"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[raggamax]

I've only just realised you're the guy who started the "Can you stop the subdivision" thread .

'Almost'. Nice qualifier which utterly negates the usefulness of the statement.

From the pain due to actually using your brain?

So give you something which is smaller than any object outside the quantum realm which has non-zero size? Clearly you aren't even grasping the flaws of logic in your own posts.

Says who? You? And what leads you to such a conclusion, other than the fact you don't understand it. You're using the same logic as you did in the subdivision thread, simply stating your clams about fundamental properties of the universe as fact.

Wow, you opened Google. Yeah, that beats the entirity of my experience with particle physics and describing subatomic systems which have spin. Wow, if Google says I've not seen books, results, equations and experiments built around such notions then surely it must be right!

Let's see your link. The first hit on Google for 'magnetic moment' is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment which then mentions the electron. Quantum field theory allows the point particles to have both magnetic moment and angular momentum, you can assign such properties to point particles, work out how they interact and behave and then make predictions. And QFT ends up making the right predictions. So your claim 'magnetic moment is impossible without finite size' is not verified by experiment and not true about theory. So you are making unjustified claims.

There's 'spin' like the Earth spins on its axis and then there's 'spin' like the degree of freedom associated to quantum objects.

Quantum spin isn't about electrons spinning like a top. Instead there is a property of particles like electrons which can vary from electron to electron. In each s orbital of an atom there can be 2 electrons, despite them having the same energy. The difference between the two of them is their 'spin'. When you work out how these spins interact and transform you find that the mathematical structure they form is the same as the mathematical structure formed by how you'd describe the angular moment of a sphere under rotations. Hence because they are algebraicly the same sorts of thing they are called the same sort of thing, spin. Gluons have 'colour charge' but that doesn't mean they are literally red, green and blue, it's a naming convention. I'd explain the details of angular momentum but you're both too ignorant and too unwilling to understand. Try to understand something before you dismiss it.

That isn't proof, that's just you repeating the websites opinion. No experimental evidence exists to support that and the model is not as successful/accurate as quantum mechanics. You simply repeating a website whose opinions line up with your own doesn't invalidate what I'm saying.

Simply repeating your views about systems you cannot describe and have never worked with experimentally doesn't make reality change to agree with you. And I'm not avoiding the questions, I've told you where the extensive explainations of these things are but you're unwilling to do any reading yourself.

Ah, the crank logic. You say I can't think about unanswered questions because I don't agree with your answers. I have thought about unanswered questions just not the ones you have and I've made a great deal more progress than you.

Cranks and creatonists think a lot alike. They denounce the mainstream as close minded and that mainstream should be open to new ideas but it always turns out to be their new ideas. Like the people in the midwest who wanted evolution and creationism to be taught side by side. Provided its Christian creationism, nothing else. Cranks denounce mainstream in the hopes their ideas will replace it. They never consider that some other non-mainstream idea might be better than theirs.

If you had read some QM you'd grasp angular momentum a little more. You'd not make the claims you have. You'd know about the history and development better. You'd perhaps understand the position of 'experimental justification' and falsifiability a little more. But you don't so I would conclude you haven't. So tell me, what precisely have you read on QM?

That isn't a question science attempts to address, that's metaphysics. You're basically asking "Why is the universe the way it is, why isn't it different?". Quantum mechanics and any other science is about saying "Given this initial system we can model it and tell you what it'll do". Why that system exists is an entirely different question. Again, this kind of basic misunderstanding in how science works shows you're not exactly familiar with it. You have no grasp of the scientific method, you have no science education or experience with phenomena which are relevant to this thread and yet you make enormous claims about the fundamental nature of the universe.

If you were truely interested and you wanted to look at things differently to the mainstream so that you can understand things better you'd not be as ignorant as you are, you'd have read more. Not specifically textbooks, though a good way to understand science is to be familiar with it and its history, but the concepts of science and its implementation. You say I don't think about unanswered questions but you have no interest in the answers to those questions if they at all conflict with your preconceptions. In both this thread and the subdivision one you show you have no wish to hear from people who don't back up your views. I welcome peer review to my work, I like it when people ask me relevant and coherent questions which make me stop and think "Hang on, I'd not thought about that...." but unfortunately neither you nor QQ manage that because you've never got your head around the basics, never mind the subtlies of various areas of physics.

