hobby is.

Are you arguing with me?  Where is your counter argument?



Are you saying electrons and muons move with constant velocity?

Get a brain...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you have run out of counter-arguments, let me restate the
points.

1) Light is particulate.

Reference, please. I mean, other than from the inside of your head.

No need.  No counter-argument.

2) Light is particulate according to QM.

Reference, please. I mean, other than from the inside of your head.

No need.  No counter-argument.

3) Light is particulate according to QM and QED.

Reference, please. I mean, other than from the inside of your head.

No need.  No counter-argument.

4) Light is particulate according to QM, QED and Feynman.

Reference, please. I mean, other than from the inside of your head.

No need.  No counter-argument.

Nonsense. We've already discussed this. A bonehead statement on your
part is not to be construed to be true until you can goad someone to
prove it wrong to you. That's just ridiculous.

Are you arguing with me?  Where is your counter argument?

You are free now to claim you are Madonna. Let's see who steps forward
to try to prove that claim wrong.

Madonna fetish noted.



If you think you can keep scientists busy just by making bonehead
statements and demanding a counter-argument, you go right ahead and
try...

Let me see.  You wish not to do the difficult task of arguing, but
rather prefer to do th easy task of commenting from the sidelines.

Baiting attempt noted. Lame baiting attempt, in fact.
"Chicken, are ya? Huh? Are ya?"
Why are you so hell bent on picking fights and doing it on a physics
newsgroup?


5) Particles do not need a medium to travel.

Yes, of course. Neither do some waves. So?

By some you must mean one!  An exeption to the rule!

There's no rule. And there is more than one such type.

Vague.  You are trying to imply that light is the single wave that
does not need a medium,

No, in fact, I'm not trying to imply that, since I just explicitly
asserted that there is MORE THAN ONE such type. It appears that you
cannot read a sentence.

but are too cowardly to even say this dogma
now.  I guess you are starting to realize it is wrong.

6) Particles display velocity addition.  This is true for any particle
(and the photon is no exception, though Einstein would want to exempt
the photon from this simple fact).

No, they don't. Whatever gave you that idea?

You mean an electron (or proton or neutron or muon or neutrino)
velocity do not add to the source velocity?

Not by velocity addition. That is, not by Vt = Vs + Vp.
Were you under the impression they did?

So you are saying electron velocity is independent of the source?  I
thought you spouted dogma.  Now you spout fallacy.  What's next?

I didn't say that either. I said that it is not by Vt = Vs + Vp.
You were able to read that, weren't that?




Let us capitalize on that, hehehe.  PD STATES ELECTRON VELOCITY DOES
NOT ADD TO THE SOURCE VELOCITY!  I know you are stupid, but usually
you try to avoid saying it in black and white.

Fascinating that you find this so incredulous that you capitalize it.
Let's see what other simple things you don't know, so that you can
incredulously capitalize that, too.

PD STATES ELECTRON VELOCITY DOES NOT ADD TO THE SOURCE VELOCITY!

Yes, indeed.


Yeah, let repeat PD spouting fallacy.

As you wish. Do you want to do it again?




Reference, please. I mean, other than from the inside of your head.

No need.  Simple arithmetic.  Vt = Vs + Vp
(t,s,p refer to total, source and particle)

That's from the inside of your head. It's incorrect.

Got another reference that states that?

Simple arithmetic.  You don't have that inside your head :-)

Sorry, nature doesn't obey that rule for total, source, and particle
velocities, even if you think it should.




7) Velocity addition, means source dependence, ergo emission/ballistic
model.

Charming. Now you have seven (count 'em) bonehead statements, and you
are happy to keep 'em piling up. Maybe somebody will try to shoot them
down, maybe nobody will. They're still bonehead statements.

Flattery and insult are not counter-arguments.  Nice try.  But weak.

You seem to be under the impression that I need to provide counter-
arguments to you. What on earth gives you that impression?

Are you arguing with me?  Where is your counter argument?

Did you not understand my question?




Therefore,

1) Relativity IS inconsistent with QM.
2) Relativity IS inconsistent with light as a particle.
3) Relativity IS inconsistent with ballistic/emission theory.

These are the facts.  Faith of course, states otherwise.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Quantcast