Unbelievable velocity mass variation!

[martillo]

rpenner misreported the velocities. The correct values are the ones he gave but without the % symbol. So 60 keV electrons move at just under 0.45c or 45% of the speed of light.

It makes more sense...
But there's the other issue. That the De Broglie relation is used in those equipments not meaning the relation is exactly valid. I mean, the De Broglie relation is used to obtain the lattice and when the equipments are developed they are calibrated with known crystals to give consistent results, am I wrong? So, as I say, they not validate De Broglie law.

 

[przyk]

It makes more sense...
But there's the other issue. That the De Broglie relation is used in those equipments not meaning the relation is exactly valid. I mean, the De Broglie relation is used to obtain the lattice and when the equipments are developed they are calibrated with known crystals to give consistent results, am I wrong? So, as I say, they not validate De Broglie law.

Why do you think this? Have you actually studied the experiments rpenner cited? Of course you haven't. You're just guessing as usual.

Stop guessing. Either actually study the experiments and show that you can give an alternative explanation for the results, or at the very least you owe them the benefit of the doubt. You do not get to believe whatever you like in place of actually looking things up.

It's what I said before. You're showing again that you just don't understand how science works.

 

[martillo]

Why do you think this? Have you actually studied the experiments rpenner cited? Of course you haven't.

No but as an electrical engineer I have a pretty idea on how instruments are developed and fabricated.
You stop quickly disregarding my comments as if I know nothing. That's not a good behavior.
If you have a rational argument on what is said welcome but if not stop trying to make personal disregarding as a refutation. It is not. That doesn't refute anything. Just show you don't have a proper argument to refute and that you try to get me out with, let me say, some "personal attack". Ashaming behavior I would say.

 

[przyk]

No but as an electrical engineer I have a pretty idea on how instruments are developed and fabricated.

No, as an electrical engineer, you have a pretty good idea how some instruments are developed and fabricated. That doesn't mean that your guesses about any arbitrary physics experiment should carry any weight. We've already seen how good you are at guessing already, and you're pretty bad at it: you made a lot of guesses about accelerator physics, and most of them were wrong. You obviously thought that the particles were just being accelerated up to their final energy with two charged plates for example. That's wrong. You also didn't know about calorimeters, and even when you found out about them you were still surprised to find out that the detection system as a whole was capable of tracking individual particles.

With regard to the paper rpenner cited, your experience as an electrical engineer didn't tell you that crystallography (the study of the properties of crystals) is most commonly done with X-rays, and only in some cases with electrons or neutrons. Even if the crystal lattice spacing was only known from electron diffraction, it didn't occur to you that your reasoning only works if the diffraction was only ever done at just one energy (as you read in just the abstract, electrons at a range of different energies were used). And incidentally, it was gold foil rather than a crystal that was used to create the diffraction pattern in the paper rpenner cited.

So seriously, stop guessing. This is not electrical engineering and your background as an electrical engineer is not giving you any particularly special insights here.

You stop quickly disregarding my comments as if I know nothing. That's not a good behavior.

You really know nothing. This is obvious to everyone here who does know something. I'm mostly a theorist who knows comparatively little about experimental physics, and it is obvious to me that you know much less than even I do.

If you have a rational argument on what is said welcome but if not stop trying to make personal disregarding as a refutation. It is not. That doesn't refute anything.

You are trying to impose a double standard here. You are demanding rational responses to arguments you advance that are based on ignorance and guesses. It is easier just to point out that your opinions are based on self serving guesses and thus don't carry any weight.

Just show you don't have a proper argument to refute and that you try to get me out with, let me say, some "personal attack". Ashaming behavior I would say.

This is pure hypocrisy. You don't have proper arguments. Guesses about experiments you are too lazy to study is not proper argumentation. There is simply no reason we should all bend over backwards doing the research you should have done yourself before you even started this thread.

And before you start complaining about personal attacks, keep in mind that assuming experimental physicists didn't actually measure what they said they did is an attack on their expertise and competence. And it's an attack you can't remotely justify because you never bothered to look up what they actually did.

Ashaming [sic] behaviour indeed.

 

[martillo]

No, as an electrical engineer, you have a pretty good idea how some instruments are developed and fabricated. That doesn't mean that your guesses about any arbitrary physics experiment should carry any weight. We've already seen how good you are at guessing already, and you're pretty bad at it: you made a lot of guesses about accelerator physics, and most of them were wrong. You obviously thought that the particles were just being accelerated up to their final energy with two charged plates for example. That's wrong. You also didn't know about calorimeters, and even when you found out about them you were still surprised to find out that the detection system as a whole was capable of tracking individual particles.