I bet in 6 months QQ will be exactly where he is now, with nothing to show for his work. I bet Geist will still be harping on about his dislike for relativity, all the while showing he's not even got a high school student's grasp of it. And if you stick around here I'll bet the same will be true for you. You whine, you learn nothing, you repeat your misconceptions. Geist says he's read about GR, even got a book on it, then makes claims which anyone whose done any GR will know to be false (the claim that the Shell Theorem is negated in GR). You're doing the same for quantum mechanics. If you knew the equivalent of an introduction course in QM you'd know how to understand particle spins. f you were to read the book I suggested you'd understand how to answer all of your own questions. But you won't because you and I both know you aren't interested in the answers to your questions, even if I answered perfectly and it was experimentally backed up, you'd not be interested.

If I'm wrong in this assessment of you feel free too explain how you're informed about the topic of quantum mechanics.

Best replied to as -Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bia Bla Bla Bleh. If you don't believe your own eyes what the hell do you believe in? Truly what foolish behavior. The hallmark of YOUR ignorance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't answer questions about my work here because I don't think it's terribly appropriate but I do demonstrate that I have a working familiarity with the topics at hand, thus showing I am informed about the topic. You neither talk about your work or show you're familiar with the topic at hand.

If someone never shows they understand then why should anyone believe their claims "But I do understand!!".

I claim I can fly. Do you believe me? Would you ask for evidence? For an eye witness? For me to demonstrate it? Of course because if someone makes a fantastic claim then they should provide evidence. You make the most fantastic claims and you provide nothing. How many years have you been working on your 'ideas' QQ? Have you put your work anywhere? Has anyone seen your results? Doesn't seem so. So why should anyone think you aren't simply lying?

If I claimed "I've got proof of the photon but I'm not going to tell you or show anyone" you'd jump all over that with "Oh you're lying and you're a fraud!" but when you employ precisely that methodology you don't notice your own hypocrisy.

Refusal to show evidence is not proof of fraud Alphanumeric, just simply a refusal to provide evidence. An exercise of freewill or self determinaton yes?
The accusation of lying and fraud is merely a taunt and a weak attempt at extortion. A common enough practice admitedly as most of the world seems to practice it, a form of reverse psychology that is a part of "our" abusive natures. [ A reaction to frustration of desire etc etc...]

It isn't up to me to prove the photon DOESN'T exist and all I am doing is demonstarting that a long held belief in a scientific model is only a belief in a model and is far from fact or truth.

"the proof of somethings cause, by default of it's "effect" only can only be claimed when all and every other possibility has been ruled out"
~ aka validity of "circumstantial" evidence.

And this is the only way I can logically prove the causation of the constant gravity according to my model, that is by ruling out every other possible solution....and that Alpha is no small task...
the Causation of the constants has to be relevant to all aspects of the universes manifestation including life, consciousness and matter and mass. There is only ONE possible solution and that is all there is to it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So anuraganimax is incapable of rational discussion when backed into a corner and QQ is unwilling to back up anything he says.

And you two think you're somehow standing up for truth and rationality? You're the antithesis of that.

QQ, how can you rule out 'all other possibilities' when you refuse to look at experimental results, you have never conducted an experiment and you have no understanding of previous work which has investigated relevant phenomena? Further more you can NEVER rule out all other possibilities because its proving a negative. I can't prove that nowhere in the universe there isn't a planet made of chocolate because it would require an entire search of the universe. You cannot prove a phenomenon never occurs anywhere as you'd have to do your experiment everywhere and all the time and always get a negative result.

So on the grounds of both practical and logical, you are failing to move in the direction to achieve your goal.

And why have you not shown any part of your work to anyone in the years you've been working on it? Refusal to show work, denial that anyone else can help, hardly good ways to go about describing nature, is it? You have minimal mathematical skills and no knowledge of any experimental phenomena, you have almost no relevant information or skills to build a ToE. Or even a theory of a few things.

