Posted by: graemebird | January 14, 2009

Electrons And Protons Part II/Invitation For Potential Scenarios

As we have seen the maths-mystics and bully-boys dominating modern faux-physics are unable to answer the following questions which arise due to their mainstream model of the atom:

1. Why does the electron not quickly fall into its own nucleus, or alternatively the nucleus of other atoms?

2. Why do the protons not blast themselves apart and fling themselves out of the nucleus?

Now there is no use getting all upset and running to your desk and trying to work on some mathematics here. Sucking ones thumb, having another sandwhich, feverishly thumbing through the Bible…. these may be legitimate coping mechanisms to stress or unhappiness but they are not helpful here.

What we are after is a physical description which might explain this.  And one doesn’t have to be original.  After all some poor persecuted authentic scientist in the past will have already thought of something along the lines of anything you or I could come up with.  For my own part, though I will try,  I would not be able to escape the influence of Bill Gaedes’ YouTubes if I was paid any amount of money (but you can test me out if you really really want to????!!!!???) even though I only stumbled upon theseYouTubes just a few days ago.

Now I will come up with something without representing Bill in this matter, nor with claims that I can escape his influence.

I’m going to pretend that the electron is not orbiting the nucleus. I say that its a fat bastard. I say that it is readily compressable and pourous to many things and that it is far larger then the proton. I’m pretending that the electrons movement is not influenced all that much by its own nucleus, which it cleaves to, like a fat sex-starved chocolate-eating secretary, smothering a tiny ectomorph, on his first and last day at the bank.  

I’m going to say that the electrons movements are predominantly the result of its reactions to the forces of the other fatties, cleaved to the other nucleus’ on the other atoms. Even in a less radical dissenting model it is THIS influence that would seem to offer the possibility of random orbits. 

Now we said that the electron is pourous, highly compressable, and somewhat malleable but not so much really.

But I’m going to pretend that the proton is not compressable at all. I’m saying that it is highly strechable but in no way compressable. For arguments sake, and to build a simple visual picture I’m saying that it would retain a spherical shape had it the chance, but given any force attracting it, it will act like the stretchy older bloke in the fabulous four (Fabulous Four???? You know the crowd with Ben Grimm). Wait a minute. Its the FANTASTIC four. Thats a bit better. Thats a little less gay. 

So we will make these protons non-compressable but almost awesomely stretchable.  I don’t think there is a great deal of justification for such a notion. But I’m trying to set an example here. One wants people to add back some sort of PHYSICALITY to the situation, since the reification crowd, in the throws of maths-mystic rapture, have robbed the situation of almost all physicality. 

Now in my story the protons will repel eachother. But that must be explored since if they would repel eachother why would they not repel parts of themselves? Anyway we will say that they will repel eachother.

In my story there are compressed electrons in the nucleus holding the protons in place.  Some of them are fully merged with the protons and they are neutrons. And the neutrons serve to keep the protons apart. And the electrons hold the protons into the nucleus. But in this scenario it is inevitable that the protons will form mostly the outer layer (or they would reject eachother). Hence it is the proton count that determines the nature of the atom, since it is only the outer layer which leads to the way the atom reacts the world. 

Now I’m not asking you to believe any of this like our credulous zombies in the academy expect when it comes to their most outrageous ideas.

What I’m asking you to do is to try and imagine the potential physicality of these here atoms. Because the latest generation of subsidised scoundrels have made a hash of it.  And we won’t be getting any ideas anytime soon from any of them.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. 1. Because the quantisation of energy means that the electron can’t spiral in gradually, and the uncertainty principle forbids the electron from jumping directly to, and being localised in, the nucleus.
    2. The strong nuclear force holds them together. It overrides the electrostatic repulsion at short distances. As the distance gets larger, the SNF drops off faster than electrostatic repulsion, which is why large nucleii like uranium are vulnerable to fission.

  2. What sort of thickhead are you? Thats no explanation at all. Thats an appeal to magic and incantations. Try again.

    Already you’ve used three acts of voodoo to keep this model of the atom together.

    1. Turning an observed effect into some sort of force that magically prevents the electron falling to its own or other nucleus.’

    2. Using a human-invented fudge factor to forbid nature to act in a certain way.

    3. Conjuring a fudge factor more directly in the form of strong nuclear forces. What next? Dark matter? Dark Energy? Maybe the strong nuclear forces ARE the Dark Energy (Cue: twilight zone music.)

  3. Fat Electrons:

    http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/fat-electrons.html

  4. Look at this. This fellow appears to be on the right track, but then he slips into the voodoo of quantum and so refuses to acknowledge that the electron may really be a thing which dwarfs the proton:

    one fermi
    1 fm 1×10-15 m diameter of proton (in the nucleus)
    2.2 fm 2.2×10-15 m classical diameter of neutron
    3.8 fm 3.8×10-15 m diameter of the nucleus of a helium atom
    5.635882 fm 5.635882×10-15 m classical diameter of an electron
    7.2 fm 7.2×10-15 m diameter of the nucleus of an aluminum atom
    14 fm 1.4×10-14 m diameter of the nucleus of a gold atom

    AT THIS POINT HE DECIDES TO ARGUE AWAY THE POSSIBLE REALITY OF THE ELECTRON BEING BIGGER:

    (The classical electron diameter is bigger than the proton diameter because the proton’s size was measured in the nucleus, where it is trapped in a very deep, narrow potential well. The electron is in a comparatively wide, shallow well, so it takes up much more space. Talking about the sizes of subatomic particles is fairly meaningless anyway; in one sense, electrons and protons are point particles, with no size. And in quantum mechanics, we can only talk about the probability of finding a particle at a particular point, and cannot specify (or define) the exact position and size of a particle. The “classical electron radius” tells us little about the actual physical size of the electron. In short, I’m oversimplifying things.)

    I THINK IT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE TO WORK THROUGH THE LOGIC OF HIM HAVING IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

  5. Note here that the electron is seen as about 1.5 times the diameter of the entire helium nucleus, with its two protons and two neutrons. So there are two of these fat bastard electrons smothering this here nucleus.

    This works better. It makes more sense. It explains things in a more rational way. It explains the electron bonds in a way that you could model physically with those chemistry model sets. We ought not think of the double carbon bonds (for example) as electron bonds in the outer shell where four electrons hang out. Rather we ought to imagine that the electron from one atoms may be bonding with the semi-exposed proton of another.

    The logic of this ought to be relatively easy to follow through on. To wind up with something that conforms to modern chemistry and makes sense also.

  6. The mysterious strong nuclear fudge factor as explained to kids.

    http://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/chemistry/atoms/strongforce.htm

    “The protons inside the nucleus of an atom all have a positive electrical charge, so they push away from each other.

    But the strong nuclear force pulls the protons together. As you might think from the name, the strong nuclear force is very strong. It is stronger than electricity or gravity. But the strong nuclear force only works when it is very close to something.

    In fact, the strong nuclear force only works when it is as close to a proton as the diameter of a proton or a neutron (or closer). When one proton or neutron gets this close to another proton or neutron, tiny particles called mesons begin to bounce back and forth between the two protons, and this holds the two protons (or neutrons) together.”

    Its just astonishing how full of shit these people are. The mesons bouncing between the protons (why would they do that?) instead of further pushing the protons apart, hold them together. And this crap they are teaching to the children.

    All this is simply getting the old lady to swallow the spider to catch the fly. Instead of going back over first principles they just keep going until they are forcing these jackass ideas down everyones throat.

