OceanBreeze Posted December 8 Report Posted December 8 19 hours ago, Talanum46 said: There must be a little disturbance for new ideas to start existing. I agree there is a need for creativity in science, but there is a red line where creativity ends and crackpotism begins. You claim to be acting in good faith but that does not show through in your posts. Just taking the two statements you made in this post: 19 hours ago, Talanum46 said: 1). A strict reading of charge conservation is: "a fundamental particle cannot change it's charge". 19 hours ago, Talanum46 said: 2). It is in any case doubtful if charge distributed over a system sums together in spacetimes view. Both of these statements are examples of you crossing that red line mentioned above. 1). There is no such strict reading of charge conservation! Applying the general definition of a conservation law strictly to charge yields this: The law of conservation of charge says that the total electrical charge (positive charges minus negative charges), of an isolated physical system, is the same after a reaction, as it was before. It says nothing about the fate of individual charged particles. They are free to have their charges changed or even to be destroyed altogether as long as the total charge of the system as a whole is conserved. 2). What is this supposed to mean? Without an explanation, it means nothing at all as it is an example of word salad that doesn’t make any sense. Maybe to you it is part of some obscure hypothesis but if I ask you for details you will claim it is correct and I won’t be able to tell you otherwise. The distinction between a useful, creative contribution to a science discussion and crackpotism often comes down to attitude. Your posts are full of pseudoscience that goes against the mainstream, and you do not respond well to valid criticism. Instead, you double down with even more pseudoscience and maintain your resistance to reason. What we like to see on this forum is a scientific critical approach when introducing creative ideas, with an invitation to criticism from the mainstream, propositions for testable scientific predictions based on experiments, and most importantly responding positively to constructive criticism. Of course, that sets a high bar that is seldom achieved and we often settle for much less. However, we cannot accept outright rejections of established science such as the Standard Model and the totally unfounded claim that electrons have substructure. We also cannot accept ad hoc definitions of charge conservation between two individual particles. Vague word salad such as “ It is in any case doubtful if charge distributed over a system sums together in spacetimes view” is also unacceptable without an explanation. And This: “There are evidence that aliens are telepathic, that plus my own experience.” Probably falls into a category all of its own! I appreciate a little comic relief as much as the next person but I won’t allow you to make this forum into a laughingstock. (No doubt there are some who will say we have already crossed that line, but even if that is true it is no excuse for worsening the situation) Moderator’s Note: This long post is to inform you, Talanum46, that you are being issued with a Warning to abide by the site rules, particularly with regard to backing up your claims with evidence or at least cite a source that supports your assertions. There are things that count in your favor: You are intelligent and your posts for the most part are courteous and not disruptive. You are not in danger of being banned but you may find that you are more comfortable on a writer’s forum where your creativity is more appreciated. Just a suggestion.
Talanum46 Posted December 8 Author Report Posted December 8 " There is no such strict reading of charge conservation!" - I propose there should be. My backup is that I can describe pi-minus and neutron decay and these are physically verified, and your physics can't describe it in detail.
OceanBreeze Posted December 9 Report Posted December 9 20 hours ago, Talanum46 said: " There is no such strict reading of charge conservation!" - I propose there should be. My backup is that I can describe pi-minus and neutron decay and these are physically verified, and your physics can't describe it in detail. Here's a reality check for you: Your "theory" is the only correct theory since you know better than all of established physics. You cannot and have not described pi-minus decay or neutron decay correctly and you don't even know the difference between a Strong reaction and a Weak reaction. You are fooling nobody except yourself and your posts are tiresome and boring. You are not interested in discussing in good faith, so there is no point in leaving this thread, and some other threads of yours, open. Thread Closed.
Recommended Posts