Showing me that you can model a particular phenomeon like electromagnetism isn't going to give all your work away and would prove you aren't a liar and a delusional fool. All you need do is copy and paste some work or link to a file. Is that too much to ask?

I guess it is when you are as big a liar as you are.

 

[raggamax]

So anuraganimax is incapable of rational discussion when backed into a corner and QQ is unwilling to back up anything he says.

And you two think you're somehow standing up for truth and rationality? You're the antithesis of that.

QQ, how can you rule out 'all other possibilities' when you refuse to look at experimental results, you have never conducted an experiment and you have no understanding of previous work which has investigated relevant phenomena? Further more you can NEVER rule out all other possibilities because its proving a negative. I can't prove that nowhere in the universe there isn't a planet made of chocolate because it would require an entire search of the universe. You cannot prove a phenomenon never occurs anywhere as you'd have to do your experiment everywhere and all the time and always get a negative result.

So on the grounds of both practical and logical, you are failing to move in the direction to achieve your goal.

And why have you not shown any part of your work to anyone in the years you've been working on it? Refusal to show work, denial that anyone else can help, hardly good ways to go about describing nature, is it? You have minimal mathematical skills and no knowledge of any experimental phenomena, you have almost no relevant information or skills to build a ToE. Or even a theory of a few things.

Showing me that you can model a particular phenomeon like electromagnetism isn't going to give all your work away and would prove you aren't a liar and a delusional fool. All you need do is copy and paste some work or link to a file. Is that too much to ask?

I guess it is when you are as big a liar as you are.

Best replied to by bla bla bla bleh!!!. Pinheads and sad trolls such as yourself don't deserve reasoning. I can't believe in the starting of our argument you didn't recognize me from our previous discussion. You idiot why do you think I went hostile to you in an instant.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You idiot why do you think I went hostile to you in an instant.

Because I honestly thought (and think) you're a jackass. You clearly have a lot of anger issues.

And it's a little hypocritical you call me a 'sad troll' when you're the one preventing discussion here.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ, how can you rule out 'all other possibilities' when you refuse to look at experimental results, you have never conducted an experiment and you have no understanding of previous work which has investigated relevant phenomena? Further more you can NEVER rule out all other possibilities because its proving a negative. I can't prove that nowhere in the universe there isn't a planet made of chocolate because it would require an entire search of the universe. You cannot prove a phenomenon never occurs anywhere as you'd have to do your experiment everywhere and all the time and always get a negative result.

A reasonable question and one that would normally be difficult to answer adequately but there IS a way to rule out all other possibilities and that IS exactly why the nature of the constant [ the only true constant ] IS able to be determined, because it does rule out all other possibilities, by logic and by physical reality or non-reality depending on your bent. And I might add why SRT is hopelessly flawed by proxy...

But alas the logic would not be of any use to you so I shall refrain from going on about it....

"It only takes one aspect of the universes reality to be absolutely consistantly constant to turn a universe of "chaos" into order" and guess what that aspect is?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

That doesn't answer how you are supposed to do this when you make no attempt to do experiments and observations. How do you plan to describe a universe you have no knowledge of?

 

[Quantum Quack]

That doesn't answer how you are supposed to do this when you make no attempt to do experiments and observations. How do you plan to describe a universe you have no knowledge of?

Achieving a philosophical and hypothetical understanding is the first step in finding solutions is it not?
For example:
If we assume for a moment that the universe came ex-nihilo, from nothing, we have to assume that the universal constant also came from nothing. In that it naturally occurs and is a natural product [outcome] of existance or existing. [ The universe being a closed, self justifying system ]
We also know that this constant can induce certain variables [ cosmic expansion] yet retains it's constancy throughout, regardless of changes to mass or "massive" dimensions.
In philosophical terms this amounts to the duality between objectivity and subjectivity, body and soul, right and wrong, yes and no, consciousness and unconsciousness and in science it amounts to the duality between poles, and a governed singularity [ eg. Black hole]

So once you have underpinned your thoughts with philosophical understanding first, then and only then can you undertstand the significance of the insight.