  7. hey graeme
    the latest idea is that the universe is a hologram

    what do you think?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html

  8. Right. They are so full of shit aren’t they. And childish. I must have thought of that one before the age of ten. Next thing a fucking dumb science worker will emerge with a brilliant new theory that he’s the only fucker in the universe and the rest of us are just an illusion, sent by Loki, to annoy him personally and bamboozle him.

    Here’s a little something to show the circular nature of the alleged evidence that these ass-clowns come up with.

    “No, I don’t make cosmic rays in my lab. Again, you’re confusing nomenclature and operational definitions: they’re nuclei or protons that smash into the earth’s atmosphere. The decay processes produce secondary charged particles. These particles interact with a scintillating material through ionization deposition. By collecting the light generated from the scintillators we can measure the energy deposited as the particle passes through.”

  9. “According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time – the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into “grains”, just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. ”

    How fucking dumb is that? Why would anyone listen to someone so embarrassingly stupid as to believe in such a gyp as “space-time”.

  10. Now I’ve read the whole thing. Its just a total shitrain of embarrassing idiocy from start to finish. You can see the importance of the Austrian-school way of doing things. Always raking over first principles. Unlike these idiots whio get more ludicrous by the month. And they just keep building.

  11. I have had the good fortune to discuss physics with Bill Gaede.

    http://au.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=J-NB5vg7woM

    Bill invented new modern physics. I invented the phrase “slut tumor removal.” What have you special relativity boneheads invented lately?

  12. Hey look! Graeme asks his own questions then answers them. Why not – no-one is bothering to come play ……

    YOU ARE READING IT AREN’T YOU…….. (STUPID FUCKING CULTIST)

  13. “more antiwar ‘libertarian’ lunacy from Sukrit

    http://antiwarlibertarian.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/america-provoked-japan-to-attack-pearl-harbor/

    But Sukrit is right on this particular specific matter Jason. Communists were controlling the Washington zietgeist. Staying on reasonable terms with the Japanese was not hard to do for the Americans. Its an historical fact that the Roosevelt administration provoked them and that the communists in the administration buggered more patriotic initiatives to resolve their difficulties.

  14. Yep. Graeme off talking to himself again.

  15. Hi! I think I have the answer here. I have developed a theory that explains these phenomena in a new way. It specifically does resolve points 1 & 2 of your blog. It is a classical model. Here is the Abstract:

    “A model of gravity is derived by examining the nucleus and its atomic quanta, which we assume extend outward through space. We evolve Newton’s Law of Gravitation into a formula for the gravitational field exerted by an atom’s quantum levels: a Quantum Law of Gravitation. This field between the quanta of atoms has the form of Hooke’s Law for the potential energy of a spring. The inward force—a reaction to stress caused by introducing the mass into the space—drives masses towards each other. Rather than a mysterious attractive force acting at a distance with no mechanism, gravity is a repulsive force acting locally with a well-defined mechanism. One result is the expression of Newton’s Gravitational Constant, G, in terms of a constant property of space and the speed of light, solving a 321 year-old mystery as to its origins. Also new is the Quantum Gravitational Constant: the magnitude of the gravitational field in the first quantum level of 1Hydrogen. It is shown to be equivalent to an Atomic Spring Constant for space, proportional to the gravity engendered by all atoms through all space. The new Quantum Law of Gravitation depends only upon the number of nucleons, the number of the quantum and the Quantum Gravitational Constant. The force on the nucleons from the spring stress in the nucleus is enough to obviate the need for the hypothetical strong force of quantum mechanics. Among its novel conclusions, the model shows the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant when approaching a mass. It also arrives at a simple explanation for the composition of dark matter. Our revolutionary model can easily be partially verified and has abundant implications.”

    I will send you a copy of my paper by email. No advanced math required: it is all simple algebra. It is a serious treatment, however, and internally consistent, I think. There are some interesting further implications not mentioned in the article. Check it out and let me know what you think. We can discuss how best to move forward from that point.

  16. Thats all a lot of jibber mate. Right from the very first sentence:

    “A model of gravity is derived by examining the nucleus and its atomic quanta…..”

    SPEAK ENGLISH. You may think you know what you mean but close inspection will reveal that you have absolutely no idea.

    Lets do the Gaede-definitions-nazi thing and define all the terms you are using. Actually I’m supposing you might be Gaede dropping in to launch a parody. If so the inventer of new modern physics graces my humble blog. But any amount of parody will be lost on most people here.

  17. Proof that dover beach is simply not cut out for the study of history:

    “The claim that the US provoked the Japanese into war is tendentious because the Japanese occupied a significant portion of China and allied themselves with Germany and Italy. The successive and increasing tightening of economic sanctions by the US on Japan was intended to make the Japanese cease their occupation of China as well as their alliance with the Axis partners in Europe.

    To say that the US provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbour is not “commonly accepted history” at all.”

    So he claims that the Americans successively and increasingly cranked up the economic sanctions on Japan when she was already committed, and that isn’t a provocation at all.

    I have the sneaking suspicion that dover must be thinking of becoming a professional historian. This is because he’s rather good and rational generally but absolutely fucking hopeless at historical interpretation. And this would work with Rothbards contention that they always specialize in the things they are no good at.

    Even from the most ignorant point of view the provocation of Japan was appalling diplomacy. But to determine how deliberate this provocation was, and how much it was institutional dysfunction, one needs to go to the individuals in the administration. To the absolutely undeniable fact of Washington being thick with communists.

    This is no trivial matter. Many millions of people died because of this Washington lunacy.

  18. — GMB says: “Thats all a lot of jibber mate. SPEAK ENGLISH. … You may think you know what you mean but close inspection will reveal that you have absolutely no idea.”

    Graeme, care to explain WHY Blake’s abstract was jibberish? Beyond the fact YOU can’t understand short English words that aren’t swearing, that is?

    PS. Are you a member of any political party, by any chance?

  19. I did explain. In the very first sentence he fell into jibber which he HIMSELF cannot define. You are certainly incapable of defining clearly what he himself said in his very first sentence.

    “A model of gravity is derived by examining the nucleus and its atomic quanta, which we assume extend outward through space.”

    Go for it dummy.

  20. Check out this stupid fucker Fisk on his own page:

    “Electrons and photons are seen in double-slit experiments to interfere with each other and to even interfere with themselves (when they pass individually through the slits). Terence Witt treats all particles classically and so he really wants them to pass through one slit or the other and not both. ”

    How unreasonable of him……. (not). There is no criticism too strong to be heaping on you assclowns that buy into this stuff. You want to believe that one separate particle can come out of two slits at the same time. What a bunch of fucking dummies.

  21. . Says:
    January 17, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Hey look! Graeme asks his own questions then answers them. Why not – no-one is bothering to come play ……

    YOU ARE READING IT AREN’T YOU…….. (STUPID FUCKING CULTIST)

    Seems to me the kind of thing a troll says when he’s too ignorant to contribute something intelligent to the discussion… hummm….

    GMB, you do have some interestingly stupid trolls that come here. I admit, that discussions on Quatum Physics are bit out of my league, but find it interesting to read.

  22. I would have thought all the swearing would have put you off.

    The thing is this. It seems in areas of science, not connected with commercial activity, there appears to be the inability to backtrack once an idea is accepted and built upon substantially. And its just got completely ridiculous. Even though the people who put down the foundation may have been pretty smart, others have built on it who are likely less smart, and still others are reinforcing the edifice, who are actually downright dopey.

    We see now that rather then go back to basics and rethink the whole thing they have come up with this idea that the strong nuclear force holds the protons together in the nucleus. As they continue to build on bad ideas, with each stage what they come out with gets more and more ridiculous.

