I'd like to say thanks to all who've brought cerntv to youtube. I've been a fan of Carl Sagans' work & the overall study of our universe. You've made it so much easier for people like me to find & learn more about what you are doing to further the knowledge of our existence. Many thanks & keep up the great work with cerntv!!!
3. The rope is not 'tied' to an atom. A rope forks out at the surface of the electron. The electric threads of every atom in the U converge and form the proton. The magnetic threads curve around and form the encapsulating balloon. With this balloon we can explain bonding. Schrodinger's equation merely tells us what happens at one location on this balloon. That's the famous 'cloud' model. Electricity is the twirling of a row of electron shells (a serpentine) (EI # 8)
QM holds that particles of space appear from the vacuum during exnihilation (opposite of annihilation). The favorite phrase of QM is that space IS 'seething energy' (whatever that is). Pastor Al preferred to think of space as different gradients of a field (whatever that is). In his view, matter was just a higher concentration of this entity he called field. So if you don't want to catch a lot of flak from the MPs, you'd better reconsider your candid remark.
The LHC was damaged due to technical faults in some of the magnets (that came from the american Fermilab btw) and so the experiement was delayed by one year. The repairs are almost complete and first collisions are to be started this October now. It is estimated that the LHC collision experiments and the evaluation of the giant amounts of data will take up to three years before definite scientific conclusions regarding the Higgs boson can be drawn.
I have, however, illustrated how the thread weaves the balloon that encapsulates the proton. An atom is definitely part of what we call matter. The question is whether a magnetic field, for example, can be called matter. We also have to answer how neutrons manage to pass thru the nucleus while atoms bounce: "particles such as neutrons... which do not interact with the electron cloud, do not 'see' the same effective size for atoms, and often pass through them as though they were empty space."
So we agree. A particle is something which has shape which in turn has L W and H. If an electron has shape AND L W + H, it belongs to Physics. If it has shape, this discrete entity can only be at one side of a proton at a time... unless, of course, it encapsulates and contains the proton. Which is it?
it does not have location. Therefore, it meets neither condition for existence. This humongously long and thin thread is spread out throughout the U (matter and what we call space). An H atom is comprised of EM threads approaching from every atom in the U. By E and M, I just mean that one thread will go straight to the center of the atom (E) and the other one will loop around and form the electron shell or balloon (M). I use E and M because there is no reason to change these qualifiers.
The people at LHC think that the invisible messengers that go around the accelerator are particles, when what they are doing is either 'observing' torsion signals moving along the ropes that interconnect atoms or 'observing' rows of aligned atoms (electron serpentines) twirling in situ (standing torsion wave). There is nothing being 'accelerated' except signals. The mathematicians have confused these signals for discrete particles. (Ref: EI#8).
In Science, the 3 dims are length, width, and height and have to do with structure. The 3 coos are longitude, latitude, and altitude and have to do with location. The 3 vectors are depth, breadth, and elevation. They have to do with motion. Therefore, coordinates have nothing to do with structure and should not even be invoked in the instant discussion. WHAT a point or electron IS has nothing to do with WHERE it is located.
Which in turn means that you never touched the table! When two cars crash against each other, did the atoms/molecules of one car touch the A/M of the other? Did the atoms of one car become part of the molecules of the other?
PHYSICALLY hold two atoms together? Does the bead make a hole through the wall of the roulette during ionization? Is the wall you call orbital/region/energy level, the same invisible wall that stops Merk from drifting out of the Solar System? What physical entity lies between the proton and the electron of an H atom? A field?
MO is saying that Mighty Mouse can indeed strangle three cats together with his contrails. In QM, what binds atoms together are the 'energy levels' (abstract concepts). So the rational question is: What is an energy level made of? WHAT IS this formidable 'region'? A field? So what is a field? Is it made of points (i.e. locations)? The second set of questions are even tougher. What keeps the tiny bead faithful to the proton? Why doesn't the e- stick to the p+ during P-orbitals?
1. I will be covering this topic in the next vid, but here's a preview. Force is a CONCEPT. It is irrational to say that you can carry a concept (e.g. particle carrying a force), which is the euphemism QM routinely invokes to explain what a gluon or a photon does. Then, of course, the numskulls end up claiming that there are 4 forces. In Physics, there are only two forces: push and pull. What other force can you imagine?
But assumng QM is correct, we still have push (photon, Ws and Zs) and pull (gluon, graviton). We have no problem with push. The trick consists in generating pull with discrete particles. What do you do? Just change the negative sign in the equation to generate PHYSICAL pull?
The thread is not made of any subcomponents itself because it is the ultimate entity of which everything else is made. It would be irrational to ask 'What is the thread made of?' because the next question will be 'What is the entity the thread is made of made of?' and so on. That's the problem with QM. QM assumes that there is a fundamental particle. You should always end up with something if you continue to slice or smash particles. You should never end up with nothing.
If you're searching for particles, you've got a long hunt. The infamous particle is just a handy tool that the mathematicians use to model what happens at each 'point' in space. This is a far cry from concluding that an atom is a discrete particle made itself of particles made of particles ad infinitum. What physical entity compels the electron bead to orbit around the proton bowling ball? A field? What is the field made of? More particles?
So we have arrived at a planetary model of the atom. A snapshot of ONE electron and ONE proton should show two particles standing next to each other. The 'orbital' 'cloud' model of the atom is a movie of one electron at gazillions of locations around the nucleus. One problem is that the 'orbits' of electrons cannot bind two atoms together. Another problem is that the negative electron ends up traveling through the positive proton barrier in P-orbitals.
Fine! So which is it? Is energy a property of an object or an object in itself which you can convert into something else? Can you transfer energy like you transfer a piece of meat? Is there a difference between the concept energy and the object rock?
1. They are neither particles nor waves. The thread is the elementary entity of the U. Atoms are made of threads, which in turn make up everything else. They ARE not waves or particles. 2. As far as I can tell, with the rope model of light, I can explain every experiment ever performed, from polarization to slit to photoelectric. In the book, I explain reflection, refraction, diffraction, straightness, speed, gravity, EPR, tunneling, and light on light among others.
What is transferred is a torsion signal along the rope that interconnects any two atoms (c = ƒ λ) A rope has no alternative. When ƒ goes up, λ goes down. A rope is the only architecture imaginable that can justify this equation. The atom is pumping torque waves at a faster wave along the rope. Therefore the frequency increases (i.e. the number of links comprising that stretch of rope increase and the links become smaller). You can see how the atom fits in at: YTube ZmE11_E-rdE
1. None of the above. The best characterization is what we typically understand by the word thread. First of all, we are talking about a physical entity. This eliminates wave, force, or energy which are concepts. Here we are talking about a thread such as the one you put in a needle. This is the physical configuration of the entity I am referring to.