At all times between poles, between opposite extremes is a point of nothingness or zero.....it appears to be exitising only as an imaginary artifact and a consequence of a perception from a universe of substance. Yet with out these Lagrangian type points there would be no poles and no extremes.

So yes universally the value of zero must be absolute... and surprisingly enough, from a perspective of substance.....that value is "everything"
As the langrangian point between past and future [ t= 0 ] is commonly referred to as the present moment [HSP] and that is when everything exists the notion that "zero = everything" can be literally seen to hold true....

[One point worth emphasisiing is that regardless of how large the unverse gets due to cosmic expansion zero will always hold the same value....agreed?]


*ex-nihilo:

The Latin phrase ex nihilo means "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing" — chiefly in in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields.

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

The phrase 'ex nihilo' also appears in the classical philosophical formulation ex nihilo nihil fit, which means "Out of nothing comes nothing", and which was considered[by whom?] a proof of the existence of God.

Ex nihilo when used outside of a religious/metaphysical context also refers to something coming from nothing. For example, in a conversation, one might raise a topic "ex nihilo" if it bears no relation to the previous topic of discussion. The term also has specific meaning in military and computer-science contexts."

~wiki

 

[Quantum Quack]

"For the universe to evolve from utter chaos to order there only needs to be one naturally occuring constant that can only be by it's very nature immutable and uncorruptable" ~ Zero point Theory
*Immutable:
"Immutability is the quality of being unable to change." ~wiki

So whilst everything of substance is constantly changing zero remains constantly at "Absolute" rest. [ unchanging ]
Ironically the Physics held view that "Nothing can be at absolute rest" is actually one of the the most valid statements science has....[chuckle]

 

[raggamax]

Because I honestly thought (and think) you're a jackass. You clearly have a lot of anger issues.

And it's a little hypocritical you call me a 'sad troll' when you're the one preventing discussion here.

Who are you talking to? No one wants to even discuss with you. Pretty dulled wits you have got there to discuss when nobody wants to listen to your vitriol. Equivalent to banging your head against the wall.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Was the fact I quoted you a little too subtle? Was the fact I referred to your comment 'sad troll' not enough of a hint for you to realise I was talking to you?

Your posts are a lot more vitriolic than mine. At least I'm capable of an actual discussion.

And QQ, do you even know how to find Lagrange points?

 

[raggamax]

Was the fact I quoted you a little too subtle? Was the fact I referred to your comment 'sad troll' not enough of a hint for you to realise I was talking to you?

Your posts are a lot more vitriolic than mine. At least I'm capable of an actual discussion.

And QQ, do you even know how to find Lagrange points?

And at least I do not cover myself with a hypocritical charade of civility much like yourself.

 

[thinking]

Quantum Quack once posed a query of whether or not there is a proof that light actually moves. I dismissed the question with a dogmatic shrug and wrote something embarrassing and trite, from my own perspective.

What are the experimental results of detection of light motion?

It is all speculative and convenient not to have any basic unresolved issue here in the third millennium such as resolving whether light moves or othewrwise.

We start with the question of light being either, 1. Particle, 2. Mass, or 3. Both.
1. Light when measured by a photomultiplier tube has told us that if light is mass the mass is very, very tiny. Likewise, light behaves unlike the mass of buck-shot as it seems to be wave then particle. Momentum tests are unhelpful in determining mass or wave characteristics to light.

2. If a wave the measurement in 1. above sheds little light on the basic characteristics of particle photon phenomena.

3. Diffraction experiments gave birth to the ‘wave and particle’ notion. It is concluded that the experimental apparatus affects the wave particle aspect of light, but again nothing gives a clue re motion.
If light were moving after flipping the switch at A, then a particle would mean the same stuff that left A was the same stuff that rang the photomultiplier tube’s bell. The problem with necessary mass formation in every instance of an emitted light pulse that is measured requires a convincing arm waving talent beyond the mortals and beyond understandable scientific principles.

I am leaving out much that is left to the reader to sort through.