    So now this strong nuclear force is thought to be created by inventions called MESONS. And these mesons bounce rapidly between two protons in the nucleus. Instead of further exacerbating the situation and causing these protons to explode apart with yet more force the rapid bouncing holds these protons together in this fantasy. So now something bashing up against you is pulling you towards it. This would seem to be an ineffectual way of forcing two bodies, that are supposed to repel eachother, together. But in this Quantum-Jive fantasy this is the most powerful force there is.

    “The word strong is used since the strong interaction is the most powerful of the four fundamental forces; its typical field strength is 100 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, some 10(to the power of)13 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 10 (to the power of )38 times that of gravitation.”

    So you get it!!!! Not only is this fantasy of mesons bouncing vigorously between protons having the opposite of how logic would have it, not only is it attracting and not repelling, but it is doing so in such a powerfully effectual way as to be at least 100 times as strong a force as anything else known.

    When this Alice-In-Wonderland jive goes to explain itself it just comes out a fountain of unproven jibber of a nature such that the writer himself has no understanding of what he is saying.

    So if you go to wiki to find out what these mysterious force-providers are we get the following:

    “In particle physics, a meson is a strongly interacting boson—that is, a hadron with integer spin. In the Standard Model, mesons are composite (non-elementary) particles composed of an even number of quark-antiquarks pairs.

    All known mesons are believed to consist of a single quark-antiquark pair—the so-called valence quarks—plus a “sea” of virtual quark-antiquark pairs and virtual gluons. Searches for exotic mesons that have different numbers of pairs are ongoing. All mesons are unstable.

    The valence quarks may exist in a superposition of flavor states; for example, the neutral pion is neither an up-antiup pair nor a down-antidown pair, but an equal mixture of both.

    Pseudoscalar mesons (spin 0), where the quark and antiquark have opposite spin, have the lowest mass. Next lowest in mass are vector mesons (spin 1), where the quark and antiquark have parallel spin. Both come in higher energy versions where the spin is augmented by orbital angular momentum.”

    They may think they are being clever. But really its just the public service version of science.

  23. “Mesons were originally predicted as carriers of the force that binds protons and neutrons together.”

    Notice this jive. They “carry” the force. And its a backwards force. Its like a little backwards-force carried in a brown paper bag. Except the little backwards force is not little at all. Its the strongest force there is by a long-shot.

    This is all just bizzare idiocy, its not good for anything, and yet its locked into taxeater science.

  24. Sounds kind of like Star Wars when stated as “carry the Force”. Pretty fastenating subject though. It seems building on fantasy science isn’t just Al Gore’s domain.
    Thank you for your comment on my blog. Right now I’m not blogging much as I’m doing a job/career search (I lost my contract due to cuts), so it is helpful when I do post something of importance to me, to have support when the confused come out to play! Thank you.

  25. “Mesons were originally predicted as carriers of the force that binds protons and neutrons together.”

    They also “mediate” the force – what are they labor mediators

    WELL WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? WHAT IS MEANT BY “MEDIATING” THE FORCE? ITS JUST MORE NONSENSE. YOU CANNOT HOLD TWO REPELLING THINGS TOGETHER BY BOUNCING BETWEEN THEM. YOU CANNOT CARRY A FORCE. YOU CAN PELT SOMETHING, PUSH AGAINST SOMETHING, OR PULL SOMETHING (WHICH IS PUSHING IN DISGUISE). BUT WHAT YOU CAN NEVER DO IS CARRY A FORCE AROUND IN YOUR BRIEFCASE.

    I ACCIDENTALLY WIPED YOUR NEXT COMMENT. I’LL TAG IT ONTO THIS ONE:

    “No thats not right at all. Wrong on both counts. Anyone can make up a model-of-best-fit to predict the data thats already been gathered. Thats a Friday, winding down with a few beers, sort of operation. But what is harder is to find the truth.”

    The scientific method also requires scientific theories to make predictions about things that have not been observed and can be tested.

    NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

    So you have tests of weird things like quantum entanglement, gravitational time dilation, the Shapiro effect, the Casimir effect, mechanical mesurements of QM’s intrinsic angular momentum. etc.

    ALL ACCOUNTED FOR AFTER THE FACT. THE CASIMIR EFFECT WASN’T PREDICTED. IT WAS AN EXCUSE, AFTER THE FACT, FOR FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED.

  26. Cambria may have come out of his dementia. But he never did grasp the difference between Capitalism and Crony-Socialism:

    “Slim gives capitalism a bad name, Cl. Not him personally but the way the Mexican economy is run that allows Slim to own a virtual monopoly in the telephone market and at one stage the richest man in the world.

    No surprise the NYTimes cozies up to him when they’re looking for a bailout because Punch has ruined the company.”

    There has been a lot of emphasis on deregulation in libertarian circles. And rightly so. We would wish to aspire to maybe 1000th the regulations that we now have. But this does not mean that capitalism is without clear rules. Its a mistake to want to get rid of all regulation. In infrastructural goods property-rights (and this includes money) you want enough regulations to put all players on an equal footing, and to take schmoozing with taxeaters, totallly out of the equation.

  27. I’m not sure I should dignify this dialog with a reply.

    It should not be necessary for me to point out that swearing does not make your argument more cogent. But someone should be pointing this out.

    My first sentence is plain English, as is the rest of the abstract. This is serious physics. If having read the Abstract above, and you want to see a copy of the paper, let me know at perfwise@yahoo.com.nospamplease. I will send it on. I am looking for people who might have some time to carry this work forward. What I have developed so far seems to hold together. But someone needs to apply special relativity to these classical formulae to see if there is any change in the resulting general relativity.

    The real work is to determine what remains of quantum mechanics once the strong force is gone. The integration of this theory with quantum mechanics is the next step towards a unified field theory. Since this paper lays out gravitation at the atomic level, my intuition is that this is the right spot from which to proceed.

    If we could take the invective out of the dialog and put our heads together, we might produce something to take this fringe science effort into the mainstream. I really thought that was the intent here. If not, I’m sure we can all find better things to do than hurl insults at one another.

  28. No your first sentence is jibber. As is the rest of the abstract. SPEAK ENGLISH. Just tell the story straight. You are not talking serious science at all. If you cannot speak English your theory is meaningless.

    Its like when the special relativity morons start talking about the “laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames”. The laws of physics are the same no matter what. But this sentence is an enormous lie. Since it is not saying what it means in plain English.

    So go again and this time, make your claims in plain English.

  29. “The real work is to determine what remains of quantum mechanics once the strong force is gone. The integration of this theory with quantum mechanics is the next step towards a unified field theory. Since this paper lays out gravitation at the atomic level, my intuition is that this is the right spot from which to proceed.”

    There is no necessity to save quantum physics or integrate it with anything at all. The motivation ought to be to find whats going on straight. Without prejudicing the ongoing survival of any theory at all. This is where physics is going wrong. They are trying to integrate things and build on things where they ought to be trying to cut, cull and rework. Less is more.

  30. The scientific method also requires scientific theories to make predictions about things that have not been observed and can be tested.

    NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

    So you have tests of weird things like quantum entanglement, gravitational time dilation, the Shapiro effect, the Casimir effect, mechanical mesurements of QM’s intrinsic angular momentum. etc.

    ALL ACCOUNTED FOR AFTER THE FACT. THE CASIMIR EFFECT WASN’T PREDICTED. IT WAS AN EXCUSE, AFTER THE FACT, FOR FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED.
    =================
    Actually:

    1. The definition of a scientific theory is that is make predictions that be tested and be found false. That is NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENTin order for a theory to be scientific .

    2. The Casimir effect was predicted before it was measured.
    wiki:
    “Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder first proposed the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs.”