The reply they always give is an attempt to cover lal the bases in order to make the theory unfalsifiable. The electron is BOTH a discrete particle and an extended 'object.' It is (let me caps that: IS) BOTH a particle (an object) and 'a' wave (a verb). It IS BOTH on one side of the proton (the bead, ionization, electricity) AND also all around it (the cloud, hybridization, covalent bonding). If the electron is a bead, you cannot explain bonding and if it is a shell, 'orbital', cloud, balloon,
The burner does not 'transfer energy' to the pot which transfers energy to the water. This is Ptolemaic explanation. In Physics, we say that the atoms/molecules of the burner vibrate, which induces the A/M of the pot to vibrate, which induces the A/M of the water to vibrate. We do not transfer 'the capacity.' This is irrational language.
The word 'particle' denotes an entity that we cannot visualize very well because it is so tiny. This word fits but awkwardly with the elongated thread that forms a rope which I am describing. If you tell someone that the thread with which you sew your pants is a particle, they will look at you kinda weird.
The only thing we are concerned about right now is WHAT an electron IS. You say that it is a point. Does a point have extension, shape, form? Is an electron an object or not?
There is no difference between an E and M thread. One simply converges on the nucleus and we arbitrarily call it E thread. the other forms the electron balloon and we arbitrarily call it M thread. The hypothesis is that there is a SINGLE closed-loop thread in the entire U. This thread converges into knots called atoms which in turn form the basis of macro objects such as you and me.
2. Is the H atom comprised of a proton and an electron? If so, and the electron and the proton are discrete particles, an H atom should look like this: e- . O p+ Am I correct?
7. You cannot take a rope in your hand because the ropes 'end' in each of the atoms of your hand and continue to other atoms. You cannot hold light like you hold a rod or a regular rope. Nevertheless, before you can hold you must define the crucial word 'touch.' Can you touch a table? What does this mean? Does it mean that the atoms of your finger became one with the atoms of the wood? if the atoms in your hand maintained their individuality, it means there was space between atoms at all times.
1. You can perhaps argue that the SM model is incomplete at the quark, neutrino, Higgs level. The SM is absolutely a done deal at the H atom. Who is investigating the architecture of the H atom? It is not even among the 10 most important questions of Physics. The mathematicians are investigating the screws and bolts of the boards that make up the house and have no idea what the house looks like. Sounds like a plan? Meanwhile, they claim that they split and photographed individual atoms!
4. 'A' field consists of threads spinning around the serpentines (magnetic domains) (EI # 9). Gravity will be covered in EI # 11 + 12. 5. You cannot shake a rope (standing wave). A rope remains taut at all times except during electricity and magnetism (EI # 9) 6. A newborn is comprised of atoms. Every atom of the newborn is connected to all others in the U as the newborn is being 'assembled' inside the womb. Every atom in your body is connected via EM ropes to every atom in my body.
1. In Science, you can move the elephant. You cannot move its center of mass even if you move the elephant! The day the center of mass moves, you need to drink two more beers for the effect to go away. If you want to move the elephant in Physics, you must absolutely replace the center of mass with the elephant again. In MP, they move point particles. The MP forget to replace the 0D particle with the 3D particle when they give their explanation of what they smashed or what circles a proton.
QM does NOT explain chemical bonding. QM has two models for the atom: Bohr's planetary model, which it still uses to explain ionization and electrical current, and the balloon model, which it uses to explain chemical bonding and hybridization. So please draw for me the H atom. After 80 years of QM, this should be a piece of cake. We have 1 electron and 1 proton. Please draw them. Of course, if as you say, the electron is 0D, we have nothing around the proton.
Since ALL geo figs of Math are 'constructed' with 'infinite' number of 0D, no size 'points' (i.e. locations), all geo figs of MP are still under construction. There is not a single static figure in the whole of Modern Geometry!
A theory of Physics must absolutely be visualized. If you can't make a movie of your theory, you are NOT doing Physics. You are doing either Philosophy or religion. Physics is first and foremost the study of objects (i.e. shapes), specifically of objects that exist (i.e. have location). Philosophy is the study of concepts. Math Phyz studies irrational concepts such as energy, virtual particles, and black holes which no director can put on the screen. The language of Physics is visualization.
1. The word particle is inappropriate in this context. You are thinking in terms of Quantum. A thread is an elongated entity. A particle is a discrete entity. 2. In order to explain the crucial word matter, I would have to go into light on light. The thread is 3D at a very fine scale. It exists (has location). whether it constitutes 'matter' is an issue of definitions. I do not regard the thread as matter in my book because it does not have certain properties of matter.
In Math Phyz, space is made of particles. That's the official view today. The reason for this irrational conclusion is that the mathematicians haven't defined the words space and object. If space is made of particles, what gives shape to each particle of space? If the accelerator ushers a particle of space into the chamber, what remains behind in the hole? And so on.
1. I have drawn it at: youtube J-NB5vg7woM 2. Nevertheless, if light is made of particles, it had better have shape. Please draw a picture of light like I have. 3. Light is a physical object. It causes among other physical phenomena one called the photoelectric effect. Energy is an abstract concept. Therefore, light and energy are not the same. 4. Energy and particles of force are a part of Math Phyz. Irrational concepts are not a part of Science.
How does an apparatus, 3-D for that matter, gather data projected along the 4th, 5th, 6th...... dimension again? Unless one builds a detector with the same highest degree of freedom, one CANNOT collect sufficient properties/data to prove the locality or the origin of all things wont you say? Just a humble suggestion!
A single point has form. I don't care what shape it is. It can be cubic, spherical or cylindrical, but it had better be more than zip if it is discrete. The ONLY property an object has is shape. object: that which has shape This is the scientific definition of the strategic word object. It is scientific because we can now use it consistently.
Not with the rope. The topic of light on light is beyond my presentation on You Tube or on my website. That's a topic I treat extensively in the book. It's a complex subject (i.e. how the rope performs this magic trick on behalf of Mother Nature). How does light on the one hand act as a particle (e.g. photoelectric/Compton effects) and on the other go through light (e.g. pointing two flashlights at each other)?
It is like saying that you are trying to figure out the nature of the nails and screws that keep the boards of your house together, but that you don't know what your house looks like. No one is researching the architecture of the atom. The mathematicians simply ASSUME that they are dealing with particles, that nature is weird, that science and Physics are counter intuitive, and continue as if nothing. After 80 years of QM, we must question the assumption. There are no particles in the U.
