Neutrino Posited To Have An Extremely Small Dipole Charge

[Dubbelosix]

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

[exchemist]

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

[Dubbelosix]

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.

[Dubbelosix]

Besides, you have to censor people who have different viewpoints in physics. Just depends on who does the censoring and why.

[Vmedvil2]

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

[OceanBreeze]

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)

 

 

[exchemist]

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

[exchemist]

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?  

[exchemist]

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.......   

[exchemist]

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. 

[Dubbelosix]

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. 

[exchemist]

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.  

[Dubbelosix]

Deception?

 

To decieve would be to lie about who I am, which I haven't done in a very long time, so yes, it is a matter of stalking. I thought by this time people would have grown up ... but clearly not. I think the underlying reasons are much deeper than a matter of deception from my behalf. I know for instance, a lot of the time, people will simply not give me the time of day because I went out my way to actually learn physics. As I said, some interesting conversations where actually happening between me and James, I suppose I found it more interesting that he kept replies made to me but censored everything else. Do you not find that in the slightest bit curious?

[Dubbelosix]

By the way, I have not waned away from mathematical texts. I use mathematics to describe what is being said. If it has been interpreted as otherwise, then I am sorry about that one.