Dubbelosix Posted March 1, 2020 Report Share Posted March 1, 2020 Yey score one for me, I have been saying there is an extremely small charge that probably is very difficult to measure. https://phys.org/news/2020-02-universe.html?fbclid=IwAR1xrLJOWg3rRI6UEYV44RLzmextYT6htGBHXosaK4kPY-lNnXGDZNrezMQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 2, 2020 Report Share Posted March 2, 2020 (edited) And it's goodbye Reiku/Dubbelsocks from sciforums again today, this time under the name "Crystal Gauge": http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-photon-is-mass-less.162811/page-4 Edited March 2, 2020 by exchemist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted March 2, 2020 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2020 And it's goodbye Reiku/Dubbelsocks from sciforums again today, this time under the name "Crystal Gauge": http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-photon-is-mass-less.162811/page-4 Probably, what a shame though, just when the dialogue was getting interesting with James. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted March 2, 2020 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2020 Besides, you have to censor people who have different viewpoints in physics. Just depends on who does the censoring and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flummoxed Posted March 2, 2020 Report Share Posted March 2, 2020 Yey score one for me, I have been saying there is an extremely small charge that probably is very difficult to measure. https://phys.org/news/2020-02-universe.html?fbclid=IwAR1xrLJOWg3rRI6UEYV44RLzmextYT6htGBHXosaK4kPY-lNnXGDZNrezMQ The link is about neutrons not neutrinos :( With all those up and down quarks whizzing around, would it not be expected to see some leakage at close range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted March 2, 2020 Report Share Posted March 2, 2020 (edited) And it's goodbye Reiku/Dubbelsocks from sciforums again today, this time under the name "Crystal Gauge": http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-photon-is-mass-less.162811/page-4 Exchemist why are you such a *******? Edited March 2, 2020 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flummoxed Posted March 3, 2020 Report Share Posted March 3, 2020 And it's goodbye Reiku/Dubbelsocks from sciforums again today, this time under the name "Crystal Gauge": http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-photon-is-mass-less.162811/page-4 You are coming over as a bit of a stalker, isnt it about time you knocked it off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Well, Exchemist does have his facts right. 006 has confused at least two things: neutrons with neutrinos, and charge with electric dipole moment.Unlike other more serious science forums, here we don’t censor or ban people for posting off-the-wall pet theories and “math” that is gibberish; but anyone posting such nonsense does become fair game and risks being called out and made to look foolish. Rather than shoot the messenger, why not ask 006 why he started a thread entitled “Neutrino Posited to Have an Extremely Small Dipole Charge” then link to an article about neutrons having a small electric dipole moment? (the linked article is interesting; it just doesn’t have anything to do with the thread title) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) You are coming over as a bit of a stalker, isnt it about time you knocked it off!It may look like that. However I take strong exception to the deception involved in somebody pretending to be someone else, in order to evade a ban on a science forum, just to post more of the crap for which he was originally banned. Reiku and Theorist are by far the worst offenders and so I keep an eye out for them both - and let them know I am on their case. Edited March 4, 2020 by exchemist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Well, Exchemist does have his facts right. 006 has confused at least two things: neutrons with neutrinos, and charge with electric dipole moment.Unlike other more serious science forums, here we don’t censor or ban people for posting off-the-wall pet theories and “math” that is gibberish; but anyone posting such nonsense does become fair game and risks being called out and made to look foolish. Rather than shoot the messenger, why not ask 006 why he started a thread entitled “Neutrino Posited to Have an Extremely Small Dipole Charge” then link to an article about neutrons having a small electric dipole moment? (the linked article is interesting; it just doesn’t have anything to do with the thread title)Actually it was Flummoxed who pointed that out, but it is a good point. How does one take seriously a person who talks as if he knows a lot of physics but confuses a neutron with a neutrino? How could a pointlike particle have a dipole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flummoxed Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Well, Exchemist does have his facts right. 006 has confused at least two things: neutrons with neutrinos, and charge with electric dipole moment.Unlike other more serious science forums, here we don’t censor or ban people for posting off-the-wall pet theories and “math” that is gibberish; but anyone posting such nonsense does become fair game and risks being called out and made to look foolish. Rather than shoot the messenger, why not ask 006 why he started a thread entitled “Neutrino Posited to Have an Extremely Small Dipole Charge” then link to an article about neutrons having a small electric dipole moment? (the linked article is interesting; it just doesn’t have anything to do with the thread title) Would it not be more useful to discuss where some one is wrong, if they are wrong. When there is an argument or discussion on a forum everyone learns. In the absence of anything better to discuss, people stop posting or start talking crap, which can be amusing :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 Would it not be more useful to discuss where some one is wrong, if they are wrong. When there is an argument or discussion on a forum everyone learns. In the absence of anything better to discuss, people stop posting or start talking crap, which can be amusing :)Everyone, that is, who is not themselves either a crank or a nutter. Which means about three or four of us, on this forum....