You were guessing those instruments validate De Broglie formula. I just gave a right justification why that's not the case.
No I didn't think that at CERN or LHC particles would be accelerated by parallel plates. What I know is that they were used in the Davisson-Gemer experiment.

With regard to the paper rpenner cited, your experience as an electrical engineer didn't tell you that crystallography (the study of the properties of crystals) is most commonly done with X-rays, and only in some cases with electrons or neutrons. Even if the crystal lattice spacing was only known from electron diffraction, it didn't occur to you that your reasoning only works if the diffraction was only ever done at just one energy (as you read in just the abstract, electrons at a range of different energies were used). And incidentally, it was gold foil rather than a crystal that was used to create the diffraction pattern in the paper rpenner cited.

Well here we are talking about diffraction with electrons.
Gold as a metal form crystalline structures (I mean repetitive arrangements of atoms) when pure.

You really know nothing. This is obvious to everyone here who does know something.

You say that because I didn't waste my time, resources and brain studying Modern Physics in high degree. I remained in the basics but hard. Is not only what I learned at University. I went further on my own. I was lucky. My mind is not "polluted" with the fantastic but wrong "high features" of Relativity and Quantum Physics theories.

You are trying to impose a double standard here. You are demanding rational responses to arguments you advance that are based on ignorance and guesses. It is easier just to point out that your opinions are based on self serving guesses and thus don't carry any weight.

No. Guesses are allowed to me and very appropiated sometimes, from anyone (I'm not talking just about mine, others have excellent guesses much better than mine). The problem is about your personal disregarding what is always out of topic in any thread.
Ashaming behavior yours I repeat.

 

[Grumpy]

martillo

And what are X-rays if not electrons at high velocities?

Really? Dude, it's time to admit to yourself(we already know)that you don't know what you think you do. You are missing huge chunks of basic understanding of what it is you are trying to discuss, much less change.

Grumpy:shrug:

 

[martillo]

“ And what are X-rays if not electrons at high velocities? ”

Really? Dude, it's time to admit to yourself(we already know)that you don't know what you think you do. You are missing huge chunks of basic understanding of what it is you are trying to discuss, much less change.

I made a mistake. I was editing it while you posting.
I'm not infallible. I make mistakes and may be everyday at any moment. I well know that. That doesn't mean I do pretty right things other times.

 

[przyk]

And you are guessing those instruments validate De Broglie formula.

No, I am trusting that trained experimenters knew what they were doing. And even there that's only to some extent. I downloaded the paper that rpenner cited, so I already know more about that experiment than you do. Specifically, enough to know that your concerns don't apply to it. I also know more about experimental high energy physics than you do. So my opinions have more basis in relevant experience than yours do.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are "challenging" the results of a published experimental study based on guesses. It's just so unbelievably stupid. What's the point of anyone doing and reporting experiments if people like you are just going to invent excuses to ignore the results?

I just gave a right justification why that's not the case.

Uninformed guessing is not a justification. How many times do you need this explained to you?

Well here we are talking about diffraction with electrons.

You are missing the point. You were making a wild guess that diffraction experiments were done with electrons, using crystals whose properties were measured using electrons. As I pointed out, the properties of crystals are actually most commonly measured using X-rays. So there is no basis to your guess. Your background as an electrical engineer didn't help you here. You were wrong, again. So stop expecting us to take your guesses seriously.

(And yeah, think before posting knee-jerk "rebuttals". I saw you thought X-rays were electrons before you edited that.)

Gold as a metal form crystalline structures (I mean repetitive arrangements of atoms) when pure.

I take it, based on your previous edits, you meant gold doesn't have a regular crystalline structure. Actually, it does.

You say that because I didn't waste my time, resources and brain studying Modern Physics in high degree.

This is arrogant in the extreme. You don't know any of it, how would you know if it's a waste of time? You don't, plain and simple. Your assessments of the entire field of physics are based on ignorance and prejudice.

And I'm not calling you ignorant because you don't have a physics degree. I'm calling you ignorant because you're ignorant. You don't even understand electromagnetism, let alone anything more advanced.

For comparison, rpenner doesn't have a physics degree, yet he's not ignorant. In fact, the only reason I know rpenner doesn't have a physics degree is that he himself has said so. It's obvious to me that he's better informed on many of the topics he posts about than I am. This just shines through in his posts. So I am certainly open to the idea that someone without formal qualifications in physics could know more about at least some physics than I do. You are just not one of those rare individuals.

My mind is not "polluted" with the fantastic but wrong "high features" of Relativity and Quantum Physics theories.

