Quran and 2012 .... Very Interesting !!!

[Sinnerman108]

I am sure putting v>c was what every noob Physicist would have done when he first got hands on it. So do not feed me crap, which I used to debate when I was a 16 year old.

Einstenian equations are valid only v<c.

I stopped reading there.

Classical physics is violated, rather more specifically the theory of cause and effect is violated if v>=c .
Einstein had ABSOLUTELY no problem with speed !

 

[A for Anarchy]

I stopped reading there.

Classical physics is violated, rather more specifically the theory of cause and effect is violated if v>=c .
Einstein had ABSOLUTELY no problem with speed !

Where was I saying that Einstein had a problem or not?

Classical physics is violated , precisely the reason why the equations are not valid in the same sense any more.

Tachyons theoretically exist, as I have said earlier ( and a lot in science fiction too ).
And obviously if they exist in Space Time, The Theory of Relativity exists for them too.

Not much can be said about the experimental evidence of them though , yet.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Where was I saying that Einstein had a problem or not?

Classical physics is violated , precisely the reason why the equations are not valid in the same sense any more.

Tachyons theoretically exist, as I have said earlier ( and a lot in science fiction too ). There is enough material about it online.

Tachyon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not much can be said about the experimental evidence of them though , yet.

Uhhhh .....

Carefully read.

You said, Einstein's equation are valid ONLY if V < C.

It is not Einstein, but the classical model which is valid for V < C.

That is simple, simple LOGIC !

 

[A for Anarchy]

Uhhhh .....

Carefully read.

You said, Einstein's equation are valid ONLY if V < C.

It is not Einstein, but the classical model which is valid for V < C.

That is simple, simple LOGIC !

I accept my mistake.

It should be classical model. I have already edited it Happy?

 

[aliadams]

I am sure putting v>c was what every noob Physicist would have done when he first got hands on it. So do not feed me crap, which I used to debate when I was a 16 year old.

Edit: Current Physical models exist which are valid only for v<c.

Read about the Standard Model of physics. Clear your misconceptions on neutrons and gluons. A neutron is a baryon (3 quarks - 2 down, 1 up quark). Gluons are exchange particles with mass -0.

It would be tiring to educate you about the Quantum Field theory (in particular - the Higg's Mechanism for explaining mass) and the Standard Model of Physics.

Higg's Boson - "the God Particle " - existence has been claimed by the Standard model of physics which also claimed the existence of many others including W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.

You are not claiming anything new.

Gluons are exchange particles.

You are confused.

When they ran out of ideas, they prososed the force carrier particles. This is where the main falt of the Sandard Model lies.

My alternating neutron model sees no need for such things and (not even quarks but trillions upon trillions of photons make each particle) and decaying photons leave along helical paths and they are what we call fields.

And these same fields either helicate clockwise or counter-anticlock to repepresnt posiitve and negatibe electric charges, but as the particle that radiates these fields is ever spinning the field gets "Curl"ed and that is responsible for magnetic moment (truning force).

As for mass it is simply the impedence to the passage of gravity fields through a particle which depends on the not only the number of its photons but photon configuration too just like inertia is dependent on mass distribution.

No particle zoo is needed. FULL STOP.

God >

 

[aliadams]

And unlike the Standard Model that failed when v > c hnce they limit it to c, the Universe has a single simple and elegent model across all ranges or else it would be a discontinuous universe and mya even imply multiple gods, istaghfur Allah.

The problem with the Standard Model and the countless patches they keep adding to it to keep it standing.

My dear friend Gaasenbeek used to say:

They climed to the top of the tree and cannot go any further because they cliemed the wrong tree.

One day not in the too distance future in sha Allah The Truth will prevail and all of you who resist it will be judged fairly by THE ONE GOD, the real-time Creator and real-time Sustainer of all creation.

I am done with Mr A.

If anyone want to discuss the Quran and 2012 from the Quran after reading my heliwave.com, I will be happy to contninue ...

Salam,

Ali Adams
God > infinity

 

[A for Anarchy]

When they ran out of ideas, they prososed the force carrier particles. This is where the main falt of the Sandard Model lies.

My alternating neutron model sees no need for such things and (not even quarks but trillions upon trillions of photons make each particle) and decaying photons leave along helical paths and they are what we call fields.

And these same fields either helicate clockwise or counter-anticlock to repepresnt posiitve and negatibe electric charges, but as the particle that radiates these fields is ever spinning the field gets "Curl"ed and that is responsible for magnetic moment (truning force).

As for mass it is simply the impedence to the passage of gravity fields through a particle which depends on the not only the number of its photons but photon configuration too just like inertia is dependent on mass distribution.

No particle zoo is needed. FULL STOP.

God >

I can see that you have no understanding of physics - Mixing up concepts of gravity and electromagnetic fields!

Read up about the definitions of inertial mass and gravitational mass.

Please read up on Abdus Salam's work on the Higg's Mechanism as well as QCT for explanation of Mass in the universe.

(Special beam cannon - your theory )

Your alternating neutron model does not explain why the neutron is unstable out of the nucleus. Read about Beta decay.

Read about the strong force and weak force.

You are trying to debunk extremely well established theories of Quantum mechanics and you have not provided with one single thought experiment to back your claims

You can claim no need this, no need that - sadly for you most of what the Standard Model predicted -exists-