1. The 'ultimate entity,' whether particle or thread is no different. We can construct the Universe using particles or threads as bricks. The only requirement is that the brick have shape. 2. I already mentioned that the difference between a particle and a thread is that a particle is discrete. A thread is extended. A particle cannot and does not extend from the Earth to Andromeda. Do you understand this much? I have no idea why you call the thread a particle. The thread is NOT a particle!
If the H atom is the ONLY entity in the U, you have one proton ball next to an electron ball. Place the electron ball wherever you want. It will be to the side of the proton ball.
I don't care how matter BEHAVES. We are not talking about behavior. We are talking about structure. Nevertheless, if the wiki or CERN tells you that the Earth is flat, will you also post this version here without challenging it?
I did publish the rope hypothesis/thread theory in the peer reviewed 'What is the Electron.' Ed V. Simulik (See Amazon). The problem is that books from little known authors are not read by anyone. So it makes no difference. That's why I decided to take the theory to UA-cam.
For the purposes of Science, an object is not made of anything. In Science, we point to an object and utter a sound: chair. For the rest of the presentation, the ET identifies the sound with the object. What an object is made of comes later when we make comparisons and use the object in a sentence: 'The carpenter made the CHAIR of wood and metal.' In Science, we don't explain an object. In science, we define the word object as 'that which has shape.' Anything which has shape is now an object.
By 'elementary' I mean that this entity is what ultimately comprises all matter in the U. You cannot speak of the 'nature' of an elementary thread or particle. For example, let's assume QM is correct and everything is ultimately made of a particle X. It would be irrational to ask 'What is X made of. This question violates the definition of 'elementary.' You can only describe the properties of a hypothetical particle that serves as the basis of matter. The thread is no different.
According to the religion of Quantum Mechanics, an H atom is comprised of ONE electron BEAD and ONE proton bowling ball (1800 times more massive). Please draw a picture of how these two PARTICLES of the Standard Model (which ONLY deals with particles) are distributed.
So let me get this straight. The two REGIONS bind two atoms together? Are you saying that the ITINERARY of ONE electron bead gets tangled with the ITINERARY of another electron bead? A region is a concept. It is not a physical object like a rock is an object. The region in which a rock can be found cannot be bonded with the region where another rock can be found.
You are trying to escape punishment, ish. Does the H atom have one electron and one proton? Yes or No? Is a proton a particle? Is an electron a particle? Is a particle an object? What is an object? Is a cube an object? Is a rock an object? Is love an object? Is there anything different between your electron and the word beauty?
1. The source is Bill Gaede. If they gave all these MPs Nobels throughout all these years, I just want an attaboy for the discovery of the definitions of OBJECT and EXIST. I am an expert on these two sine qua non words of Physics. I've been studying them for years. Arisototle and Euclid had already zeroed in on the def of object: shape. Their great failure (and that of all the mathematicians who came afterwards) is not recognizing the importance of these two words.
your point? it dosent matter what you class it as - a concept, and object at the end of the day its there and no - you cant draw it - but you can represent it as a drawing
1. In Science, we don't use euphemisms or poetry. We don't have to explain what the terms 'carrying a force' or 'time dilation' REALLY mean. In Science, we say it like it is. We can't carry a push and we cannot dilate a week. So you don't have to explain anything, ish. Just tell me how a discrete particle A pulls on discrete particle B. Assume that they are the only entities in the U.
Concepts don't need points. Points are objects because they have shape. Concepts are relations and thus have no shape. Concepts were all invented by Man. Does the point at the end of the previous sentence have width and height or not? Please feel free to use your microscope if you cannot see it well.
The Earth is flat, elliptical or round even when there is no one to look at it. Observers have nothing to do with the shape of the Moon. Likewise, whether the electron is spherical or cubic is not an issue that requires an experiment (i.e. looking at it) This is a conceptual issue only. You have to tell me what the electron looks like to explain YOUR theory. Is the electron a discrete bead or a balloon that encompases the nucleus?
If we do this, it destroys MP! Mp doesn't deal with objects or what exists at all. MP deals exclusively with abstract concepts. These concepts become irrational when the MP reifies them. The only way to use the words object and exist consistently (rationally) in Science is as shape and physical presence respectively.
"Another surprising entity, and the real surprise is that it can be described as an entity at all, is the vacuum. Common sense tells us that a vacuum is nothing, or more precisely that it is empty space. However, in general relativity theory the vacuum isn't simply that... For quantum physicists the vacuum is much more complicated...
5. I don't use energy because there is no such THING. If you believ otherwise, please draw a picture of energy. In Science, an object is that which has shape. This is the scientific definition of object because it is the only way to use the word consistently. If you disagree, please define the word OBJECT scientifically.
yes that is what i was getting at. physisits try and help you imagine the unimaginable. but there are some concepts you just cannot draw or picture - that still does not mean theyr not there. just watch carl sagans video on the 4th dimension
You still have no idea WHAT 'a' field is. Under Thread Theory, the invisible 'field' consists of physical threads that swing around aligned atoms and molecules (Ref: EI9). Now, there's no ambiguity. Now we have a physical entity rather than an abstract concept at the center of attention. The threads EXPLAIN (justify, provide a cause for) WHY two objects attract each other.
What do you mean that a shape doesn't have to have length, width or height? What are you staring at? Name one shape or form that does not have width AND height. Math Phyz is truly the worst kind of religion ever invented. People go to the university, study for 10 years, and then say such things as that a particle has no dimensions. Absolutely breathtaking!
@ancientwisdom2012 I should say instead of a "fruitless search" in general, an endless search if the infinite fractal theory is correct. Yet particle physics would be a fruitless search in the sense of finding a Unified theory of Everything. In terms of missing mass, Einstein's field equations cancel out rotation by attaching the observer to the rotating object. This may be a huge oversight that will account for the missing mass. The "64 double tetrahedron" is the proposed fundamental pattern
First of all, cool video, and very informative. But I need help, does anybody now the song played around minute 10? Please post here if you now its title or the band/musician.
1. So let's transcribe your 1st definition: object = thing/entity/being (circular def!) This is a synonym; not a def. Here's your second one: object = mass A cube is an object. It has a single property: shape. That's what an object is 'that which has shape'. So...What is the shape of mass? Is mass the same thing as cube?
I understand that. But we have to also describe the simplest atom. The cloud model cannot be extended to hydrogen, which makes up 90% of the matter in the U. The cloud model confuses the trajectory of an electron with the dirt road on which it may travel. An orbit is an itinerary. An 'orbital' is the region in which the e- may travel (or be located). But then MO tells us that molecules are formed by PHYSICALLY binding regions (abstract concepts). This is irrational and unscientific.