If light moves as a wave then the stuff that left A was other than the stuff arriving at B which forces the discussion to describing a medium being perturbed that leaves a trace wherever the light happened to “be”. The forced tongue twister description of the true nature of the so called wave leaves much to mathematical speculation; to the extent that light can be manipulated even in this gross state of ignorance, hence the wave nature is left for after hours contemplation over a few ales at a friendly pub.

Dual descriptions offer even more complexities that defy rational analysis. The bottom line is that the current [or not too distant past] giants of science, whoever they may be, offer us solace by not making an issue of the impossible problem.

What happens when we look very deeply quantum mechanically? The locations of particles become smeared as we near the location of the particle 'under scrutiny'. We cannot discern wave, mass or structure, but we can surmise that no bunch of matter is “always” in some observable state in the sense that buck-shut doesn’t rapidly decay. Matter is there, and then it goes away. The stuff of matter, or some stuff, is generally understood as problematical, or a statistical reality. We only see stuff move that has accumulated a large observable bunch of problematical stuff seen as periodic excitations of matter in space.


What is light doing?

All we can say is that the light switch applies a potential to some part of a device that receives an energy pulse and likewise, must give a pulse that is absorbed by a near neighbor in space. Looking at space as a field of possible excitations, motion then becomes nothing more than the excitation of a point in space and where that excited point cascades through space analogous to the motion of falling dominoes.
There is, for sure, momentum exchanges that are straight forward in understanding. When a high energy photon is detected by human skin the momentum felt is simply the reaction of the target substance to the arrival of the near neighbor pulse.


So what is light doing?

When considering the apparent limitless energy of electron and nucleus holding onto each other, not as hooks, but as complex electro-nuclear systems, the illusion of identifiable quantities of stuff becomes undisguised. The energy and all possible forms of substances including the electric/nuclear fields of electron and nucleus in the final analysis are merely statistical and problematic.

Looking at the description simple mindedly, the motion of light as we once believed, has been transformed into the execution of a complex software package where motion, trajectory, momentum are just the manifestation of subroutines inherent in an object oriented program where the source code is identifiable, within limits, to the familiar laws of physic, as we know, or think we know the laws to be.:shrug:​

light is both a wave and a particle

I think of light this way , as a water wave

at the crest of the wave , light gets broken down into particles , the foam , but within the body of the wave , light is just that a wave

 

[AlphaNumeric]

And at least I do not cover myself with a hypocritical charade of civility much like yourself.

No, just ignorance and jealousy and that big chip on your shoulder. Yeah, that's much better.....

And you claimed my work would just a copy and paste of textbooks. Amazing, you supposedly magically know all about my work without having seen it or read the textbooks you claim I copy from. Another example of crank 'divine knowledge'. I don't need to lie about my work, I have it published in reputable journals which is more than can be said about QQ. He won't even produce his work yet he makes bigger claims than I. The fact you have a go at me but not at him shows you aren't interested in 'scientific truth/honesty', you simply don't like the mainstream because you can't understand it so you show support for those who denounce it and disagree with those who don't. And I'm certain you aren't capable of graduate level mathematics relevant to quantum field theory. If I asked you a question on it I'm sure you'd refuse to answer, just like QQ refuses to answer questions. You both have things to hide because you have to resort to lies to further your agendas. I don't need to lie about myself or my work and unlike QQ I'm able to actually show it for peer review.

I really don't understand how you think its insulting to me that I've spent time learning and understanding something. You claim you have an engineering degree of some kind so I would assume its something you are proud of, or at least aren't ashamed of, so why do you think other people would be ashamed of their degrees? Oh no I've accomplished something. But then cranks seem to have that chip on their shoulder because they realise theoretical physics is beyond them and denouncing it makes them feel like its not their fault they can't do it, its physicists fault for coming up with something 'wrong'.

It's really quite sad that you have to behave in that way. Most mature people realise and accept their limitations.

 

[icarus2]

If someone never shows they understand then why should anyone believe their claims "But I do understand!!".