    3. The Casimir effect has nothing to do with the speed of light.

  31. Necessary but not sufficient.

    I’ll give you an example. Take the idea of double bonds in the carbon atom. Like its allegedly got four electrons in the outer shell. And you can get these double-bonds that are strong. Well thats a fine PREDICTIVE model for chemistry. But seriously. Electrons are supposed to REPEL each-other. If thats the case they cannot double-bond. But an alternative model could be made where the electron in one atom may be attracted somehow to a proton in the other atom.

    Now the double-bond analogy or model WORKS. Its a fine working model. And supposing I wanted to explain to an investor how we are going to make money turning rubbish into syngas and ceramics I could brush up on this chemistry and make an explanation to the investors using this sort of idea in chemistry. And I could be talking about higher heat, less oxygen and more hydrogen being used, alongside of a nuclear reactor, to try and make even better fuels than syngas and with diverse inputs. And all the time I could be using this outer-shell electrons talk.

    But ultimately if electrons repel then that cannot be whats happening. And ultimately electrons cannot be orbiting and holding these double-bonds.

    So working models prove nothing. They are provisional. And they will only take you so far.

    You were right to try and look to get rid of the Strong Nuclear Forces in your theory. But thats not going far enough.

    Nature is stingy with its action. To have the strong nuclear forces holding these bastards together when you could be having the electrons pushing them together is weird to say the least. Because it means you have to then have something keeping the protons apart from the electrons and pushing the protons together. So about four times as much jive going on as what is necessary.

    Thats like going into a war, and two hateful tyrannies fighting eachother, and instead of merely aiding the weaker side a little bit, you start beating up on them both. That takes a whole lot more resources and it can never work. But nature is not so stupid as humans. And she will use the proton and electron to do all the work, and won’t be improvising a great deal of extra forces to both keep them apart and hold them together.

  32. “3. The Casimir effect has nothing to do with the speed of light.”

    Thanks for the information. But where this Casimir effect has been rolled out is when someone appears to have witnessed faster than light speed and someone else says…… ho ho. ….. don’t you know…. well thats the Casimir effect. I suspect these people will use any excuse thats to hand.

  33. Dude. Why not try and go the whole hog? You ought to be able to come up with some sort of working model, that conforms with the experimental data and makes logical sense. Trying to get rid of the strong nuclear forces but save quantum physics….. or integrate various dogmas that ought to be jettisoned…. well this is just mucking about really. You want to go the whole nine yards. Just drop the whole lot of assumptions to do with the small world being weird and “counter-intuitive” (that is to say irrational) and come up with a more sound working model.

    I reckon this Bill Gaede fellow has gotten the right idea. You want to build on what he’s been doing.

  34. “I’ll give you an example. Take the idea of double bonds in the carbon atom. Like its allegedly got four electrons in the outer shell. And you can get these double-bonds that are strong. Well thats a fine PREDICTIVE model for chemistry. But seriously. Electrons are supposed to REPEL each-other. If thats the case they cannot double-bond. But an alternative model could be made where the electron in one atom may be attracted somehow to a proton in the other atom.”

    The double bond is not between the electrons. It is between the electrons and the nucleus of the carbon atom as a whole (not an individual proton as you state).

    DON’T BE A FUCKING MORON. THINGS WHICH REPEL CANNOT BOND, DOPEY. THATS A USEFUL MODEL BUT NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY YOU STUPID DUMB RELIGIOUS NUTBALL CUNT.

    DON’T GET RELIGION AND SCIENCE MIXED UP. ITS OKAY TO BE A FUNDAMENTALIST. BUT LEAVE IT IN CHURCH.

    WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING? ON THE BASIS OF SOME SORT OF PREDICTIVE MATHS FORMULA WITH NO VISUAL PICTURE IN MIND?

    AND WHY DO YOU IMAGINE YOU THINK YOU KNOW THIS NONSENSE? YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS FOR SURE WITHOUT SOME SORT OF FULL SPECTRUM CONVERGENCE. YOU CANNOT KNOW THIS FROM SOME SORT OF LAME PREDICTIVE MODEL. NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT. THATS WHAT PISSES ME OFF ABOUT YOU PEOPLE. THE SHEER SCALE OF YOUR IRRATIONAL DELUSIONS.

  35. “Thanks for the information. But where this Casimir effect has been rolled out is when someone appears to have witnessed faster than light speed and someone else says…… ho ho. ….. don’t you know…. well thats the Casimir effect. I suspect these people will use any excuse thats to hand.”

    If someone, somewhere, sometime is doing this then they are definitely wrong. The Casimir effect is a QM effect and notthing to do with anything moving faster than light.

    COME ON. GET SERIOUS. ANY QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS PROOF OF FASTER THAN LIGHT INTERACTION.

  36. “I reckon this Bill Gaede fellow has gotten the right idea. You want to build on what he’s been doing.”

    I had a look at his videos and web page and was not impressed.

    OF COURSE NOT. YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO BE IMPRESSED. WE KNOW THAT MATE. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

  37. “COME ON. GET SERIOUS. ANY QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS PROOF OF FASTER THAN LIGHT INTERACTION.”

    The Casimir effect has notthing to do with quantum entanglement

  38. Right. But its clearly proof of faster than light interaction… lets have the description of what is observed clearly, in English, and in your own words, and don’t fucking play the slippery eel with me.

  39. I must say I ought not have been as nasty to Russ Blake as I was. I was in a foul mood. The shame of it is he’s on the right track probably but he’s going about things in the wrong way. He’s got to be a bit Rene Descartes about everything. Doubt everything from the ground up and be mucking about with differing predictive models. Also the idea is to be totally immersed in the historical development of the science.

    Start thinking of these models as doctrines rather than theories. Mathematical exactitude gives one the illusion of knowledge rather than the thing itself.

    Sorry Mr Blake. You didn’t deserve that level of nastiness. But build it from the ground and take nothing for granted. Deep-sixing the strong nuclear force is necessary but not sufficient.

  40. I dialed up muffin man to try and get a Captain Beefheart spoken word intro and I wound up finding Frank Zappa in famously good shape. Man could he ever play guitar when he wanted to.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIMWRXWY90

    Only the great die young.

  41. “Right. But its clearly proof of faster than light interaction… lets have the description of what is observed clearly, in English, and in your own words, and don’t fucking play the slippery eel with me.”
    Quantum entanglement does involve faster than light interaction.
    The Casimir effect is not quantum entanglement and does not involve faster than light interaction.

  42. If you do not like faster than light stuff then you will definitely not like “fat” electrons.

    I LIKE BOTH FASTER THAN LIGHT STUFF AND I LOVE FAT ELECTRONS. FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY YOU ARE COMING THROUGH WITH THE GOOD STUFF. KEEP IT UP.

    Electrons have intrinsic angular momentum (spin) as first measured (and repeated many times since) in the Stern–Gerlach experiment of 1922.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment

    THIS DOES NOT MESS WITH MY SHIT-DETECTOR AND THATS A GOOD SIGN. CLEARLY YOU ARE ON A ROLL. BUT THEN AGAIN, ONE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING (NOT REALLY ANYHOW) UNLESS ONE CAN DERIVE IT FROM THE GROUND UP. EVEN IF ONE FORGETS THE DERIVATION, ITS IMPORTANT TO HAVE DONE IT AND UNDERSTOOD IT FULLY AT LEAST AT SOME TIME.

    If we treat this spin as a classical rotation of a fat electron then the surface is moving faster than the speed of light!

    FINE. YOU KNOW I NEVER KNEW THAT THE ELECTRON WAS CLASSICALLY-FAT. I’M HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION MY OWN SELF. TO ME ITS LOGICALLY FACT. GOOD WORK. KEEP THEM COMING. BUT ITS NOT REALLY A SCIENTIFIC OPINION UNLESS YOU CAN DERIVE IT DOWN TO THE GROUND.