It's 1000 Mio it gives a better idea to those who can't visually render a Billion. Perceptively 1000Mio is easier to digest by most people since they are more common units of monetary measure than a Billion in the regular persons everyday vocabulary, and since this is an educational video it's more than obvious why it would be considered the better alternative. It's easier for someone who doesn't know what a billion is to understand the quantity under discussion.
1. Oh I agree. You just confirmed what I said earlier. So I'll say it a little louder in order for everyone to hear: NOT A SINGLE MATHEMATICIAN ON EARTH SINCE PYTHAGORAS HAS EVER UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING THE WORDS OBJECT AND EXIST! You cannot do Physics without these two words. 2. Now take the bead and tell a mechanic that that's what an electron is because your teacher told you so. He will say that you're crazy! The e- is a point particle because it is 0D, no size, no shape!
No MP will stoop this low. They have delegated these issues to the philosophers (which don't investigate them either). The nature of light, the atom, fields, etc., are not even among the 10 most important questions of contemporary 'Physics.' That's why no one can answer my questions. That's why you will never get an answer to WHY from the establishment.
1. I have no idea where you got the idea that light does not have shape. You can stop light with your hand. It had better be 3D and have shape! 2. Forces and energy do not have shape because they are concepts. We learn this in Science 101. It is the mathematicians who believe that forces are particles and can be carried by other particle. This is the idiocy that comes out of the mathematical world.
If the electron is not 0D, it is an object (i.e. it has shape). We have two shapes: the proton and the electron. Please draw for me the H atom! How will you distribute these two shapes in a SINGLE image? I don't want a movie of the electron everywhere. I want a still image.
The mechanics have yet to explain a single experiment with particles. The mechanic always asks you to set aside your intuition and common sense and instead accept that nature is weird. It is not nature which is weird. It is the nerds coming out of college which are weird. In Physics, we explain rationally (using our terms consistently). QM has yet to do this. e.g. The mathematician cannot explain a phenomenon with particles. So he invents the virtual particle which violates the def of particle.
Again, what this shows is that a mathematician is an individual who glosses over architecture because this is not of interest to him. A mathematician deals with souls and spirits; not with hearts and humans. He deals with stuff that has nothing to do with Physics. He deals exclusively with concepts which he tries to smuggle in as objects (points as dots, geodesics as lines, energy as mass which means an object, time as something you can dilate, black hole as something that can swallow clocks).
2. I am offended by your use of the word particle, and I have already pointed this out to you. I have a very low regard for this word, partly because QM is based on it, but more because the mechanic tries to pull a fast one on me: a particle is 0D, no size, no shape, etc. This is BS. How can they create debris in the chamber after smashing two 0D 'particles'? I defined the word object as that which has shape. If you don't disagree, let's use the word object (or thing, entity, etc).
My mistake, sorry. In #5 I talk about Hawking and spacetime and that's what I thought you were referring to. The point is that the entire establishment consists of relativists, mechanics and string theorists. As I say in the vid, try submitting a paper saying that God doesn't exist to a panel of Christians and Muslims. See if you get published.
I do not understand your last two Q. I'll do my best. There is a single closed-loop thread 'in' the whole of space. By 'in' I don't really mean that this thread is 'within' a medium. Space is NOT a medium, and this is difficult for people to understand or imagine. Space does not have shape. There is no such THING as space. Space does not exist. (I don't know if any of these statements reached their target.) Objects exist IFF they have location (wrt each other). Space is not an object and...
3. 'Manipulating' is a light on light topic which I cover in the book. I will not discuss how the threads avoid tangling on the Internet. Nevertheless, there are more basic issues that need to be resolved before we can get to that point. You are obviously not familiar with the scientific method. We need to start there.
I agree with you. Completely. But you and I are a minority. We are overruled by a show of hands. In contemporary 'Science,' in the religion of MP, a particle has zero size, is 0D, and has no shape. A 'particle' is not an object, but a concept. A particle is REALLY a 'point particle,' where the word 'point' does not allude to a dot (object), but rather to a location (concept). (Ref EI1). See EI 10. Most of the argument is there. It is unbelievable, but that's what the MPs have decreed.
No. This material is not in What is the electron?' I wrote on these subjects in another book titled 'Why God Doesn't Exist.' You can get a preview (without buying the book) at: youstupidrelativist(dot)com
So now ish discovers the mother of all particles and tells the world in a conference 'Eureka, at last!.' The reporter in the back row raises his hand and asks at the end of the presentation 'What is the particle made of?' You see the problem? Something has got to be the ultimate brick. That's the thread. You cannot ask 'What is it made of?' because I am telling you that the thread is the ultimate brick.
I thought we were talking science. I thought that when you said that an electron is a particle which is an object you were talking about Physics. So you WERE talking about religion all along. Is this what Quantum is? A religion? Is this what an electron is? Just a subject we can talk about? Or is an electron a shape that leaves an atom to transform it into an ion?
2. Electrons HAVE charge? You mean like I HAVE a hanky in my pocket? Please draw picture of charge for me. That way I can visualize this physical OBJECT you call charge. 3. A field (concept) is the force (concept) b/w a particle (oh my God!) of charge (another concept)? I need a beer! Make that two!
This is not a definition. This is a synonym: a circuar argument. You are saying that an object is a thing which is an entity which is an object. I am not playing with words. I want you to define the word object instead of running away. You tell me that an electron is an object. What do you mean by this?
I am not talking about 100 chairs. I am talking about ONE chair. Before you can talk about a point, you must tell the audience WHAT a point IS? Is this a point: .
You missed the point completely. We don't need to measure anything. If an electron is a particle which is an object which is a shape, this is strictly an issue of definitions. This is a cocneptual issue. Physics doesn't care HOW big the electron is. Physics demands that if an electron is presented as an object that it have shape. But then, if the electron is a tiny bead (as insinuated at every opportunity and denied subsequently) we're back to Bohr's model: the planetary atom.
I'd like to say thanks to all who've brought cerntv to youtube. I've been a fan of Carl Sagans' work & the overall study of our universe. You've made it so much easier for people like me to find & learn more about what you are doing to further the knowledge of our existence. Many thanks & keep up the great work with cerntv!!!
