Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity Trivial!

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 22:20:43 +0000 (UTC)

"Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109930167.647581.94680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> > "Fusioneer" <ccryder1947@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1109703565.756908.323870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > That's right.
> >
> > What is it that's right?
> >
> > > You heard me.
> >
> > Who has heard of you?
> >
> > If you had left the header and the relevant context, it wouls have
> > been unnecesary to tell you how to use usenet, you moron.
> >
> > > If you but have a correct model for the
> > > unit charge then understanding how to unify electromagnetism and
> > > gravity is blatantly obvious.
> >
> > Units are defined in a manner to make them convenient to use..
They
> > don't need models.
>
> Such a comment indicates that you readily respond without a clue at
all
> as to what I was saying.

Of course I have many clues about what you are saying. You have been
emitting horse dung from all available orifices and I have no doubt
that you will continue to do so.

> Recall the earlier comment about you shooting
> with the lip from the hip? Makes for an incoherent conversation
but
> then there's not much to be said for any conversation where one
person
> calls the other a moron.

Sorry, but I really cannot help it if you continue to act precisely
like a moron. And you are quitre right that there's not much to be
said for this conversation. You have not managed to cope toth one
single criticism I have raised about the physics content of your crap.
Your only hope of redemption would be, instead of practising your side
stepping dance, to deal with the growing number of criticisms which
more than one of your readers have raised over a period of many years
now. Do you realise that ever since the days when Jim Carr started
laying all hell out of you, (and probably earlier than that), you have
not disposed of *one* *solitary* *criticism* of your bull***?

> Since you obviously don't have the slightest connection to
reasonable
> manners

I adjust my manners according to the degree of respect I have for
those with whom I exchange words in this ng.
For you, I have none whatsoever, so you are lucky that I have not used
even more direct language towards you.

> I can't see much of a point responding to you since any
> response just evokes the same old bad behavior that you've displayed
> over the years.

That is your way of copping out.
If you fail to cope with my criticisms of your bull***, I will simply
chalk that up as another loss on your part.

> The reference to the 'unit charge' means to the fundamental singly
> charged quantum.

Which one? The electron or one or more of the quarks?

> There hasn't been a good model for the nature of
> charge and that has been a severe lacking.

Then you are admitting to a huge lacuna in your knowledge.
You need to study quantum field theory.

> You're not going to get it
> but the issue is to understand not what charges do because we've
more
> than a hundred years of tweaking and fiddling learning how to
> manipulate charged particles to our advantage in technological
devices
> but rather to come to an understanding of exactly what charge is.

The trweaking has been outstandingly successful, like navigating a
beam of protons on a six light year predetermined trajectory and
keeping them on track to within one or two millimetres.

> From
> what does it spring? What causes it? What is its very nature?

I have given you the answer. It is there, a few lines higher up.

> For
> some people such questions are perhaps meaningless because it never
> occurred to them to think about charge in such a manner.

 Do you really have to reiterate your points as if you were preaching
a sermon?

> All that you
> say in your responses indicates that you think classically about
> quanta.

If you had any cognitive powers worth putting on a microbalance, you
would have realised that I don't mix classical and quantum physics..
The terms belong to different domains of physics.

> You have to stop doing that if you want to understand the
> basics of physical reality. But I'm sure you'll just disagree since
> we've never found a grounds for agreement.

You are absolutely correct. That is mostly due to the fact that you
know very little physics and you never present any "grounds" other
than your crappy initial handwaving mantra.

> So, how about getting a
> clue that I'm really here to fish for the men who care about more
basic
> and true things than ever enters your mind? I'll respond to you
just
> sort of to mark time until a soul brave enough to wind his way past
the
> barks and snarls of the likes of you shows up.

You have not responded to any criticism I have made of your noinsense.

> You're actually quite
> functional because you act like a sorting mechanism.

Yes. I sort wheat from chaff. You are in the chaff category.

> People who can't
> get past the likes of you or who get swayed by you just don't have
the
> level of character or dedication to finding the truth that they need
to
> have.

Let's stop lauding my character and just get on with responding
quantitatively to the problems I have raised with you.
If you can't do so, just have the integrity to say so, and we'll call
it a day

I'll, just give you a summary of my main criticisms of your guff:

You force law for the interaction between charges is non-conservative.
You cannot account for the bahaviour of the Rutherford differential
cross section in the backward direction.
   (I remember you maintaining that in the case of 180 deg.
scattering, calculated classically, the alpha particle is not ever at
rest relative to the nucleus. LOL)
You cannot account for the behaviour of the Bhabha differential cross
section in the backward direction.
You cannot accont for the lack of angular momentum conservation in
your poloidal/toroidal catastrophe.

> So, thanks for sweeping aside the debris of human intellects
> that are too void of character to bear up under the onslaught of
> insults and bad logic and fear of not going along with the crowd for
> fear of mockery. I apologize for not quoting properly. I just
started
> using a browser with google to posting the newsgroups and I was used
to
> using a newsgroup client like newsreader. But it doesn't really
matter
> because you've had nothing of value to say anyway and you continue
to
> get your facts wrong

Please list the facts *of physics* which I have got wrong.
If indeed I was wrong, I will apologise, as indeed I make a rigorous
habit of doing.

> and you express how disconnected you are from the
> true issues in subjects like superconduction.

Please list "the true issues in subjects like superconduction" about
which I am wrong, and indicate what my errors are. Please make sure
that your criticisms are not just due to your lack of familiarity with
the subject, but actually reflect the true status of the subject.

> And you don't even see it
> as an important issue to understand the very basics of things like
> charge and gravity. I've been following what's been going on in
> superconduction circles for over 35 years and I'm quite a bit less
> susceptable to being conned by what is popular than you are. I've
seen
> where it was rejected because it predictions were always wrong years
> before Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer won the Nobel in 1972.
> Experimental data surfaces soon after they won the prize that also
> indicated the theory was askew. You're such pathetic follower
> completely unable to emerge with an original thought of your own.

And just what contribution have you made to the field of
superconductivity?
I have never personally done research in that field, so I have not
exerted myseolf to contribute to it. I have, however, kept myself
more or less informed about developments in the field.

> You
> should consider that there's some reason why you have to follow me
> around like a pet skunk when I post. Such behavior is typically a
fear
> reaction. You're afraid that what you believe in will be exposed
and
> suddenly your whole life will be like a badly cobbled together movie
> set full of false fronts without real substance. Of course, you're
> correct in such fears and I completely understand your behavior.
Too
> bad you don't.

I keave that last attempt to deliver a homily for the delectation of
others. 

-- 
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
Quantcast