living elementary particles

[Arioch]

@zotkin --

It's clear that you know a bit of scientific terminology, however that doesn't mean that you're a scientist nor does it lend legitimacy to your ideas. What you must do is grasp the concepts behind science, such as parsimony and support by evidence, in order to lend your ideas credence. Of course if you did that you wouldn't support such unadulterated woo-woo.

 

[zotkin]

Aging photon raises an interesting issue: the old photon is different from the young of the photon has the same energy? The answer is simple - there are properties of the photon, which is unknown. I think that no one would argue with that. However, it is not surprising. The existence of a gene implies that all particles are considered identical, such as protons, differ from each other. Try to prove the opposite, using the facts. The same applies to quarks. For example, u quark in the proton is contained is different from the quark u contained in the neutron. As for the charges against me, that my conclusions are not based on facts - get to my speech. You will find that the facts that I used a lot more than most modern of modern physical theories. For example, look at how many assuming a general theory of relativity.

 

[Arioch]

@zotkin --

I don't have to prove a damn thing. You haven't even strung together a coherent sentence, let alone provided evidence to support your....hypothesis....why should I have to prove anything? The burden of proof still rests with you.

 

[zotkin]

Read my posts. Think a little. You will see that I have enough facts and conclusions of my logical. It is impossible to conclude after reading only one sentence. My theory opens new trend in the biological theory of particles. The ideas I have new ones, but this does not mean that they are wrong.

 

[origin]

Read my posts. Think a little. You will see that I have enough facts and conclusions of my logical.

I find your conclusions frighteningly illogical.

It is impossible to conclude after reading only one sentence. My theory opens new trend in the biological theory of particles.

New nonsensical trends.

The ideas I have new ones, but this does not mean that they are wrong.

No, the evidence and a cursory glance at your idea shows that it is wrong or maybe so wrong that it defies rational comment.

Your idea sound psychotic and delusional. Of course that is what they said about David Berkowitz.

 

[Arioch]

@zotkin --

Read my posts.

Okay....

Think a little.

I didn't think a little, I thought a lot.

You will see that I have enough facts and conclusions of my logical.

And here's where it all breaks down. Your conclusions aren't even tangentially related to your premises. There's absolutely no way to logically derive your conclusions from the *cough cough*"facts"*cough cough* you've presented. Your conclusions also run into another complication in that they run counter to what we've observed, so not only have you failed to support your hypothesis(and I use that word only in the loosest sense) with evidence but you've engaged in blatant confirmation bias by ignoring contradictory evidence.

Hell, most of your *cough cough*"facts"*cough cough* aren't anything more than pure supposition on your part. This means that any credibility you may have had vanished upon posting this thread.

It is impossible to conclude after reading only one sentence.

Actually yes it is. "Photons has genes" is an exact quote(so far as I can remember) and since this is your premise for the rest of your woo the fact that it's contradicted by the fact that photons have no rest-mass(a photon which is at rest has zero mass). Genes are the result of matter binding together in a certain way, matter necessarily has mass, so no rest-mass means that photons can have no genes when they're at rest. The rest of your posts can be dismissed because they require this premise to be true.

My theory opens new trend in the biological theory of particles.

Your "theory" isn't even a theory, it isn't even technically a hypothesis. It's an idea based on a gross misinterpretation of Q.E.D. and presented with an almost religious zeal. Beyond that it's grossly unparsimonious in that it explains nothing and requires a number of unnecessary assumptions.

The ideas I have new ones, but this does not mean that they are wrong.

I doubt that they're really new but that's irrelevant. Your ideas aren't wrong because they're new, they're wrong because they ignore massive amounts of contrary evidence(we have a pretty strong grasp of what photons are now), the conclusions can't be logically derived from the premises, the premises are all unsupported, and they're unparsimonious as all hell.

Any questions?

