[Origin]

When I recalled it I saw a particle trajectory in the image in my mind.

Well, I guess that settles it!  We are going to have to throw out the Standard Model and replace it with The Stuff I Imagine Model.

[Kryptid]

When I recalled it I saw a particle trajectory in the image in my mind.

Seriously, now: are you trying to tell us that pictures in your head are scientific evidence? When I asked you how you know it had anything to do with pion decay, I wanted you to respond with something objective.

Besides, your particle can't exist because it still violates conservation of momentum. You said that it doesn't have any momentum of its own, but it has to be able to interact with the atoms in your brain in order for you to somehow sense it. That means energy has to be transferred from your particle to the atoms. Once those atoms gain kinetic energy, they gain momentum. So where there was initially no momentum, now there is some momentum. That violates conservation of momentum.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You are saying that: if energy goes into a mind and causes ions to move, momentum conservation is violated, but it happens all the time that the soul causes ions to move. How else does an original thought arise?

[Origin]

the soul causes ions to move.

Do you have any evidence of this remarkable phenomena?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Do you have any evidence of this remarkable phenomena?

Yes: the fact that people can talk.

[Origin]

Yes: the fact that people can talk.

That is not evidence that "the soul causes ions to move".  Do you think parrots have a soul?
Please don't be silly and supply real evidence if you have any.

[Kryptid]

You are saying that: if energy goes into a mind and causes ions to move, momentum conservation is violated, but it happens all the time that the soul causes ions to move. How else does an original thought arise?

Brain activity is what causes those ions to move and thoughts to arise. There is nothing about the brain that violates conservation of momentum.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still waiting for an answer from Talantum.

The L⁰ has no momentum so that leaves only energy to be read off the observer's mind. The L⁰ will always have the same energy, so the other two particles can have definite energies.

Do you actually think this might be science?

[talanum1 (OP)]

I'm still waiting for an answer from Talantum.

It's science, just coupled with mind science.

Actually there is a correction: the velocity of the space points in the electron. We can generalize the formula: mrv = J to Erv/c² = ħ/2. This gives: v ≈ 10¹⁶ m/s, which is faster than the speed of light, but note that the mass encoding is located on the axis of rotation, so that only space points are required to travel at faster than light speed. If space can expand faster than light, then points of space can travel faster than light.

That is not evidence that "the soul causes ions to move".  Do you think parrots have a soul?

It's a matter of faith. To prove it you would have to tap into the brain. Yes I think parrots have a soul.

Brain activity is what causes those ions to move and thoughts to arise. There is nothing about the brain that violates conservation of momentum.

How do you explain an original thought then? That is just a belief.

[Bored chemist]

just coupled with mind science.

So, not science, but some rubbish you imagined.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The problem of faster than light travel remains in the point particle model. It uses mvr = J giving v faster than light.

[Bored chemist]

The problem of faster than light travel remains in the point particle model. It uses mvr = J giving v faster than light.

That doesn't mean anything.
It's just word salad.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The problem of faster than light travel remains in the point particle model. It uses mvr = J giving v faster than light.
That doesn't mean anything.
It's just word salad.

This is the crucial point for you to understand: point particle does not work.

Yet you refuse to understand.

[Origin]

Yet you refuse to understand.

We all understand this is nonsense.

[Kryptid]

How do you explain an original thought then?

The same way that a computer has an "original thought": the reaction of a program to inputs. I don't know if anyone can say that they have had a truly original thought. When people come up with new ideas, they are inevitably influenced by things that they have previously learned.

That is just a belief.

One that doesn't violate conservation of momentum and is therefore consistent with the known laws of physics. I need to point out that a soul causing thoughts wouldn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum either. If a soul had energy and momentum, and is capable of transmitting and receiving those same things, then no violation occurs. So your counterpoint trying to justify your particle violating momentum conservation doesn't work.

The fact of the matter is that you can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of momentum. It doesn't work. Your particle has been falsified. Stop moving the goalposts.

This is the crucial point for you to understand: point particle does not work.

The point particle model being wrong wouldn't make your model be right. Both can be wrong (especially since your model breaks at least one law of physics).

[Origin]

It's a matter of faith.

Then it is not science. 

[talanum1 (OP)]

The same way that a computer has an "original thought": the reaction of a program to inputs.

For a computer to think you need some operator to load and run the program. Who does this for Humans? There must be momentum non-conservation even if the soul is made out of energy.

[Bored chemist]

For a computer to think you need some operator to load and run the program. Who does this for Humans? There must be momentum non-conservation even if the soul is made out of energy.

That doesn't mean anything.
It's just word salad.

I'm still waiting for an answer from Talantum.

The L⁰ has no momentum so that leaves only energy to be read off the observer's mind. The L⁰ will always have the same energy, so the other two particles can have definite energies.

Do you actually think this might be science?

[talanum1 (OP)]

It can become science if a lot of people experience it for themselves.

[Bored chemist]

It can become science if a lot of people experience it for themselves.

Get back to us if that happens.
Until then, please don't try to raise it on a science page.