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flummoxed Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 It may look like that. However I take strong exception to the deception involved in somebody pretending to be someone else, in order to evade a ban on a science forum, just to post more of the crap for which he was originally banned. Reiku and Theorist are by far the worst offenders and so I keep an eye out for them both - and let them know I am on their case. How many years have you being doing this, is it not a little bit OCD. Everyone, that is, who is not themselves either a crank or a nutter. Which means about three or four of us, on this forum....... I hope you are not classing your self as one of the nutters :) Would it not be more fun/beneficial to point out errors in arguments or put people straight, rather than being nasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 How many years have you being doing this, is it not a little bit OCD. I hope you are not classing your self as one of the nutters :) Would it not be more fun/beneficial to point out errors in arguments or put people straight, rather than being nasty. I gave that up after that absurd business in which Dubbelsox argued (a+b)² = a² + b². This place is dedicated to cranks and nutters now, apart from you and OceanBreeze, so there is almost nobody with whom to have a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flummoxed Posted March 4, 2020 Report Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) I gave that up after that absurd business in which Dubbelsox argued (a+ :cool:² = a² + b². This place is dedicated to cranks and nutters now, apart from you and OceanBreeze, so there is almost nobody with whom to have a discussion. Never saw that discussion, perhaps it was before I stumbled across this forum, also I do not read every thread. There are very few people posting on this forum to discuss with, sane or otherwise. The number of people posting on other forums is also reducing, I suspect due to facebook and other types of groups, which might be more user friendly. There appears to be a downward trend in most forums of this type. I am not aware of any that has increased their numbers. Edit perhaps Thost thread might be pertinent http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36507-i-want-to-say-thank-you/?p=381881 Edited March 5, 2020 by Flummoxed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted March 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 Its ok people ... I have already accused him of staliking before, it's what he does best. For someone who proclaimed for many years that I didn't know my science, he sure does read all the material I write down. I should explain the errors here since it has been properly brought up... I have been using a tablet for the past 6 months and it has an auto correct on the spelling, and its a nightmare. However, when I spoke about the neutrino, and neutron, the same principles apply. In fact I made a point of this quite a while back when studying Feynmanns lectures, in which he explains that while we consider a neutron to be chargless, it actually has a non zero charge distribution ... and he concluded, that because of this, its not so simple. Simple in the sense, that electric charges actually contribute to the total mass charge of a particle. I still hold to what I say however concerning the neutrino, it should have a very small charge which corresponds to its equivalent mass or approximated mass. There should be no exceptions in nature, so read as carefully as you all have done so far, the physics will change eventually and notions we have held onto will dissipate. I have been doing some interesting work, I have rewritten Newtons Principia to include the notion of drag, and I was surprised to learn that he totally did not accept gravity as a drag. Today we know better since even NASA scientists have admitted in their own archives that gravity is a type of drag phenomenon, but it was really me who has propagated this theory in the modern age before it got popular with the recent evidence of a star showing it can drag spacetime around with it. I also stated earlier on this year to convince Victor, that the drag should extend to galactic proportions when considering black holes with trillions of solar masses, I have since taken Newtons earlier work and rewritten his false statements and implemented them into Keplers laws, the results are quite nice. I hope to have a writeup on this very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 Its ok people ... I have already accused him of staliking before, it's what he does best. For someone who proclaimed for many years that I didn't know my science, he sure does read all the material I write down. I should explain the errors here since it has been properly brought up... I have been using a tablet for the past 6 months and it has an auto correct on the spelling, and its a nightmare. However, when I spoke about the neutrino, and neutron, the same principles apply. In fact I made a point of this quite a while back when studying Feynmanns lectures, in which he explains that while we consider a neutron to be chargless, it actually has a non zero charge distribution ... and he concluded, that because of this, its not so simple. Simple in the sense, that electric charges actually contribute to the total mass charge of a particle. I still hold to what I say however concerning the neutrino, it should have a very small charge which corresponds to its equivalent mass or approximated mass. There should be no exceptions in nature, so read as carefully as you all have done so far, the physics will change eventually and notions we have held onto will dissipate. I have been doing some interesting work, I have rewritten Newtons Principia to include the notion of drag, and I was surprised to learn that he totally did not accept gravity as a drag. Today we know better since even NASA scientists have admitted in their own archives that gravity is a type of drag phenomenon, but it was really me who has propagated this theory in the modern age before it got popular with the recent evidence of a star showing it can drag spacetime around with it. I also stated earlier on this year to convince Victor, that the drag should extend to galactic proportions when considering black holes with trillions of solar masses, I have since taken Newtons earlier work and rewritten his false statements and implemented them into Keplers laws, the results are quite nice. I hope to have a writeup on this very soon. So long as you stop using deception to re-enter science forums you have been banned from, I will be happy to leave you alone. By the way I do commend your move away from mathematical scribbling to using text to discuss your ideas. Seriously, and no sarcasm intended, I think that's a huge step forward. :) Over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.