 

[thinking]

If someone never shows they understand then why should anyone believe their claims "But I do understand!!".

it a matter of flexibility of mind

think about what they say , and go from there

you don't have to agree with what they say , just understand their perspective , of what they are saying

 

[raggamax]

No, just ignorance and jealousy and that big chip on your shoulder. Yeah, that's much better.....

Hehehe You say funny things. Jealous of who? You? mainstream?

And you claimed my work would just a copy and paste of textbooks. Amazing, you supposedly magically know all about my work without having seen it or read the textbooks you claim I copy from. Another example of crank 'divine knowledge'. I don't need to lie about my work, I have it published in reputable journals which is more than can be said about QQ. He won't even produce his work yet he makes bigger claims than I. The fact you have a go at me but not at him shows you aren't interested in 'scientific truth/honesty', you simply don't like the mainstream because you can't understand it so you show support for those who denounce it and disagree with those who don't. And I'm certain you aren't capable of graduate level mathematics relevant to quantum field theory. If I asked you a question on it I'm sure you'd refuse to answer, just like QQ refuses to answer questions. You both have things to hide because you have to resort to lies to further your agendas. I don't need to lie about myself or my work and unlike QQ I'm able to actually show it for peer review.

This a flame war and I'm merely interested in insulting and not reasoning with you. So what if I don't know maths pertaining to QFT I'm willing to learn a new discipline if bears some fruit. But since QM is clearly wrong why waste my time on it? There are other worthwhile disciplines to learn.

I really don't understand how you think its insulting to me that I've spent time learning and understanding something.

Then why get so worked up to retort every time my posts reach you?

You claim you have an engineering degree of some kind so I would assume its something you are proud of, or at least aren't ashamed of, so why do you think other people would be ashamed of their degrees? Oh no I've accomplished something. But then cranks seem to have that chip on their shoulder because they realise theoretical physics is beyond them and denouncing it makes them feel like its not their fault they can't do it, its physicists fault for coming up with something 'wrong'.

I've never cared for labels much but you seem to do. And I'm not "claiming" that I have a degree I'm saying that I have a degree. Believe or not up to you.

It's really quite sad that you have to behave in that way. Most mature people realise and accept their limitations.

Now now alpha why the sad face? Remember its a flame war started by you and being sentimental wouldn't cut it. Bring on the insults alpha.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You say funny things. Jealous of who? You? mainstream?

People who learn things.

So what if I don't know maths pertaining to QFT I'm willing to learn a new discipline if bears some fruit.

So the most accurately descriptive theory in human history doesn't count as 'bearing fruit'?

But since QM is clearly wrong why waste my time on it?

Irrespective of whether you accept its philosophical interpretation its a fact that its a very useful tool to describe and predict the behaviour of Nature. Other, much less contentious, descriptions of Nature do a worse job. Newtonian mechanics we know to be 'wrong' in that very vast, very small or very big things don't behave as Newton said they would. Can I summise you therefore think learning Newtonian mechanics is a waste of your time? How about Maxwell's electromagnetism? We know it fails on the atomic scale so is that another thing you think of as a waste of time?

In terms of descriptive and predictive powers quantum field theory is more successful than Newtonian mechanics or classical electromagnetism but something tells me you don't have a problem with them.

Then why get so worked up to retort every time my posts reach you?

I'm not worked up. I've replied calmly and coherently to points you raise. You refuse to return the favour.

And I'm not "claiming" that I have a degree I'm saying that I have a degree. Believe or not up to you.

They are one and the same on an anonymous internet forum unless you can provide evidence.

ow now alpha why the sad face? Remember its a flame war started by you and being sentimental wouldn't cut it. Bring on the insults alpha.

I am not sad, I'm stating that your posts are a sad reflection on you. Whether I care enough to become emotionally involved is another thing. Which I don't, so I'm not. And I hardly call this a 'war'. A few infrequently exchanged posts where I'm actually addressing things you say and you avoid actual discussion. If it's a 'war' you capitulated a long time ago.

 

[raggamax]

People who learn things.

Then you don't count obviously.

So the most accurately descriptive theory in human history doesn't count as 'bearing fruit'?