Now what were you saying about personal attacks? Insinuating I was "polluted" by quantum physics and relativity and that I can't think for myself is a serious personal attack.

No. Guesses are allowed to me

Not by the standards of scientific debate. You are choosing the guesses that let you believe what you've already decided you want to believe. That's how faith and religion work, not science.

Ashaming behavior yours I repeat.

Look in the mirror. As I told you, you don't understand science and your attitude will never endear you to real scientists. If you don't want to believe me, then fine. Just see where you're at 25 years from now.

 

[martillo]

“ Originally Posted by martillo
And you are guessing those instruments validate De Broglie formula. ”

No, I am trusting that trained experimenters knew what they were doing. And even there that's only to some extent. I downloaded the paper that rpenner cited, so I already know more about that experiment than you do. Specifically, enough to know that your concerns don't apply to it. I also know more about experimental high energy physics than you do. So my opinions have more basis in relevant experience than yours do.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are "challenging" the results of a published experimental study based on guesses. It's just so unbelievably stupid. What's the point of anyone doing and reporting experiments if people like you are just going to invent excuses to ignore the results?


“ I just gave a right justification why that's not the case. ”

Uninformed guessing is not a justification. How many times do you need this explained to you?


“ Well here we are talking about diffraction with electrons. ”

You are missing the point. You were making a wild guess that diffraction experiments were done with electrons, using crystals whose properties were measured using electrons. As I pointed out, the properties of crystals are actually most commonly measured using X-rays. So there is no basis to your guess. Your background as an electrical engineer didn't help you here. You were wrong, again. So stop expecting us to take your guesses seriously.

(And yeah, think before posting knee-jerk "rebuttals". I saw you thought X-rays were electrons before you edited that.)


“ Gold as a metal form crystalline structures (I mean repetitive arrangements of atoms) when pure. ”

I take it, based on your previous edits, you meant gold doesn't have a regular crystalline structure. Actually, it does.


“ You say that because I didn't waste my time, resources and brain studying Modern Physics in high degree. ”

This is arrogant in the extreme. You don't know any of it, how would you know if it's a waste of time? You don't, plain and simple. Your assessments of the entire field of physics are based on ignorance and prejudice.

And I'm not calling you ignorant because you don't have a physics degree. I'm calling you ignorant because you're ignorant. You don't even understand electromagnetism, let alone anything more advanced.

For comparison, rpenner doesn't have a physics degree, yet he's not ignorant. In fact, the only reason I know rpenner doesn't have a physics degree is that he himself has said so. It's obvious to me that he's better informed on many of the topics he posts about than I am. This just shines through in his posts. So I am certainly open to the idea that someone without formal qualifications in physics could know more about at least some physics than I do. You are just not one of those rare individuals.


“ My mind is not "polluted" with the fantastic but wrong "high features" of Relativity and Quantum Physics theories. ”

Now what were you saying about personal attacks? Insinuating I was "polluted" by quantum physics and relativity and that I can't think for myself is a serious personal attack.


“ No. Guesses are allowed to me ”

Not by the standards of scientific debate. You are choosing the guesses that let you believe what you've already decided you want to believe. That's how faith and religion work, not science.


“ Ashaming behavior yours I repeat. ”

Look in the mirror. As I told you, you don't understand science and your attitude will never endear you to real scientists. If you don't want to believe me, then fine. Just see where you're at 25 years from now.

Pure bullshit...
The fact is that my assertions compromise may be seriously your beliefs, most coming from high degree, and you don't like that, of course.
What I say seriously compromise about 100 years of scientific developments of both Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics and everything about your high degree and, of course, you don't want to hear that.
It make you nervous and agressive as you do are being.
Comprehensible.

 

[Grumpy]

martillo

The fact is that my assertions compromise may be seriously your beliefs, most coming from high degree, and you don't like that, of course.

Your assertions are wrong according to what physics has to say about the subject, and you don't like that fact pointed out to you, of course.

What I say seriously compromise about 100 years of scientific developments of both Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics and you don't want to hear that.

What you say will not have any effect on the valid scientific findings of people like Einstein and Hawking, but you don't want to hear that.

It make you nervous and agressive as you do are being.

I won't characterize what your non-sense assertions say about you. But a long gaze into a mirror would do you a world of good, unless you just refuse to accept the reality reflected there just as you refuse to accept the reality of your ignorance of reality here.

Grumpy

 

[przyk]

Pure bullshit...

Bullshit yourself. You just ignored everything I told you.

The fact is that my assertions compromise may be seriously your beliefs, most coming from high degree, and you don't like that, of course.