    If we treat this quantum mechanically as a property that emerges from the Dirac equation then we have electrons that are point perticles and the QM model of the atom.

    THATS MATHS-BOY-101 GETTING CONFUSED BETWEEN REALITY AND THE EQUATIONS HE’S PROVISIONALLY PUT TOGETHER TO PREDICT REALITY. THESE ARE NOT THE TWO SAME THINGS.

    Wiki:
    “Spin was first discovered in the context of the emission spectrum of alkali metals. In 1924 Wolfgang Pauli introduced what he called a “two-valued quantum degree of freedom” associated with the electron in the outermost shell. This allowed him to formulate the Pauli exclusion principle, stating that no two electrons can share the same quantum state at the same time.

    The physical interpretation of Pauli’s “degree of freedom” was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé’s assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron’s hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli’s criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.”

    I’M SURE ITS A GREAT AND IMPORTANT PREDICTIVE THEORY. I’VE SEEN THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THIS COME UP TIME AND AGAIN. BUT THE THING IS, JUST LIKE IN THE DOUBLE-BONDING EXAMPLE I MENTIONED, ITS QUITE LIKELY THAT THE REALITY IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE PREDICITIVE MODEL.

    GOOD WORK.

  43. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0

    First two minutes an interesting narrative on institutional-degradation. Some different yet on a deeper level SIMILIAR-narrative, could be told about science, economics, of the downhill slide of NASA, the FBI (notable for its longevity, in my view, as a highly effective institution).

    There was a great theologian who wrote of the city-of-god and the city-of-man. Following the audio assassin I use the idiom of AUSTRALIA CITY and POOTOWN to juxtapose ideas the way the man from Hippo did.

    And the point of it all is all human institutions are by their nature falling into degredation and error. Just as the more otherworldly Christians would say.

    But I would say that small business under hard money bucks this trend of wrongness. And I say we put our faith in this. Be true to your small-cap.

  44. “FINE. YOU KNOW I NEVER KNEW THAT THE ELECTRON WAS CLASSICALLY-FAT. I’M HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION MY OWN SELF. TO ME ITS LOGICALLY FAT. GOOD WORK. KEEP THEM COMING. BUT ITS NOT REALLY A SCIENTIFIC OPINION UNLESS YOU CAN DERIVE IT DOWN TO THE GROUND. ”

    Actually the electron is classically treated as a point particle as it is in quantum mechanics.

    BUT THATS ONLY BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS AND NOT SCIENTISTS. WHY SUCK ALL THE REALITY OUT OF A SITUATION?

    The problem with a fat electron is
    1. You get faster than light rotation of the surface which requires an infinite energy according to special relativity.

    THATS BULLSHIT ON ONE COUNT AND MAY BE BULLSHIT ON TWO COUNTS. THIS IS A MESSAGE THAT THEIR THEORY IS WRONG.

    This is the reason why particles in a particle accelerator do not have their speeds measured as faster than the speed of light

    NOT THATS NOT THE REASON DUMMY. THE REASON IS THAT LIGHT IS ACCELERATING THEM. THE SAME REASON WHY A PROPELLER DRIVEN PLAIN CANNOT BREAK THE SPEED OF SOUND. FIND SOMETHING FASTER THAN LIGHT TO DO THE ACCELERATING. despite that fact that the classically they should be moving faster than the speed of light. AS EXPLAINED THAT IS WRONG AND OBVIOUSLY SO.

    2. You can measure the effective radius of electrons by colliding then together at high velocities.

    THIS IS TOTALLY CIRCULAR REASONING. AFTER ALL YOU HAVE A THOUSAND DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS AS TO HOW FAST YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY ARE GOING. ATTEMPT NOT TO BE AND IDIOT. This is the minumum distance between the electrons. This radius is 10^-15 metres which is about 10,000 times smaller than a hydrogen atom.

    SHOW HOW THIS IS NOT ENTIRELY CIRCULAR IDIOCY. ATTEMPT NOT TO LIE TO PEOPLE AND MISLEAD THEM.

    3. You can derive a radius for an electron from isolated electrons in Penning traps. This radius is less than 10^-20 metres.

    IF ITS ISOLATED HOW DO YOU KNOW ITS THERE? AND WHY WOULD ISOLATION ALONE BE A MEASURING STICK? YOU ARE BEING AN IDIOT. HOW IS THE MEASURING DONE? OH ISOLATION IS THE ANSWER……..(NOT). ATTEMPT TO BE LOGICAL.
    A Single Atomic Particle Forever Floating at Rest in Free Space: New Value for Electron Radius (28 August 1987)
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1988/T22/016/

  45. “THATS MATHS-BOY-101 GETTING CONFUSED BETWEEN REALITY AND THE EQUATIONS HE’S PROVISIONALLY PUT TOGETHER TO PREDICT REALITY. THESE ARE NOT THE TWO SAME THINGS. ”
    That is correct.
    What scientists then do is take the equations that predict reality and do experiments that test them. The equations are not reality. They are a way to model reality.

    A SCIENCE WORKER CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS. BUT IT DOESN’T CHANGE THE REALITY OUTSIDE OF HIS OWN HEAD. IF HIS MODEL HAS CONTRADICTORY ELEMENTS TO IT, THEN ITS A PROVISIONAL TEMPLATE ALONE. DEFINING WHAT SCIENTISTS DO IN THIS WAY IS REALLY AN EXCUSE FOR THE THE MONEY SPIGOT. EXPERIMENTS ARE ONLY ONE TOOL OF SCIENCE. THE ONE THAT IS COSTLY.

  46. “I’M SURE ITS A GREAT AND IMPORTANT PREDICTIVE THEORY. I’VE SEEN THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THIS COME UP TIME AND AGAIN. BUT THE THING IS, JUST LIKE IN THE DOUBLE-BONDING EXAMPLE I MENTIONED, ITS QUITE LIKELY THAT THE REALITY IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE PREDICITIVE MODEL.”

    You may be mistaken about the “DOUBLE-BONDING EXAMPLE”. The resolution of the example is simple – it is that electrons are attratced by the total positive charge, not individual protons.

    Reality is likely to be different from the predictive model. Of course there is no way to tell what “reality” actually is. We could say that reality is what we see directly with our eyes. This is a definition that we are physically (by evolution) and psychologically comfortable with.
    That is why science is about modelling reality defined as what we can measure, rather than reality defined as what we think is real.

    LOOK, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BOND ON ACCOUNT OF THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS IN THE OUTER SHELL RIGHT? IF THESE ARE PARTICLES THEN WHAT YOU DESCRIBE ISN’T HAPPENING. THE ELECTRON ISN’T SIZING THINGS UP BY COUNTING ALL THESE PROTONS. THE PROTONS WOULD REPEL EACHOTHER AND THE ELECTRONS WOULD REPEL EACHOTHER ALSO. CLEARLY THE MODEL YOU OFFER IS PROVISIONAL ONLY. YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE AND WHY YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

  47. This is not the first time you have put forward this idea of firing two electrons together and timing how long it takes for them to hit, as a way of measuring their diameter.

    Now really this is silly. It doesn’t matter if you search all the classrooms for small children with particularly fast reactions and clear eyesight. You can get Neneh Cherry’s little brother around.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ruEpA9GmI

    It won’t make any difference. Clearly there is the buildup of circular assumptions here that would enable you to make this claim, and yet not derive it from the ground up.