 

[zotkin]

The accusation against me is made very serious, even for pseudo. I have no logic and no facts confirming the validity of my findings. Let's see if this is. General features of reproduction of organisms indicate that biological cells contain the media - the genes. This thought came to Mendel. Now we take the elementary particles. General properties of their reactions is incredibly similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms or biological cells. The basis of the properties of elementary particles are the most fundamental features of their structure, without a doubt. So elementary particles also contain genes, without a doubt. Believe it or not believe. There is logic in that? There. Next. If the elementary particles contain genes, can we reconcile this with the traditional view of them as physical systems? Nothing. Elementary particles are organized as a biological system. There are facts that prove it. Pay attention to the quarks. Elementary particles are systems in which processes take place to ensure their existence and the existence of their constituents. There is logic in that? There is. To be continued.

 

[Read-Only]

The accusation against me is made very serious, even for pseudo. I have no logic and no facts confirming the validity of my findings. Let's see if this is. General features of reproduction of organisms indicate that biological cells contain the media - the genes. This thought came to Mendel. Now we take the elementary particles. General properties of their reactions is incredibly similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms or biological cells. The basis of the properties of elementary particles are the most fundamental features of their structure, without a doubt. So elementary particles also contain genes, without a doubt. Believe it or not believe. There is logic in that? There. Next. If the elementary particles contain genes, can we reconcile this with the traditional view of them as physical systems? Nothing. Elementary particles are organized as a biological system. There are facts that prove it. Pay attention to the quarks. Elementary particles are systems in which processes take place to ensure their existence and the existence of their constituents. There is logic in that? There is. To be continued.

There is NO logic at all in your garbage idea. It is nothing but pure nonsense and you are in serious need of an education - even a very basic one. :bugeye:

 

[Pincho Paxton]

The accusation against me is made very serious, even for pseudo. I have no logic and no facts confirming the validity of my findings. Let's see if this is. General features of reproduction of organisms indicate that biological cells contain the media - the genes. This thought came to Mendel. Now we take the elementary particles. General properties of their reactions is incredibly similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms or biological cells. The basis of the properties of elementary particles are the most fundamental features of their structure, without a doubt. So elementary particles also contain genes, without a doubt. Believe it or not believe. There is logic in that? There. Next. If the elementary particles contain genes, can we reconcile this with the traditional view of them as physical systems? Nothing. Elementary particles are organized as a biological system. There are facts that prove it. Pay attention to the quarks. Elementary particles are systems in which processes take place to ensure their existence and the existence of their constituents. There is logic in that? There is. To be continued.

If you mean that particles behave a bit like cell division, yes I noticed that too, but it is because cell division is using the energy outflow of the particle physics. Hard to explain.. bonding has an outflow. That outflow is directed through low pressure areas, and cell division uses those same outflows. So they look the same. It creates a fractal, and even snowflakes use the same outflow as well.

 

[origin]

If you mean that particles behave a bit like cell division, yes I noticed that too, but it is because cell division is using the energy outflow of the particle physics. Hard to explain.. bonding has an outflow. That outflow is directed through low pressure areas, and cell division uses those same outflows. So they look the same. It creates a fractal, and even snowflakes use the same outflow as well.

There zotkin! Pincho sees some merit in your ideas. You should need no more proof than that to indicate your ideas are hair brained.

 

[Believe]

Make a prediction based upon your theory that would be different from mainstream physics that we can test. Otherwise (as I'm sure) this is all just woo woooo.

 

[zotkin]

Next. If an elementary particle contains genes and biologically organized, you have to abandon the physical evolution. And the replacement of the physical to the biological evolution. There was no great explosion, and the red shift is not due to recession of the substance. Photon in a vacuum for a long time without interacting with matter, biological aging. To me everything is logical. There is no difference between a biological cell and an elementary particle. An elementary particle is an open system. She kept exchanging material with its environment. Elementary particle exists, retains all its properties, reproduce, because it consumes energy and essential substance of the medium.

 

[Arioch]

@zotkin --

There is no difference between a biological cell and an elementary particle.

Other than mass. Don't forget that biological cells have mass(lots of it by atomic standards) and most elementary particles have none or as close to none as makes no difference. Again, no mass means no genes. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[origin]

This is low grade cesspool material.

