Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

If we stick to the subject of the thread, then I am in agreement. However, the axiom in objective science is <b>proof positive</b>, not ex cathedra. So if someone introduces a new factor such as a star or proton traveling at 1% of the speed of light, there should be positive evidence, rational and logic for the properties of that new entity.

You run the risk of losing members not because of their unruly mouths but because they may interpret that their line of thought has been summarily dismissed. <b>This is a serious statement.</b>

Your audience is <b>not</b> 16 year olds - who might be ignorant and naive but are usually bright. I have a new group of three chemical engineers who are 35 years behind me in experience. However, I do not treat them as inferiors, because I was once in their position. I treat their every question or complaint with courtesy and full attention.

Gregg Wilson

My favourite model for the electron and positron, is that of a torus. An electric field corkscrews left or right handed round the torus at light speed. We don't know which but let's say, right handed corkscrew for electrons, left for postitrons.In short what we have is a photon chasing its tail. Now this would mean that fields can produce tiny singularities, as that's the only means I can think of to bend a photon round into a circle.

Then put a couple of thousand electrons and positrons into another torus and call it a neutron. Equal numbers but we can have the ordering of them round the ring rotated 180 degrees. This would cover the flipping of the magnetic field of the neutron, creating an anti neutron.

(edited) In anothr thread I suggested that water molecules can be forced into a room temperature ice configuration by magnesium. Thge surface hydrogen atoms are almost totally s*****ed of their neg charge by the oxygen atom by van de waals. We can have a surface protonic semiconductor.

By moving electrons through our magnesium, we can make its surface look like neon. The upshot would be a noble gas surface catalyst, i,e, something extremely fast.

Now I think that the model of the oxygen atom, where the k shell electrons are at ninety degrees to the two electrons of the l subshell is wrong where van de waals is concerned. I think we can have a pseudo cooper pair. A sort of latch which can be broken to fling off a hyrogen atom. I think that this is what plants are doing when they crack water with so little effort.

You Gregg, must know that the oil companies would love to use oil for better things than just burning. Cracking sea water means magnesium as a waste product. It would be big business and very green.

A sudden thought [] We take a pipe and lathe a parabola into its inside. We know the speed of sound in air, and we can work out the speed of sound in egg white. Push that mixture through the pipe, not letting any more air into it. The parabola will mix the two. Get students to work out the speed of sound in our merange. Its modulus is going to have both positive and negative roots. it will also be "stringy." Now think of that in terms of how the aether might work. i believe that it would look something like the model proposed by Planck of phase space oscillator cells.

On the doppler effect. The general form, with contraction factor is, f = f subscript 0 (1 - v^2 / c^2) ^0.5 C / C + or - Vcos theta. In the event that the orientation angle is ninety degrees, the form reduces to f = f subscript 0 (1 - v^2 / c^2) ^0.5

Pop an h on both sides of the equation and we have something that says that the internal frequency of matter falls when accelerated. No time dilaltion there then.

I'm not sure I understand these last few posts. They seem to be all over the map as far as subject is concerned.

Except for nonneta's tendency to become personal at times, I thought I was having an interesting conversation with him re his challenge to MM and the nature of reality. And I thought I was making progress in guiding him toward avoiding rude behavior. Or, maybe I was fooling myself?

These things are not, of course, close to the subject of this discussion as judged by its title.

I may not be as sensitive as I should be to those who have "lost" a topic to the tangent monster. It seems to me that bouncing off on a tangent is a normal part of human discourse, so I haven't been too concerned when I see it happen in these discussions.

Maybe that needs to change?

===
MODERATORS - DO WE NEED TO BECOME MORE PROACTIVE (iow, MORE LITTERAL) IN "TOPIC" ENFORCEMENT?

MEMBERS - CAN YOU SPEAK UP WHEN YOU THINK "YOUR TOPIC" IS IN DANGER OF DRIFTING?
===

These would not be trivial changes to the way we do business here.

I think the members would have to take the lead and sound the first alarm. The "best way" (??) to do this would be to place a message asking the tangental poster to either tie his discussion explicitly to the title topic or start another thread (or suggest moveing to an existing thread that is already on the new topic, if one is known).

After that, but not before, it would be appropriate for a moderator to take action.

===

===

QUESTION - should this be the last post in this discussion that is not tied directly or at least closely to the title subject?

If you want to agree, disagree or comment about this, either start a new discussion for that purpose, or wait for someone else to do so.)

IMHO, I would like to see both Greg & Stoat start new threads.