  48. Mr Bird
    This requires your urgent attention. It seems that your erratic adversary has found himself on the side of evil again

    http://www.businessday.com.au/business/best-way-to-help-a-warming-planet-is-to-tax-carbon-and-let-the-market-decide-20090130-7u20.html

    I hope you are well Mr Bird. My health has taken a turn for the worse since the authorities raided my farm due to my firearms collection. My wife suffered a stroke later and I have been ailing too. I fear I am not long for this world and I am sad to leave it seeing it in such tatters. Communists in power throughout the English speaking world, and even in your libertarian movement, and the world soon to be condemned to an ice age which will dwarf any known catastrophe to date. what can be done Mr Bird? what can be done?

  49. Finally Mr Bird I beseech you to join your closest League of Rights branch. The organisation needs a fresh injection of your youthful vigour.

  50. Winchester I don’t know. Its the out of control irrationalism that hit town in a new wave about the time that Paulson got through his first stimulus package that is worrying. I use him here symbolically of course. The craziness was always there but Paulson brought this urgency scam to it that the Usurper is now emulating. Its a “lets not waste time talking about it we have to steal off you now…..”

    Is this just a wave of craziness and outright robbery? Or is it the new terminal reality that will get more savage as true hunger and poverty breaks out in patches everywhere?

    What can we do but hope that it is a WAVE of irrationalism, If so while no headway will be made until it has crested, yet what happens after that will depend on how hard we work with education, education, education in the meantime. Rockwell has announced openly that this time the establishment is going down. Its not clear that one ought hope he is right.

    Some good signs are out there if it is a wave. Consider how dim they are over at Catallaxy? Yet even they are beginning to vaguely notice the outright robbery of proceedings. Yes Yes its true that this shows the same sort of perceptiveness as those that note that water vapour comes off the ocean first thing on the clear cool mornings off the North Queensland coast. But it is a start.

    Things have turned around a bit in the States with one or two matters out near the fringes. Like now when the Austrians show up at a University and talk about ending the Federal Reserve thats a crowd-pleasing applause line. This would never have happened even two years ago.

    I think we are really in trouble. Which means things will become fluid down the track. Which means we just have to have faith and put in the hard yards of education education education now and hope things can move fast to sanity when the next phase of the crash comes. I’ll check what your link is about then get back to you.

  51. For the love of small-cap-companies, this moron just won’t let it go. He needs to be taken and beaten relentlessly with the clue stick until he gives up on this treasonous notion. Look how pernicious this Pigouvian extremism is. The stupid bastard reckons that its not a contradiction to tax carbon and then claim from there it is the market that is deciding. He has NEVER come up with a justification for this idiocy. I remember advocating the same thing in 1990. But that was before I found out that these clowns could not come up with any evidence for more then benign warming. It was also before the interim disaster of decadal peak oil was readily apparent.

    Humphreys doesn’t understand economics at all. I have been investigating small cap companies in this country to see what I will do with my superannuation when I claim the money to put it under my control. Anyway I have discovered that we have dozens of these little small-caps. But they tend to be undervalued with very little resources and they can only do things slowly one thing at a time. They could exploit their energy resources more quickly. But they unable to dilute their shares further with new share issues, since their shares are already so badly underpriced.

    If Humphreys has his way these companies will stay undervalued longer, will thereby find it harder to raise investment capital to expand their opportunities, and hence when the oil price goes up sky high again we will not be anywhere close to where we could have been.

    One thing we can do is be true to our small-caps. Get control of our investment cash and after making sure that we ourselves are covered, try and buy shares in these energy and extraction companies at bargain basement prices and support those companies that will be of great assistance to the population as one phase of this breakdown follows after another.

  52. You also missed out the measurement of the electron radius from electrons in Penning traps.
    The classic paper is Hans Dehmelt paper published in 1988
    A Single Atomic Particle Forever Floating at Rest in Free Space: New Value for Electron Radius
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1988/T22/016

    He extracts a upper limit on the electron radius if 10^-20 cm (10^-22 metres)

    LOOK. TO MAKE THIS CASE YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DERIVE IT, FROM SIMPLE ASSUMPTIONS, FROM THE GROUND UP, AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTORY OR IDIOTIC NOTIONS BEING GENERATED BY THE PROCESS. HOW MANY COUNTER-INTUITIVE NOTIONS IN SCIENCE ARE THERE REALLY? COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN ECONOMICS IS ONLY COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THE LAYMAN UNTIL HE UNDERSTANDS IT FULLY. THERE IS NOTHING BOTH COUNTER-INTUITIVE AND TRUE THAT DOES NOT BECOME INTUITIVE WHEN THE UNDERSTANDING IS THERE.

    YOU SAY THIS PENNING TRAP PROVES THIS BUSINESS. BUT YOU ARE BULLSHITTING. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GIVE A SIMPLE ENGLISH EXPLANATION AS TO WHY ONE WOULD BELIEVE IN A PENNING TRAP, AND ON TOP OF IT WHY THIS PROOF OF A PENNING TRAP WOULD THEN LEAD TO A SPECIFIC SIZE RANGE FOR THE ELECTRON.

    GET A REAL EXPLANATION. FIND A LIVE ARGUMENT. I’M NOT SAYING ITS NOT THERE. I’M SAYING THAT YOU CLEARLY HAVEN’T MADE IT.

    CAN YOU ATTEMPT NOT TO BE SO ANNOYING. ALL EXPLANATIONS OUGHT TO BE CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

    SO FAR THE MODEL OF A FAT AND RATHER STABLE ELECTRON ARRANGEMENT APPEARS TO BE THE BEST PARADIGM. NOT THE LEAST BECAUSE CHEMISTS IN THE PAST HAD PLASTIC-FANTASTIC MOLECULAR MODEL KITS THAT COULD PREDICT WHAT MOLECULES WOULD WORK, AND WHAT WOULD NOT, SIMPLY BY THE WAY IN WHICH THIS MACRAMI SLOTTED TOGETHER. THIS IMPLIES FAT ELECTRONS, AND A BASICALLY STATIC SUBATOMIC ENVIRONMENT.

  53. It is not an “idea”. It is a standard part of high energy physics. THIS IS A STUPID CONCEPT, SINCE IT IS STANDARD PHYSICS THAT IS UNDER DISPUTE HERE. IF YOU WERE ON THE LEVEL YOU WOULDN’T BE HABITUALLY MAKING STUPID COMMENTS OF THIS NATURE.

    Scattering experiments have been around fo 100 years since Rutherford’s 1909 scattering experiment.

    WOOPY-DOO.

    I do not need to derive it from the ground up since scientists have aready done the work for me and you….

    YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE NOT AT SOME TIME DERIVED FROM THE GROUND UP. THIS IS AN ADMISSION THAT YOUR IDEAS ARE WORTHLESS. I MYSELF DO NOT MAKE COMMENTS ON MONETARY ECONOMICS THAT I CANNOT DERIVE FROM THE GROUND UP. MATHS BARRIER SIDE; ECONOMICS IS HARDER THAN PHYSICS. ITS NOT HARD FOR ME. BUT IT IS EVIDENT THAT MANY OTHERWISE VERY SMART PEOPLE CANNOT GET THEIR HEADS AROUND ECONOMICS. THIS INCLUDES ALL KEYNESIANS. NONE OF WHOM UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

    ….It is not about “timing how long it takes for them to hit”. It is about looking at the distribution of the scattered particles.

    THATS UTTERLY WEAKASS IN LOGIC AS A JUSTIFICATION. THAT MAY CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE BUT OF THE SLIMMEST SORT. THESE ARE NOT STRONG INFERENCES UNDER LOGIC. THE POTENTIAL FOR BUILT UP CIRCULARITY IN REASONING IS OBVIOUS.