3. The rope is not 'tied' to an atom. A rope forks out at the surface of the electron. The electric threads of every atom in the U converge and form the proton. The magnetic threads curve around and form the encapsulating balloon. With this balloon we can explain bonding. Schrodinger's equation merely tells us what happens at one location on this balloon. That's the famous 'cloud' model. Electricity is the twirling of a row of electron shells (a serpentine) (EI # 8)
QM holds that particles of space appear from the vacuum during exnihilation (opposite of annihilation). The favorite phrase of QM is that space IS 'seething energy' (whatever that is). Pastor Al preferred to think of space as different gradients of a field (whatever that is). In his view, matter was just a higher concentration of this entity he called field. So if you don't want to catch a lot of flak from the MPs, you'd better reconsider your candid remark.
The LHC was damaged due to technical faults in some of the magnets (that came from the american Fermilab btw) and so the experiement was delayed by one year.
The repairs are almost complete and first collisions are to be started this October now.
It is estimated that the LHC collision experiments and the evaluation of the giant amounts of data will take up to three years before definite scientific conclusions regarding the Higgs boson can be drawn.
I have, however, illustrated how the thread weaves the balloon that encapsulates the proton. An atom is definitely part of what we call matter. The question is whether a magnetic field, for example, can be called matter. We also have to answer how neutrons manage to pass thru the nucleus while atoms bounce:
"particles such as neutrons... which do not interact with the electron cloud, do not 'see' the same effective size for atoms, and often pass through them as though they were empty space."
You guys are awesome. The best.
So we agree. A particle is something which has shape which in turn has L W and H. If an electron has shape AND L W + H, it belongs to Physics. If it has shape, this discrete entity can only be at one side of a proton at a time... unless, of course, it encapsulates and contains the proton. Which is it?
it does not have location. Therefore, it meets neither condition for existence.
This humongously long and thin thread is spread out throughout the U (matter and what we call space). An H atom is comprised of EM threads approaching from every atom in the U. By E and M, I just mean that one thread will go straight to the center of the atom (E) and the other one will loop around and form the electron shell or balloon (M). I use E and M because there is no reason to change these qualifiers.
The people at LHC think that the invisible messengers that go around the accelerator are particles, when what they are doing is either 'observing' torsion signals moving along the ropes that interconnect atoms or 'observing' rows of aligned atoms (electron serpentines) twirling in situ (standing torsion wave). There is nothing being 'accelerated' except signals. The mathematicians have confused these signals for discrete particles. (Ref: EI#8).
In Science, the 3 dims are length, width, and height and have to do with structure. The 3 coos are longitude, latitude, and altitude and have to do with location. The 3 vectors are depth, breadth, and elevation. They have to do with motion. Therefore, coordinates have nothing to do with structure and should not even be invoked in the instant discussion. WHAT a point or electron IS has nothing to do with WHERE it is located.
Which in turn means that you never touched the table! When two cars crash against each other, did the atoms/molecules of one car touch the A/M of the other? Did the atoms of one car become part of the molecules of the other?
PHYSICALLY hold two atoms together? Does the bead make a hole through the wall of the roulette during ionization? Is the wall you call orbital/region/energy level, the same invisible wall that stops Merk from drifting out of the Solar System? What physical entity lies between the proton and the electron of an H atom? A field?
MO is saying that Mighty Mouse can indeed strangle three cats together with his contrails. In QM, what binds atoms together are the 'energy levels' (abstract concepts). So the rational question is: What is an energy level made of?
WHAT IS this formidable 'region'? A field? So what is a field? Is it made of points (i.e. locations)?
The second set of questions are even tougher. What keeps the tiny bead faithful to the proton? Why doesn't the e- stick to the p+ during P-orbitals?
1. I will be covering this topic in the next vid, but here's a preview. Force is a CONCEPT. It is irrational to say that you can carry a concept (e.g. particle carrying a force), which is the euphemism QM routinely invokes to explain what a gluon or a photon does. Then, of course, the numskulls end up claiming that there are 4 forces.
In Physics, there are only two forces: push and pull. What other force can you imagine?
But assumng QM is correct, we still have push (photon, Ws and Zs) and pull (gluon, graviton). We have no problem with push. The trick consists in generating pull with discrete particles. What do you do? Just change the negative sign in the equation to generate PHYSICAL pull?
So much for the infamous 'cloud'!
The thread is not made of any subcomponents itself because it is the ultimate entity of which everything else is made. It would be irrational to ask 'What is the thread made of?' because the next question will be 'What is the entity the thread is made of made of?' and so on. That's the problem with QM. QM assumes that there is a fundamental particle. You should always end up with something if you continue to slice or smash particles. You should never end up with nothing.
If you're searching for particles, you've got a long hunt. The infamous particle is just a handy tool that the mathematicians use to model what happens at each 'point' in space. This is a far cry from concluding that an atom is a discrete particle made itself of particles made of particles ad infinitum.
What physical entity compels the electron bead to orbit around the proton bowling ball? A field? What is the field made of? More particles?
So we have arrived at a planetary model of the atom. A snapshot of ONE electron and ONE proton should show two particles standing next to each other. The 'orbital' 'cloud' model of the atom is a movie of one electron at gazillions of locations around the nucleus. One problem is that the 'orbits' of electrons cannot bind two atoms together. Another problem is that the negative electron ends up traveling through the positive proton barrier in P-orbitals.
Fine! So which is it? Is energy a property of an object or an object in itself which you can convert into something else? Can you transfer energy like you transfer a piece of meat? Is there a difference between the concept energy and the object rock?
1. They are neither particles nor waves. The thread is the elementary entity of the U. Atoms are made of threads, which in turn make up everything else. They ARE not waves or particles.
2. As far as I can tell, with the rope model of light, I can explain every experiment ever performed, from polarization to slit to photoelectric. In the book, I explain reflection, refraction, diffraction, straightness, speed, gravity, EPR, tunneling, and light on light among others.
What is transferred is a torsion signal along the rope that interconnects any two atoms (c = ƒ λ) A rope has no alternative. When ƒ goes up, λ goes down. A rope is the only architecture imaginable that can justify this equation. The atom is pumping torque waves at a faster wave along the rope. Therefore the frequency increases (i.e. the number of links comprising that stretch of rope increase and the links become smaller). You can see how the atom fits in at: YTube ZmE11_E-rdE
1. None of the above. The best characterization is what we typically understand by the word thread. First of all, we are talking about a physical entity. This eliminates wave, force, or energy which are concepts. Here we are talking about a thread such as the one you put in a needle. This is the physical configuration of the entity I am referring to.