Bullshit again. You don't know relativity and quantum physics and don't know what I am basing my opinions on. You are playing amateur psychologist and, again, guessing what must be happening in my head. And as always, you're simply choosing the guess that lets you believe what you want to believe.

What I say seriously compromise about 100 years of scientific developments of both Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics

That's 100 years during which these theories have passed every test thrown at them. The vast majority of which aren't even considered on your website.

and you don't want to hear that.

Bullshit again. You waffle about thinking "out of the box" but the reality is you're against people thinking for themselves when they reach conclusions you don't like. When you tell me I'm "polluted" by things like relativity and quantum physics, without even knowing these theories, you are denying me my right to think for myself. You are denying me my right to take into account this knowledge you don't have, and possibly have a different opinion of it because of that different knowledge.

I think quantum physics and relativity are doing just fine. You don't have the background to really understand what I'm basing that opinion on, and you don't even understand the theories themselves, so you can't effectively argue with me and tell me I'm wrong. So you just insult me instead. Nice.

It make you nervous and agressive as you do are being.

Nervous? No. Aggressive? No. Irritated? Yes. You've insulted me in just the last few posts, so yes, it's quite comprehensible that I wouldn't react kindly to that.

 

[martillo]

Your assertions are wrong according to what physics has to say about the subject, and you don't like that fact pointed out to you, of course.

Of course they are wrong for your current Physics. I'm challenging it. What else to expect.

What you say will not have any effect on the valid scientific findings of people like Einstein and Hawking, but you don't want to hear that.

I think it will have a bit...

 

[martillo]

The thread diverged from the topic again thanks to przyk.
That's what he really looked for, at least, isn't it?
Congratulations, its working...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Tell you what, if you don't like the replies professional physicists here are giving you then why don't you submit your work to a reputable journal for review and then you can have other professional physicists evaluate your claims. It's okay, we'll wait....

 

[przyk]

The thread diverged from the topic again thanks to przyk.
That's what he really looked for, at least, isn't it?
Congratulations, its working...

No. You could have read the paper. You didn't.

You could have responded to the fact that gold actually does apparently have a regular lattice structure. You didn't.

You could have acknowledged and taken into account the fact that there are multiple ways of determining lattice spacing, not just using electrons, and the most common method doesn't even use electrons. And that's ignoring even the most basic estimation, just based on the known density of materials and the atomic masses of the atoms and ions that compose it. You just decided to ignore that too.

So don't blame me for changing the subject. You ignored these points and left me with nothing but insults and your made up psychology to respond to.

 

[martillo]

I think quantum physics and relativity are doing just fine. You don't have the background to really understand what I'm basing that opinion on, and you don't even understand the theories themselves, so you can't effectively argue with me and tell me I'm wrong.

Well continue believing in "wave particle duality", continue believing in "space-time curvature", continue believing in "Big Bang", continue looking for "dark matter"... I thought you would appreciate to be taken out of all this but not you prefer continue with all that...
Let me ask something, why you waste your time discussing with me then? Why not to just ignore even not opening this thread anymore. I would do that.

 

[przyk]

Let me ask something, why you waste your time discussing with me then?

Because you are failing to show any scientific integrity, and I think it's important that anyone else following this thread sees that. You have also thrown insults and some bullshit psychology at me and I think I have the right to defend myself from that.

 

[martillo]

No. You could have read the paper. You didn't.

You could have responded to the fact that gold actually does apparently have a regular lattice structure. You didn't.

You could have acknowledged and taken into account the fact that there are multiple ways of determining lattice spacing, not just using electrons, and the most common method doesn't even use electrons. And that's ignoring even the most basic estimation, just based on the known density of materials and the atomic masses of the atoms and ions that compose it. You just decided to ignore that too.

So don't blame me for changing the subject. You ignored these points and left me with nothing but insults and your made up psychology to respond to.

You made our discussion not worth anymore.

 

[przyk]

You made our discussion not worth anymore.

No. I made some valid points that you just quoted and you obviously can't respond to them. Now you're trying to slink off and blame that on me. Pathetic.

 

[martillo]

No. I made some valid points that you just quoted and you obviously can't respond to them.

You are wrong. I just don't want to answer them to you anymore.
If I would think our discussion worth something I would continue. You made it not worth.

Now you're trying to slink of and blame that on me. Pathetic.

It's not my intention to blame on you.
I will continue discussing things relevant to the topic of the thread only and in a rational way. Of course if it seems not possible I will abandon this.
The thread diverged before and I was getting away when rpenner entered with worthly data. The discussion got worthly again. You after continued saying things like "you don't know nothing", "stop guessing", etc, etc. This doesn't worth.