    The Large Electron-Positron Collider collides electrons and anti-electrons but the idea is the same. A paper from LEP in 2000 reported an upper limit on the electron size of 2.8 x 10^{-19} m.

    THEY CAN REPORT ALL THEY WANT. THEY HAVE TO DERIVE THE LOGIC OF IT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR IT TO HAVE VALIDITY.

    Search for TeV Strings and New Phenomena in Bhabha Scattering at LEP2
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002172
    “A combined analysis of the data on Bhabha scattering at centre-of-mass energies 183 and 189 GeV from the LEP experiments ALEPH, L3 and OPAL is performed to search for effects of TeV strings in quantum gravity models with large extra dimensions. No statistically significant deviations from the Standard Model expectations are observed and lower limit on the string scale M_S = 0.631 TeV at 95 % confidence level is derived. The data are used to set lower limits on the scale of contact interactions ranging from 4.2 to 16.2 TeV depending on the model. In a complementary analysis we derive an upper limit on the electron size of 2.8 x 10^{-19} m at 95 % confidence level.”

    THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING THERE. NOTHING THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER. NO STRONG INFERENCES UNDER LOGIC. AND THE INSTITUTIONAL LIKELIHOOD OF THE BUILDUP OF CIRCULARITY OF THOUGHT.

  54. “….It is not about “timing how long it takes for them to hit”. It is about looking at the distribution of the scattered particles.

    THATS UTTERLY WEAKASS IN LOGIC AS A JUSTIFICATION. THAT MAY CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE BUT OF THE SLIMMEST SORT. THESE ARE NOT STRONG INFERENCES UNDER LOGIC. THE POTENTIAL FOR BUILT UP CIRCULARITY IN REASONING IS OBVIOUS. ”

    Nothing to do with what I said. I stated that the size of the electrons is determined from their scattering from each other. There is no circular reasoning. The experiments do not start with an assumption of the size of the electron and then measure the size of the electron. They start with the assumption that the electron has a size (including your fat electrons)and that collisions follow the usual classical mechanics (no straing special relaitivity or QM stuff). The scattering distruution then tells them what the maximum size of the electron is.

    THATS BULLSHIT. SINCE WERE IT TRUE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A STRONG INFERENCE AS TO HOW IT COULD BE TRUE. STUFF SCATTERS. IN NO WAY DOES THAT GIVE YOU SIZE TO THAT LEVEL OF ACCURACY. AND FURTHERMORE YOU ARE ONLY WATCHING A SET OF CHAIN REACTIONS TO THE STUFF SCATTERING. THE WHOLE THING IS UNBELIEVABLY INDIRECT. STUFF SCATTERS. BUT YOU DON’T SERIOUSLY SEE AN ELECTRON CURVE AWAY AND A POSITRON SPIRAL UNTO DEATH. YOU SEE THE MOVEMENT VIA SOME SORT OF REACTIONS THROUGH SOME SORT OF MEDIUM.

  55. “The Large Electron-Positron Collider collides electrons and anti-electrons but the idea is the same. A paper from LEP in 2000 reported an upper limit on the electron size of 2.8 x 10^{-19} m.

    THEY CAN REPORT ALL THEY WANT. THEY HAVE TO DERIVE THE LOGIC OF IT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR IT TO HAVE VALIDITY.”
    The y have and they do. Read the paper.

    YOU CLAIM TO HAVE READ THE PAPER YOURSELF. AND YET YOU CANNOT MAKE A STRONG INFERENCE IN LOGIC. THE FIRST AND LAST TIME YOU DID WAS ABOUT RUTHERFORD. THERE ENDED THE STRONG INFERENCES AND THEY HAVE NOT RETURNED. YOU HAVE TO STOP BLUFFING AND BEING DISHONEST AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE GOOD WITH THE REASONING. NEVER WOULD I TRY TO PULL THIS IN ECONOMICS. I CAN GIVE YOU THE WHOLE THING INTEGRATED WITH THE WAY THINGS WORK IN ACCOUNTING, THE FACTORY, THE BANKS, THE STOCK MARKET, RIGHT UP TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY. BUT YOU APPEAR NOT TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. SO YOUR SPECIALIST KNOWLEDGE SEEMS TO BE FLOATING ON A CLOUD OF ZERO. THERE MAY BE REAL THINGS IN THIS CLOUD. NO DOUBT THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD STUFF. BUT YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF BILL GAEDE’S THEORIES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DERIVE THINGS UP FROM THE GROUND.

  56. “Search for TeV Strings and New Phenomena in Bhabha Scattering at LEP2
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002172
    “A combined analysis of the data on Bhabha scattering at centre-of-mass energies 183 and 189 GeV from the LEP experiments ALEPH, L3 and OPAL is performed to search for effects of TeV strings in quantum gravity models with large extra dimensions. No statistically significant deviations from the Standard Model expectations are observed and lower limit on the string scale M_S = 0.631 TeV at 95 % confidence level is derived. The data are used to set lower limits on the scale of contact interactions ranging from 4.2 to 16.2 TeV depending on the model. In a complementary analysis we derive an upper limit on the electron size of 2.8 x 10^{-19} m at 95 % confidence level.”

    THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING THERE. NOTHING THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER. NO STRONG INFERENCES UNDER LOGIC. AND THE INSTITUTIONAL LIKELIHOOD OF THE BUILDUP OF CIRCULARITY OF THOUGHT.”

    There is something there – an actual measurement of the maximum size of the electron.

    THERE IS NO SUCH REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY MEASUREMENT WAS TAKEN. YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PERVERTED AND DELUDED SENSE OF WHAT AMOUNTS TO EVIDENCE.

  57. “THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING THERE. NOTHING THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER. NO STRONG INFERENCES UNDER LOGIC. AND THE INSTITUTIONAL LIKELIHOOD OF THE BUILDUP OF CIRCULARITY OF THOUGHT.”

    There is something there – an actual measurement of the maximum size of the electron.

    THERE IS NO SUCH DIRECT MEASUREMENT. STOP LYING OR MAKE THE VALID AND STRONG LOGICAL INFERENCES FROM THE GROUND UP.

  58. Every measurement that you are claiming that has been made has not been made. Its been INFERRED UNDER THEORY. That being the case we need to audit the inference and the theory.

    You are showing yourself to be a complete idiot by a persistent inability to grasp this simple fact.

  59. Hey birdy

    read this in full, the guy seems to have some of the same ideas as you and Edwards

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

    Here is a small chunk
    >>>>>>>>
    The existence of successful city-states such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai certainly suggests an answer to this question. Whatever we call them, these places are remarkable for their prosperity and their relative absence of politics. In fact, perhaps the only way to make them more stable and secure would be to transform them from effectively family-owned (Singapore and Dubai) or subsidiary (Hong Kong) corporations, to anonymous public ownership, thus eliminating the long-term risk that political violence might develop.

    Certainly, the absence of democracy in these city-states has not made them comparable in any way to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Any restrictions on personal freedom that they do maintain seem primarily aimed at preventing the development of democracy – an understandable concern given the history of rule by the People. In fact, both the Third Reich and the Communist world often claimed to represent the true spirit of democracy.

    As Dubai in particular shows, a government (like any corporation) can deliver excellent customer service without either owning or being owned by its customers. Most of Dubai’s residents are not even citizens. If Sheik al-Maktoum has a cunning plan to seize them all, chain them and make them work in the salt mines, he’s doing it in a very devious way.