 

[zotkin]

There are two power characteristics of elementary particles. The first characteristic is the usual energy. At the macroscopic level - this is work that can make the body. At the level of elementary particles fundamental importance of energy - the ability to transform, in other words, multiply. It is well known, it is measured in the experiment, and it is used in the theory. The second characteristic - the energy consumed per unit time, an elementary particle of the medium, as an elementary particle is an open system. This energy depends, of course, the condition in which there is an elementary particle - a free, interact with other particles, or participates in the conversion. In theory, while the value of this energy is not used to it and experiment is not reached. But it is a matter of time. I am the first, as far as I know, I enter this value in the theory of elementary particles. For clarity, you can take a biological organism. For example, warm-blooded. His body temperature constant. Body temperature is the energy value is known. But this does not mean that a biological organism closed system. The organism consumes energy from the environment. This energy is spent on maintaining the existence of an organism and, in particular, to maintain a constant temperature.

 

[Believe]

There are two power characteristics of elementary particles. The first characteristic is the usual energy. At the macroscopic level - this is work that can make the body. At the level of elementary particles fundamental importance of energy - the ability to transform, in other words, multiply. It is well known, it is measured in the experiment, and it is used in the theory. The second characteristic - the energy consumed per unit time, an elementary particle of the medium, as an elementary particle is an open system. This energy depends, of course, the condition in which there is an elementary particle - a free, interact with other particles, or participates in the conversion. In theory, while the value of this energy is not used to it and experiment is not reached. But it is a matter of time. I am the first, as far as I know, I enter this value in the theory of elementary particles. For clarity, you can take a biological organism. For example, warm-blooded. His body temperature constant. Body temperature is the energy value is known. But this does not mean that a biological organism closed system. The organism consumes energy from the environment. This energy is spent on maintaining the existence of an organism and, in particular, to maintain a constant temperature.

I repeat,

Make a prediction based upon your theory that would be different from mainstream physics that we can test. Otherwise (as I'm sure) this is all just woo woooo.

 

[Arioch]

@Believe --

You're never going to get a prediction out of him, as we've already shown this guy's ideas are thoroughly self-collapsing.

 

[zotkin]

Supporters of the fact that the microparticle is not a corpuscle link to experiment with a diffraction grating with two slits. As easily seen in the analysis of their arguments the authors always make assumptions that are a priori. I would like to cite the experience of the diffraction reschetkoy that really answer the question - the microparticle corpuscle or not? Microparticle is a corpuscle. This follows from the biological organization of elementary particles. Suppose that an elementary particle is a corpuscle, and therefore passes through one of the slits in a diffraction grating. Then, to explain the dependence of the diffraction pattern of the number of slots and other parameters, we must assume that the particle experiences a force that depends on the lattice structure as a whole. Such forces are known to physicists. Assume further that in this force field signal is spread with a finite speed, as well as any other signal. Then we can propose the following experiment with a diffraction grating with two slits. We close one slit. The second gap over time t will give a picture corresponding to the two open slots, where t - the time it takes for the signal from one slot to another. When the signal reaches the second gap, close it and open the first crack at the same time. Now the first crack in the course of time t, will give a proper picture of the two open slots. Even after a time t close the gap and open the first second, etc. Thus, if we experimentally choose t equal to the time of the signal from one slot to another, we get the picture corresponding to the two open slots, although always open only one slot, the first or second. True, the intensity will be twice as less, since the particles are passed one by one, or one or the other slit. If there is no delay, ie microparticle has a kind of a special nature, irrespective of the time t, the detector will record a superposition of two paintings - only the first open slot and open only the second slot. It is this experience, not a classic, when the lattice structure does not change, and decide - whether or not the microparticle corpuscle. You can offer and different experience. If fast enough zadiafragmirovat beam of electromagnetic waves in a short period of time, the diffraction divergence, because of the delay is proportional to l / D, rather than l / d - where D is the initial beam diameter, and d is the final diameter of the hole in the diaphragm, l length wave.

 

[Arioch]

@zotkin --

Feynman had a much better explanation for that. And you know what? His explanation didn't ignore the evidence like yours does. I'll repeat this again, photons have no mass, genes are matter and thus have mass. No mass equals no genes.

 

[zotkin]

Your knowledge of physics is poor. Photon has mass. Look at any textbook. If you really need weight.