The reply they always give is an attempt to cover lal the bases in order to make the theory unfalsifiable. The electron is BOTH a discrete particle and an extended 'object.' It is (let me caps that: IS) BOTH a particle (an object) and 'a' wave (a verb). It IS BOTH on one side of the proton (the bead, ionization, electricity) AND also all around it (the cloud, hybridization, covalent bonding). If the electron is a bead, you cannot explain bonding and if it is a shell, 'orbital', cloud, balloon,
The burner does not 'transfer energy' to the pot which transfers energy to the water. This is Ptolemaic explanation. In Physics, we say that the atoms/molecules of the burner vibrate, which induces the A/M of the pot to vibrate, which induces the A/M of the water to vibrate. We do not transfer 'the capacity.' This is irrational language.
The word 'particle' denotes an entity that we cannot visualize very well because it is so tiny. This word fits but awkwardly with the elongated thread that forms a rope which I am describing. If you tell someone that the thread with which you sew your pants is a particle, they will look at you kinda weird.
The only thing we are concerned about right now is WHAT an electron IS. You say that it is a point. Does a point have extension, shape, form? Is an electron an object or not?
There is no difference between an E and M thread. One simply converges on the nucleus and we arbitrarily call it E thread. the other forms the electron balloon and we arbitrarily call it M thread. The hypothesis is that there is a SINGLE closed-loop thread in the entire U. This thread converges into knots called atoms which in turn form the basis of macro objects such as you and me.
2. Is the H atom comprised of a proton and an electron? If so, and the electron and the proton are discrete particles, an H atom should look like this:
e- . O p+
Am I correct?
How many electron(s) does an H atom have around it? What 'cloud' surrounds the single proton?
7. You cannot take a rope in your hand because the ropes 'end' in each of the atoms of your hand and continue to other atoms. You cannot hold light like you hold a rod or a regular rope. Nevertheless, before you can hold you must define the crucial word 'touch.' Can you touch a table? What does this mean? Does it mean that the atoms of your finger became one with the atoms of the wood? if the atoms in your hand maintained their individuality, it means there was space between atoms at all times.
1. You can perhaps argue that the SM model is incomplete at the quark, neutrino, Higgs level. The SM is absolutely a done deal at the H atom. Who is investigating the architecture of the H atom? It is not even among the 10 most important questions of Physics. The mathematicians are investigating the screws and bolts of the boards that make up the house and have no idea what the house looks like. Sounds like a plan? Meanwhile, they claim that they split and photographed individual atoms!
4. 'A' field consists of threads spinning around the serpentines (magnetic domains) (EI # 9). Gravity will be covered in EI # 11 + 12.
5. You cannot shake a rope (standing wave). A rope remains taut at all times except during electricity and magnetism (EI # 9)
6. A newborn is comprised of atoms. Every atom of the newborn is connected to all others in the U as the newborn is being 'assembled' inside the womb. Every atom in your body is connected via EM ropes to every atom in my body.
1. In Science, you can move the elephant. You cannot move its center of mass even if you move the elephant! The day the center of mass moves, you need to drink two more beers for the effect to go away. If you want to move the elephant in Physics, you must absolutely replace the center of mass with the elephant again. In MP, they move point particles. The MP forget to replace the 0D particle with the 3D particle when they give their explanation of what they smashed or what circles a proton.
QM does NOT explain chemical bonding. QM has two models for the atom: Bohr's planetary model, which it still uses to explain ionization and electrical current, and the balloon model, which it uses to explain chemical bonding and hybridization. So please draw for me the H atom. After 80 years of QM, this should be a piece of cake. We have 1 electron and 1 proton. Please draw them. Of course, if as you say, the electron is 0D, we have nothing around the proton.
I don't disagree with what CERN is doing, I just don't think they have done enough research on the possible side effects or possible consequences.
Since ALL geo figs of Math are 'constructed' with 'infinite' number of 0D, no size 'points' (i.e. locations), all geo figs of MP are still under construction. There is not a single static figure in the whole of Modern Geometry!
A theory of Physics must absolutely be visualized. If you can't make a movie of your theory, you are NOT doing Physics. You are doing either Philosophy or religion. Physics is first and foremost the study of objects (i.e. shapes), specifically of objects that exist (i.e. have location). Philosophy is the study of concepts. Math Phyz studies irrational concepts such as energy, virtual particles, and black holes which no director can put on the screen. The language of Physics is visualization.
1. The word particle is inappropriate in this context. You are thinking in terms of Quantum. A thread is an elongated entity. A particle is a discrete entity.
2. In order to explain the crucial word matter, I would have to go into light on light. The thread is 3D at a very fine scale. It exists (has location). whether it constitutes 'matter' is an issue of definitions. I do not regard the thread as matter in my book because it does not have certain properties of matter.
I loved that!
In Math Phyz, space is made of particles. That's the official view today. The reason for this irrational conclusion is that the mathematicians haven't defined the words space and object. If space is made of particles, what gives shape to each particle of space? If the accelerator ushers a particle of space into the chamber, what remains behind in the hole? And so on.
1. I have drawn it at: youtube J-NB5vg7woM
2. Nevertheless, if light is made of particles, it had better have shape. Please draw a picture of light like I have.
3. Light is a physical object. It causes among other physical phenomena one called the photoelectric effect. Energy is an abstract concept. Therefore, light and energy are not the same.
4. Energy and particles of force are a part of Math Phyz. Irrational concepts are not a part of Science.
How does an apparatus, 3-D for that matter, gather data projected along the 4th, 5th, 6th...... dimension again? Unless one builds a detector with the same highest degree of freedom, one CANNOT collect sufficient properties/data to prove the locality or the origin of all things wont you say? Just a humble suggestion!
A single point has form. I don't care what shape it is. It can be cubic, spherical or cylindrical, but it had better be more than zip if it is discrete. The ONLY property an object has is shape.
object: that which has shape
This is the scientific definition of the strategic word object. It is scientific because we can now use it consistently.
Specifically, scientific theories as defined by Kitcher.
Even in mathematics a theory must have at least one axiom which is assumed.
Not with the rope. The topic of light on light is beyond my presentation on You Tube or on my website. That's a topic I treat extensively in the book. It's a complex subject (i.e. how the rope performs this magic trick on behalf of Mother Nature). How does light on the one hand act as a particle (e.g. photoelectric/Compton effects) and on the other go through light (e.g. pointing two flashlights at each other)?
It is like saying that you are trying to figure out the nature of the nails and screws that keep the boards of your house together, but that you don't know what your house looks like.
No one is researching the architecture of the atom. The mathematicians simply ASSUME that they are dealing with particles, that nature is weird, that science and Physics are counter intuitive, and continue as if nothing. After 80 years of QM, we must question the assumption. There are no particles in the U.
1. The 'ultimate entity,' whether particle or thread is no different. We can construct the Universe using particles or threads as bricks. The only requirement is that the brick have shape.