    Dubai, as a place, has almost nothing to recommend it. The weather is horrible, the sights are nonexistent, and the neighborhood is atrocious. It’s tiny, in the the middle of nowhere, and surrounded by Allah-crazed maniacs with a suspicious affinity for high-speed centrifuges. Nonetheless it has a quarter of the world’s cranes and is growing like a weed. If we let the Maktoums run, say, Baltimore, what would happen?

    One conclusion of formalism is that democracy is – as most writers before the 19th century agreed – an ineffective and destructive system of government. The concept of democracy without politics makes no sense at all, and as we’ve seen, politics and war are a continuum. Democratic politics is best understood as a sort of symbolic violence, like deciding who wins the battle by how many troops they brought.

    Formalists attribute the success of Europe, Japan and the US after World War II not to democracy, but its absence. While retaining the symbolic structures of democracy, much as the Roman Principate retained the Senate, the postwar Western system has assigned almost all actual decision-making power to its civil servants and judges, who are “apolitical” and “nonpartisan,” ie, nondemocratic.

    Because in the absence of effective external control, these civil services more or less manage themselves, like any unmanaged enterprise they often seem to exist and expand for the sake of existing and expanding. But they avoid the spoils system which invariably develops when the tribunes of the people have actual power. And they do a reasonable, if hardly stellar, job of maintaining some semblance of law.

    In other words, “democracy” appears to work because it is not in fact democracy, but a mediocre implementation of formalism. This relationship between symbolism and reality has received an educational if depressing test in the form of Iraq, where there is no law at all, but which we have endowed with the purest and most elegant form of democracy (proportional representation), and ministers who actually seem to run their ministries. While history does no controlled experiments, surely the comparison of Iraq to Dubai makes a fine case for formalism over democracy.

  60. Right. I won’t vouch for anything he’s saying. But the focus on the city-state and the small province is a good thing. Really Singapore is a democracy when it comes down to it. We’ve just got to have as many of these states as possible. And like the Feds then ought to be just there for humane and decent 40 year phasing down of the age pension, to stop wars breaking out between city-states and to stop the foreigners invading.

  61. unfortunately he agrees with you on fractional reserve

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/quick-explanation-of-fractional-reserve.html

  62. It depends on how far you would go with it. I mean the Feds might be there also to investigate local corruption, with limited powers at their disposal, make sure elections are fair, make sure there is never fractional reserve banking or height restrictions on buildings. This sort of thing that deals with sins that tend to be even more prevalent on the local level.

  63. Why are you still so full of shit on fractional reserve. Its a character flaw since you’ve never ever ever made a case.

    Its fucking annoying when you think you can be irrational as a sort of personal luxury.

    We have seen the consequences of fractional reserve. This breakdown isn’t nice. Your stupidity isn’t funny anymore.

  64. You are a cunt mate. Because we have just seen the banks steal off us here but even more drastically in the States. Voters were powerless to do anything about it. You supported it. And you reckon thats fine. When it could have been avoided.

    And it always happens. The initial fraud always ends up with them being subsidised, or stealing off us, or both and we cannot DO anything about it.

    So what is your fucking case you stupid dishonest gook cunt?

    Is monetary debilization good? Yes or no. Fractional reserve always destabilizes monetary condition.

    Is debasement good yes or no?

    Fractional reserve is always debasement.

    Are ponzi schemes good or bad…. Yes or no.

    Fractional reserve is always a ponzi scheme that crashes and needs to be bailed out or it needs to be subsidized and regulated to keep it going.

    So you are just a cunt mate.

    This isn’t having a difference of opinion based on reason. Its just you being a complete gook cunt.

    We’ve seen the consequences of it. And Rudd is making anti-capitalist hay over it. And instead of fucking admitting you were wrong you just keep with your mindless cunt cunt religion.

  65. Why do you keep doing this you fucking dumb gook cunt. If you don’t understand the subject ASK QUESTIONS until you do understand it.

    You’ve consistently got matters wrong on climate change policy and on fractional reserve and why? Because you pretend to know gear that you don’t know.

    You don’t understand banking. So why fake it? You don’t understand climate science so why bullshit about it and back the wrong side?

  66. jeepers man I was kind enough to introduce you to a kindred thinker and even promote him on catallaxy even though I don’t agree with everything he writes and you go feral on me.

    take a chill pill

  67. Why keep backing the wrong side on account of failure to understand the material???

    Surely the idea is to either be neutral or fucking learn the subject you stupid gook cunt.

    What is the point in getting it wrong and backing the wrong side? Its a longstanding argument. You refuse to understand it. And yet you stupid gook cunt cunt….. you are willing to back the wrong side.

    What is good about that?

    Is this decent behaviour?

    On your part?

    No it isn’t.

    Go home.

  68. Look. Why do you keep backing the wrong side?

    We’ve talked about this since early 2006, you’ve never come up with a justification, you keep backing the wrong side, and you won’t justify.

    What is the matter with you you Gook cunt. If you don’t understand something JUST ASK. If you have some theory RUN IT BY ME. But you haven’t made a case, you haven’t got some strange theory, you never fucking come up with anything, from the first time I argued with Fyodor you’ve been a fucking dishonest cunt with this subject.

    And yet rather than stay neutral until you understand the subject you fervently back the wrong fucking side.

    And you do this for carbon tax as well.

    So what is the story here. If you weren’t being a cunt you could explain your position.

  69. “Every measurement that you are claiming that has been made has not been made. Its been INFERRED UNDER THEORY. That being the case we need to audit the inference and the theory.

    You are showing yourself to be a complete idiot by a persistent inability to grasp this simple fact.”

    What measurements have been INFERRED UNDER THEORY?

    ALL OF THEM. UNLESS YOU’VE GOT SOME TINY LITTLE BASTARD WITH GREAT EYESIGHT, FAST REACTIONS AND A TAPE MEASURE AND HE STANDS LESS THAN A NANO-METRE TALL. FUCK MATE YOU ARE JUST SO SLOW. DO YOUR STUDENTS KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

  70. Come back here and explain yourself you Gook cunt….

    … And then go home to Malaysia. Or to the mainland if they Malaysians won’t have a bar of you.

    What is your explanation?

    So you want monetary destabilization for its own sakes. You want all the ill effects of inflation hurting poor people and business decisions. And you want us to keep on subsidizing the banks since when there is a crash we have no choice anyway…..

    BUT WHY you stupid gook cunt.

    Is any of this good? Is this utilitarian in your fucking worthless view?

    You know that if there is a crash they will steal off us again? You know that!!! The American people were powerless to do anything about it and you backed the thieves up?

    So justify your point of view. GO!!!!!!

    See you cannot do it can you you Gook cunt. And in the old days when that was the case and we couldn’t justify what we had claimed we would just admit that we were wrong. So thats the other option you fucking dishonest gook cunt.

  71. Seriously in the old days when someone was taking a contrary view to something you knew was right…. then it was just assumed that you hand’t got around to showing them where they were coming off the rails.

    Now every cunt seems to think that holding views dishonestly is fine. Its an egalitarianism of dishonesty. Humphreys is the pits for this. That Gook cunt is far far worse. And then every cunt is worse then eachother from there.

    You were THERE Jason. We had threads of doom. We had me enquiring month after month for evidence for the global warming fraud. You know that neither you nor any cunt else came up with anything. So there is just no excuse for this, Its unacceptable Go home.

  72. are you going to apologise for losing your temper after I did you a service by pointing you to a good blog?

    GO!!!!!

  73. Why are you still backing the idiotic side of the fractional reserve argument? When you know damn well you didn’t come up with any damn thing over three years.

  74. Look. Get off this subject for now. What do you think of this focus fusion. I’m completely knocked out by that vid. I keep watching it over and over and have bought a giant plasma physics text in E-Bay.

    Talk about something else and attempt not to be a stupid dishonest cunt.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: