Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There is a lot here that would be worth discussing, but the constant snide remarks are getting wearing, so I’m out.I agree, the OP is clearly not the slightest bit interested in learning anything, he apparently knows all. I've about had enough myself, it is becoming a 'feeding the troll' exercise at this point.
I tiled my bathroom without the use of a ruler because I could measure off the job, no convention was needed.The tiles were your convention.
Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate. The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.I see you are doubling down on your word salad approach.
"Would an explosion on the moon be more powerful than an explosion on the Earth?"Because the refrigerator has lettuce and other vegetables in it.
Or is it just impossible request as whatever our scientists say is always correct (even if we prove that their message is just incorrect (as there is no need for dark matter for the bar and no solution for all the questions) while whatever I say is always incorrect (even if it meets the observation by 100%)?What is your explanation that meets the observation by 100%?
The electron is an elementary particle, meaning it is one thing that cannot broken down any further.OK.
According to the traditionsNot tradition, experimental evidence.
it has two properties; mass and negative charge.That is not correct. There is at least also spin.
But since we cannot break down the electron to isolate these two separate properties, implied by the traditions,Again, this is not tradition. We are not talking about religion we are talking about science.
implied by the traditions, these two things do not exist, in the classic way, within the electron.Of course they do!
If you could break the electron down to mass and charge, the electron would not be an elementary particle.Obviously.
To solve this paradox,What paradox? Your confusion is not a paradox for us.
trying to convince the gradualist elites that catastrophic things DO happen.Here's a bit of advice, I was reading your post with interest until I hit this last part. Calling a competing idea elitist makes me think you are emotionally tied to your theory and therefore possibly biased in your evaluation of data. Implying that a gradualist does not accept that any cataclysms existed Is also hyperbole. Your last sentence makes me question your entire post.
The total effect of curvature is still the total mass or average mass of the particle. The dipole is a point like pulse of curvature. For negative particles, the convex curvature pulse subtracts from the overall curvature mass but not enough to make the mass less than zero.That is just word salad.
For positive particles the concave curvature pulse adds a bit of gravitational curvature to the total mass of the particle.Nope, charge has nothing to do with a gravitational field, charge has to do with the electric field.
Charged particles however create an attraction when a convex pulse meets a concave pulse from opposite directions because the result is a curvature that is intensified. A repulsion is created when like pulses interact because the result is the curvature is interference.More word salad it seems.
Of course this is my theory, hence located here in the speculative board.This is clearly not a theory, this what is referred to as a WAG.
I want to meet you at Joe's in 10 unicorns, of course we will have to set up a convention for one unicorn like the swing of a pendulum or the movement of the sun,OK we are making progress you agree that time is needed.
however we won't need to set up a convention for the spatial dimensions because they actually exist and we can measure them directly.This is just plain wrong. Please tell me how you would describe a distance of 100 miles with out a 'convention for the spatial dimensions'.
. A positive charge can be thought of a compression of space or a pulse of negative curvature. A negative charge can be thought of as a decompression of space or a pulse of positive curvature.That can't be correct it seems. If space was curving then all matter would be effected, but only charged particles are.
We already know that the spiral arm is all about a metastable stage of a globular cluster.Nope.
The glubular cluster that is located at the outermost side of the arm is under the stronget forces due to its furthest location and therefore the thickness of the arm at the edge is just 400LY.Most globular clusters are not located in arms of the galaxy.
All the stars there are bonded together by their mutual gravitational attraction and set the fixed shape of the Globular_cluster.Of course no one said it is liquid, just more bad faith arguments on your part. The stars are moving in the globular cluster so the shape is not fixed.
So, how can you claim that this fixed shape of Globular_cluster is just liqued.
Is it just to confuse the other side?It seems hard to imagine you could be any more confused
To be clear,Looks like another never ending, merry-go-round thread by Hamdani to put on ignore. Bye and have fun.
Nonsense, not observation.I understand you for some reason don't like that time is a dimension, but what you like or want is irrelevant. As far as I know if I set up a meeting with someone the meeting point would require 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. As far as I know an event requires 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions to locate. If you can do describe those exact points without time please demonstrate it, if not you will just have to accept that the universe doesn't care what you like.
Is it not obvious that you can't observe the time dimension.No more than it is obvious you can't observe the length dimension.
Thanks for your honest answer.Its ironic that you say thanks for the honesty and then immediately dishonesty imply that kriptid agreed with your silly conjecture.
So, based on the orbital velocity of the stars in the bar arm, you fully confirm that the stars there meets your calculation for solid arm.
However, I called the bar "solid" but you don't like that name.Since that is wrong it is not surprising.
If the bar behave as a stable structureIt doesn't.
There is empirical evidence for movement, then there is personal speculation that movement is being facilitated by a time dimension.That's rather absurd. Facilitate is a rather odd word to use. Isn't it obvious to you that without time there would be no movement?
Ignoring this lack of evidence and powering on with your personal speculation at least explains how you continue making the same mistake.It isn't a mistake and I'm not speculating. I simply agree that the mainstream physics position makes perfect sense. Your disagreement with science amounts to little more than arm waving speculation that flies in the face of the evidence.
An event (location in space-time) already assumes there is a time dimension.It also assumes there are spatial dimensions.
The co-ordinate system you mention is just math which again you are confusing with the reality.Just like the speed of your car is 'just math', do you confuse that with reality?
Objects already know their location in the universe, if you are the object in question don't you know where and when you are? I think you are confusing math with reality again.No, I'm not confusing anything. To locate an event you need a coordinate system, that coordinate system must contain 4 dimensions, 3 spatial and 1 temporal. It is rather cut and dried.
Do you reconfirm that in a solid arm "the one that is twice as far out has to travel twice as far to complete one orbit."It is difficult to have a science related discussion with someone who does not even know what a solid is.
Yes or No, please?
Do you confirm the Bar arm meets your calculation for solid arm?
So, as the Bar arm looks solid, Behave solid & meets you calculation for solid arm by 100% - then why do you claim that it can't be solid?
Are you sure that only astrophysicist can approve this observation?
Hence, if that astrophysicist would tell you that the Bar arm is solid as it fully meets the calculation for solid arm - would you believe him?Of course not.