2. I already mentioned that the difference between a particle and a thread is that a particle is discrete. A thread is extended. A particle cannot and does not extend from the Earth to Andromeda. Do you understand this much? I have no idea why you call the thread a particle. The thread is NOT a particle!
If the H atom is the ONLY entity in the U, you have one proton ball next to an electron ball. Place the electron ball wherever you want. It will be to the side of the proton ball.
I don't care how matter BEHAVES. We are not talking about behavior. We are talking about structure.
Nevertheless, if the wiki or CERN tells you that the Earth is flat, will you also post this version here without challenging it?
I did publish the rope hypothesis/thread theory in the peer reviewed 'What is the Electron.' Ed V. Simulik (See Amazon). The problem is that books from little known authors are not read by anyone. So it makes no difference. That's why I decided to take the theory to UA-cam.
For the purposes of Science, an object is not made of anything. In Science, we point to an object and utter a sound: chair. For the rest of the presentation, the ET identifies the sound with the object. What an object is made of comes later when we make comparisons and use the object in a sentence: 'The carpenter made the CHAIR of wood and metal.' In Science, we don't explain an object. In science, we define the word object as 'that which has shape.' Anything which has shape is now an object.
By 'elementary' I mean that this entity is what ultimately comprises all matter in the U. You cannot speak of the 'nature' of an elementary thread or particle. For example, let's assume QM is correct and everything is ultimately made of a particle X. It would be irrational to ask 'What is X made of. This question violates the definition of 'elementary.' You can only describe the properties of a hypothetical particle that serves as the basis of matter. The thread is no different.
According to the religion of Quantum Mechanics, an H atom is comprised of ONE electron BEAD and ONE proton bowling ball (1800 times more massive). Please draw a picture of how these two PARTICLES of the Standard Model (which ONLY deals with particles) are distributed.
So let me get this straight. The two REGIONS bind two atoms together? Are you saying that the ITINERARY of ONE electron bead gets tangled with the ITINERARY of another electron bead?
A region is a concept. It is not a physical object like a rock is an object. The region in which a rock can be found cannot be bonded with the region where another rock can be found.
You are trying to escape punishment, ish. Does the H atom have one electron and one proton? Yes or No? Is a proton a particle? Is an electron a particle? Is a particle an object? What is an object? Is a cube an object? Is a rock an object? Is love an object? Is there anything different between your electron and the word beauty?
thanks for this informative excellent video
1. The source is Bill Gaede. If they gave all these MPs Nobels throughout all these years, I just want an attaboy for the discovery of the definitions of OBJECT and EXIST. I am an expert on these two sine qua non words of Physics. I've been studying them for years.
Arisototle and Euclid had already zeroed in on the def of object: shape. Their great failure (and that of all the mathematicians who came afterwards) is not recognizing the importance of these two words.
your point?
it dosent matter what you class it as - a concept, and object at the end of the day its there
and no - you cant draw it - but you can represent it as a drawing
1. In Science, we don't use euphemisms or poetry. We don't have to explain what the terms 'carrying a force' or 'time dilation' REALLY mean. In Science, we say it like it is. We can't carry a push and we cannot dilate a week. So you don't have to explain anything, ish. Just tell me how a discrete particle A pulls on discrete particle B. Assume that they are the only entities in the U.
Concepts don't need points. Points are objects because they have shape. Concepts are relations and thus have no shape. Concepts were all invented by Man. Does the point at the end of the previous sentence have width and height or not? Please feel free to use your microscope if you cannot see it well.
The Earth is flat, elliptical or round even when there is no one to look at it. Observers have nothing to do with the shape of the Moon. Likewise, whether the electron is spherical or cubic is not an issue that requires an experiment (i.e. looking at it) This is a conceptual issue only. You have to tell me what the electron looks like to explain YOUR theory. Is the electron a discrete bead or a balloon that encompases the nucleus?
If we do this, it destroys MP! Mp doesn't deal with objects or what exists at all. MP deals exclusively with abstract concepts. These concepts become irrational when the MP reifies them. The only way to use the words object and exist consistently (rationally) in Science is as shape and physical presence respectively.
"Another surprising entity, and the real surprise is that it can be described as an entity at all, is the vacuum. Common sense tells us that a vacuum is nothing, or more precisely that it is empty space. However, in general relativity theory the vacuum isn't simply that... For quantum physicists the vacuum is much more complicated...
We are talking science here. Why is mass an object (in your opinion)?
5. I don't use energy because there is no such THING. If you believ otherwise, please draw a picture of energy. In Science, an object is that which has shape. This is the scientific definition of object because it is the only way to use the word consistently. If you disagree, please define the word OBJECT scientifically.
yes that is what i was getting at. physisits try and help you imagine the unimaginable. but there are some concepts you just cannot draw or picture - that still does not mean theyr not there. just watch carl sagans video on the 4th dimension
You still have no idea WHAT 'a' field is. Under Thread Theory, the invisible 'field' consists of physical threads that swing around aligned atoms and molecules (Ref: EI9). Now, there's no ambiguity. Now we have a physical entity rather than an abstract concept at the center of attention. The threads EXPLAIN (justify, provide a cause for) WHY two objects attract each other.
What do you mean that a shape doesn't have to have length, width or height? What are you staring at? Name one shape or form that does not have width AND height.
Math Phyz is truly the worst kind of religion ever invented. People go to the university, study for 10 years, and then say such things as that a particle has no dimensions. Absolutely breathtaking!
@ancientwisdom2012 I should say instead of a "fruitless search" in general, an endless search if the infinite fractal theory is correct. Yet particle physics would be a fruitless search in the sense of finding a Unified theory of Everything. In terms of missing mass, Einstein's field equations cancel out rotation by attaching the observer to the rotating object. This may be a huge oversight that will account for the missing mass. The "64 double tetrahedron" is the proposed fundamental pattern
First of all, cool video, and very informative. But I need help, does anybody now the song played around minute 10? Please post here if you now its title or the band/musician.
1. So let's transcribe your 1st definition:
object = thing/entity/being (circular def!) This is a synonym; not a def.
Here's your second one:
object = mass
A cube is an object. It has a single property: shape. That's what an object is 'that which has shape'.
So...What is the shape of mass? Is mass the same thing as cube?
I understand that. But we have to also describe the simplest atom. The cloud model cannot be extended to hydrogen, which makes up 90% of the matter in the U.
The cloud model confuses the trajectory of an electron with the dirt road on which it may travel. An orbit is an itinerary. An 'orbital' is the region in which the e- may travel (or be located). But then MO tells us that molecules are formed by PHYSICALLY binding regions (abstract concepts). This is irrational and unscientific.
