The graviton?
The Higgs Boson?
all theoretical and given the belief in a photon impossible to be revealed nor understood.
The whistling sound you're probably hearing is my point flying over your head.
My point is that you said "The mainstream says [X] and it also says [Y], how are these compatible?!". In fact the mainstream
doesn't say [X]
and [Y], you have failed to find out or understand what the mainstream actually says. Since all of your whining is about how you
perceive a state of "total confusion" and "inconsistency" in the mainstream the fact you
don't know what the mainstream actually says completely undermines your whining.
When I commented that $$E=mc^{2}$$ doesn't apply to the photon you complained that surely that means the mainstream are making a special case for the photon. To quote you exactly :
"How mainstream can take an absolute universal equation such as this one and allow an exception with out expecting an absolute equation to be come less than absolute?". I then had to explain to you
AGAIN that $$E=mc^{2}$$ is not a universal expression, its a particular case of a universal expression. The expression $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$$
is applied universally to all particles in mainstream physics and to illustrate that I mentioned particles which are entirely theoretical, the Higgs and the graviton, to demonstrate that
all particles, observed and not, have that equation apply to it. So you complaint that physicists claim a universal equation which isn't applied universally is wrong, both on the equation which is said to be universal and also which particles the mainstream applies it to.
Whether or not the Higgs or graviton exist is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the models of them in the mainstream apply 'a universal equation' to them. They do. There's no inconsistency. You are
wrong in your claims and understanding of the mainstream. The fact you're now saying "Oh it doesn't matter, they don't have evidence anyway" is irrelevant, you claimed something about how the mainstream models them and thus the only relevant issue is the theoretical models. Which you got wrong.
The Higgs Boson is an inverse point particle [re: inverse sphere ] and has absolutely no mass unless you consider negative mass a susbstance.
Gravitons do not exist as gravity is just spacial volume collapsing from 3 dimensions toward zero dimensions using time [ energy ] as the governing factor
see..totally off the wall to any one who considers the universe in mechanistic Einstien/Minkowsky terms.
So its bad for physicists to use logic and rigour to make predictions about gravity and the Higgs but its okay for you to just make shit up? Are you
that blind to your hypocrisy?
I also know you know that the Higgs has been discounted years ago from being a serious pursuit
Are you deliberately making up lies or do you believe what you're saying? I spent the last 4 years in a physics research group in a university working along side a great many people who examine the Higgs model and calculate the effects such a model would have at the LHC and Fermilab, both of which many of them have visited and/or worked at. You only need to look at the theoretical physics section of
www.arxiv.org to see that the Higgs is a serious and active area of research. Last year Fermilab published results which narrows down the range of energies the LHC needs to explore. The main motivation for the LHC is the Higgs boson and the unitary completion of the Standard Model.
I seriously can't understand why you would knowingly lie to someone who has hands on experience of particle physics research
about particle physics research!! I know you're used to speaking to people who
aren't in the physics research community and thus are unlikely to know what precisely is or isn't taken seriously but you and I have crossed paths enough times for you to know I'm not one of those people. You could lie to me about what is or isn't serious research in biochemistry, I have no real active knowledge about it, but you can't pull the same trick with particle physics research.
and the so called Graviton is mere speculation. [ for lack of any alternative ]
Speculation motivated by previous knowledge of particle physics. You obviously think, given what you just said about the Higgs and graviton, that any
random speculation is just as valid. You have no clue as to the scientific method.
The problem is that even if you got all the info you are fishing for you will not be able to do a damn thing with it..you wanna know why?
What do I need to 'fish' for? You're providing everything up front! You just demonstrated you don't know what the mainstream describes mass-energy-momentum relationships with, you don't know how the mainstream models the photon, you are willing to lie about said things you don't know, you lie to physics researchers
about physics research, you have demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and honesty. I don't have to go 'fishing' for anything.
You wanna know how to open a star gate? or construct a stable wormhole? of uncover the TOE?
sorry to disappoint you but ....
You're trying to change the subject. I haven't said anything about any of those things and the existence of the Higgs and/or graviton is immaterial to any of those things really. Rather than learning your 'science' from pop science magazines which exaggerate and twist the findings of actual scientists I suggest you read some books and papers. And all of those things are irrelevant to the point I was making, that you
don't know what the mainstream says about the photon or anything else. Your challenge stems from what you
perceive to be 'total confusion' and 'inconsistency' in the mainstream but since you obviously have no understanding or knowledge of the mainstream your challenge is based on
your problems, not the mainstreams. And you're too lacking in maturity and intellectual honesty to accept its
your fault you don't understand.