What fruit? Nothing worthwhile I see. Far far less and useful than other branches of physics produced. Not surprising since the fundamentals of your theory are flawed.
I have seen far too arguments against QM+SRT combo to believe them. Extinction shift,sagnac effect all spit in the face of special relativity. Even Michelson gale experiment opposes STR in a sense. And QM self destructs. Period.

Irrespective of whether you accept its philosophical interpretation its a fact that its a very useful tool to describe and predict the behaviour of Nature. Other, much less contentious, descriptions of Nature do a worse job. Newtonian mechanics we know to be 'wrong' in that very vast, very small or very big things don't behave as Newton said they would. Can I summise you therefore think learning Newtonian mechanics is a waste of your time? How about Maxwell's electromagnetism? We know it fails on the atomic scale so is that another thing you think of as a waste of time?

Nope it works. We just doesn't know how. While clearly what doesn't work is UP.

In terms of descriptive and predictive powers quantum field theory is more successful than Newtonian mechanics or classical electromagnetism but something tells me you don't have a problem with them.

Quite correct. My problems are with QM not with classical physics which do a reasonably good job of depicting nature.

I'm not worked up. I've replied calmly and coherently to points you raise. You refuse to return the favour.

Of course since you show that you are unworthy of reasoning with.

They are one and the same on an anonymous internet forum unless you can provide evidence.

Yup so neither mine nor yours count.

I am not sad, I'm stating that your posts are a sad reflection on you. Whether I care enough to become emotionally involved is another thing. Which I don't, so I'm not. And I hardly call this a 'war'. A few infrequently exchanged posts where I'm actually addressing things you say and you avoid actual discussion. If it's a 'war' you capitulated a long time ago.

Yes I only wish to insult. Lets see how long can you keep this up.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

What fruit? Nothing worthwhile I see. Far far less and useful than other branches of physics produced. Not surprising since the fundamentals of your theory are flawed.

The fact you aren't aware of the application of quantum mechanics doesn't mean they aren't there.

I have seen far too arguments against QM+SRT combo to believe them. Extinction shift,sagnac effect all spit in the face of special relativity. Even Michelson gale experiment opposes STR in a sense. And QM self destructs. Period.

The Sagnac effect is entirely consistent with relativity. You are obviously not the kind of person to go looking for information about quantum mechanics or special relativity, like QQ you 'know' you're right so why bother expanding your horizons?

Nope it works. We just doesn't know how. While clearly what doesn't work is UP.

Experimentally the UP has enormous quantities of evidence and nothing contradicting it. You might not like it on philosophical grounds but that has absolutely no bearing on its accuracy in its description of Nature.

Quite correct. My problems are with QM not with classical physics which do a reasonably good job of depicting nature.

Special and general relativity do a better job describing Nature than Newtonian physics yet you just said the Sagnac effect 'spits in its face'. And quantum field theory does a better job of describing its area of applicability than Newtonian mechanics does in its.

Classical mechanics cannot explain the structure of the atom. It cannot explain the nucleus. It cannot accurately describe anomalous magnetic moments. It cannot describe superconductors or superfluids. It cannot describe Bose-Einstein condensates. It cannot describe nuclear processes in bombs or reactors. Classical mechanics is an everyday approximation. It's simpler but its less accurate and less applicable. In every single subatomic phenomenon quantum mechanics is verifiably a more accurate model.

If you designed a CPU chip using classical mechanics you'd find it didn't work.

Of course since you show that you are unworthy of reasoning with.

It's funny, I'm not worth reasoning with but it is worth your time to simply argue and say "Blah blah blah". I would suggest you reevaluate how you spend your time in that case.

Yup so neither mine nor yours count.

The difference being if someone challenges me I can put my physics where my mouth is and actually do quantum mechanics or special relativity. Have a search for threads I've started over in the maths and physics forum. I've yet to see you, QQ or any of the other cranks do anything even close to that.

Yes I only wish to insult. Lets see how long can you keep this up.

It's no effort to point out you're factually incorrect and deliberately ignorant of physics. This post has taken all of 5 minutes to type while I eat breakfast.