A true mechanic, a true MP is often in error, but never in doubt.
It's 1000 Mio it gives a better idea to those who can't visually render a Billion.
Perceptively 1000Mio is easier to digest by most people since they are more common units of monetary measure than a Billion in the regular persons everyday vocabulary, and since this is an educational video it's more than obvious why it would be considered the better alternative.
It's easier for someone who doesn't know what a billion is to understand the quantity under discussion.
This is messed up, what if it goes wrong ?
1. Oh I agree. You just confirmed what I said earlier. So I'll say it a little louder in order for everyone to hear: NOT A SINGLE MATHEMATICIAN ON EARTH SINCE PYTHAGORAS HAS EVER UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING THE WORDS OBJECT AND EXIST! You cannot do Physics without these two words.
2. Now take the bead and tell a mechanic that that's what an electron is because your teacher told you so. He will say that you're crazy! The e- is a point particle because it is 0D, no size, no shape!
No MP will stoop this low. They have delegated these issues to the philosophers (which don't investigate them either). The nature of light, the atom, fields, etc., are not even among the 10 most important questions of contemporary 'Physics.' That's why no one can answer my questions. That's why you will never get an answer to WHY from the establishment.
1. I have no idea where you got the idea that light does not have shape. You can stop light with your hand. It had better be 3D and have shape!
2. Forces and energy do not have shape because they are concepts. We learn this in Science 101. It is the mathematicians who believe that forces are particles and can be carried by other particle. This is the idiocy that comes out of the mathematical world.
If the electron is not 0D, it is an object (i.e. it has shape). We have two shapes: the proton and the electron. Please draw for me the H atom! How will you distribute these two shapes in a SINGLE image? I don't want a movie of the electron everywhere. I want a still image.
what do you think the atom is made of? Super Strings :)
The mechanics have yet to explain a single experiment with particles. The mechanic always asks you to set aside your intuition and common sense and instead accept that nature is weird. It is not nature which is weird. It is the nerds coming out of college which are weird. In Physics, we explain rationally (using our terms consistently). QM has yet to do this. e.g. The mathematician cannot explain a phenomenon with particles. So he invents the virtual particle which violates the def of particle.
So you agree. A still image of the H atom shows a proton ball and an electron ball to its side somewhere. Is this correct or not?
not with 100% uncertainty; theories are always vulnerable if they are untrue
Again, what this shows is that a mathematician is an individual who glosses over architecture because this is not of interest to him. A mathematician deals with souls and spirits; not with hearts and humans. He deals with stuff that has nothing to do with Physics. He deals exclusively with concepts which he tries to smuggle in as objects (points as dots, geodesics as lines, energy as mass which means an object, time as something you can dilate, black hole as something that can swallow clocks).
2. I am offended by your use of the word particle, and I have already pointed this out to you. I have a very low regard for this word, partly because QM is based on it, but more because the mechanic tries to pull a fast one on me: a particle is 0D, no size, no shape, etc. This is BS. How can they create debris in the chamber after smashing two 0D 'particles'?
I defined the word object as that which has shape. If you don't disagree, let's use the word object (or thing, entity, etc).
My mistake, sorry. In #5 I talk about Hawking and spacetime and that's what I thought you were referring to.
The point is that the entire establishment consists of relativists, mechanics and string theorists. As I say in the vid, try submitting a paper saying that God doesn't exist to a panel of Christians and Muslims. See if you get published.
I do not understand your last two Q. I'll do my best.
There is a single closed-loop thread 'in' the whole of space. By 'in' I don't really mean that this thread is 'within' a medium. Space is NOT a medium, and this is difficult for people to understand or imagine. Space does not have shape. There is no such THING as space. Space does not exist. (I don't know if any of these statements reached their target.) Objects exist IFF they have location (wrt each other). Space is not an object and...
I am not asking you to calculate anything, ish. I am askng you to tell me if this point:
.
has width and height. This is an objective issue.
3. 'Manipulating' is a light on light topic which I cover in the book. I will not discuss how the threads avoid tangling on the Internet. Nevertheless, there are more basic issues that need to be resolved before we can get to that point. You are obviously not familiar with the scientific method. We need to start there.
I agree with you. Completely. But you and I are a minority. We are overruled by a show of hands. In contemporary 'Science,' in the religion of MP, a particle has zero size, is 0D, and has no shape. A 'particle' is not an object, but a concept. A particle is REALLY a 'point particle,' where the word 'point' does not allude to a dot (object), but rather to a location (concept). (Ref EI1).
See EI 10. Most of the argument is there. It is unbelievable, but that's what the MPs have decreed.
No. This material is not in What is the electron?' I wrote on these subjects in another book titled 'Why God Doesn't Exist.' You can get a preview (without buying the book) at:
youstupidrelativist(dot)com
So now ish discovers the mother of all particles and tells the world in a conference 'Eureka, at last!.'
The reporter in the back row raises his hand and asks at the end of the presentation 'What is the particle made of?'
You see the problem? Something has got to be the ultimate brick. That's the thread. You cannot ask 'What is it made of?' because I am telling you that the thread is the ultimate brick.
Anyone know the name of the song that plays at 9:45?
I thought we were talking science. I thought that when you said that an electron is a particle which is an object you were talking about Physics. So you WERE talking about religion all along. Is this what Quantum is? A religion? Is this what an electron is? Just a subject we can talk about? Or is an electron a shape that leaves an atom to transform it into an ion?
2. Electrons HAVE charge? You mean like I HAVE a hanky in my pocket? Please draw picture of charge for me. That way I can visualize this physical OBJECT you call charge.
3. A field (concept) is the force (concept) b/w a particle (oh my God!) of charge (another concept)? I need a beer! Make that two!
This is not a definition. This is a synonym: a circuar argument. You are saying that an object is a thing which is an entity which is an object. I am not playing with words. I want you to define the word object instead of running away. You tell me that an electron is an object. What do you mean by this?
I am not talking about 100 chairs. I am talking about ONE chair. Before you can talk about a point, you must tell the audience WHAT a point IS? Is this a point: .
You missed the point completely. We don't need to measure anything. If an electron is a particle which is an object which is a shape, this is strictly an issue of definitions. This is a cocneptual issue. Physics doesn't care HOW big the electron is. Physics demands that if an electron is presented as an object that it have shape.
But then, if the electron is a tiny bead (as insinuated at every opportunity and denied subsequently) we're back to Bohr's model: the planetary atom.
being unable to picture something is no basis to disprove a theory