You may be right, especially since 'energetic conventionalism' is meaningless.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I'm beginning to realise that maybe the appropriate logical thing to do with others such as the god also. It's just a real shame that the administrators are so free and easy with such nonsense, that at any other science forum they would be permanently banned. Yes, he is in the alternative section, but even there people that push such nonsense should be able to support it. :shrug:
I have documented the whole thread for posterity as communication with a part of the "scientific community". Bye, bye..
The "scientific community" tried the description of Nature with the energetic concept and did not work. The atomistic theory has solved the central problem of the physical description of Nature and works very well.
Fundamental Principles in Physics 31.08.2015 To describe Nature the following principles are sufficient and necessary: Fundamental Principles are - neither the position, nor the velocity of particles is ever known precisely, - the matter is consisting of four kinds of stable particles, e, p, P and E, with elementary masses me, and mP, and with elementary electric charges ± e, - the stable particles carry two elementary charges qi = { - e, + e, + e, - e}, and gi = { - g ∙ me, + g ∙ me, + g ∙ mP, - g ∙ mP}, i = e,p,P,E, - both fields generated through the elementary charges as interaction between particles and the fields propagate with the constant velocity c, - the gravitation is generated through elementary gravitational charges gi with the universal gravitational constant G = g/4∙ π similar to the generation of the electromagnetism through elementary electric charges qi. The Fundamental Principles are self consistent, complete and are in compliance with all experimental observations on Nature. The energy is not conserved and the Atomistic Theory of Matter is the consequence. The laws of nature are non-deterministic, however causal. A paradigm shift is necessary for laws established in physics. Nature does nothing in vain.
I don’t want to hold valid any bad theoretical physical concepts, I want describe Nature such as it is!
I see you keep saying that you're leaving, and then demonstrating that you're a liar. Why should anyone believe anything you say, whether about your "atomsz" or anything else?
Repeating the same thing over and over is not a very compelling method to prove your idea. Of course since your idea is bad to begin with you don't have a lot of options.
Of course, the ATOMISTIC THEORY OF MATTER IS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ULTIMATE TRUTH OF NATURE! Without any other options!!!
Wow, capitol letters!!! Very persuasive argument...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For the description of Nature, there are only few natural constants needed: c, e, me, mP, g. The Lagrange multipliers such as h, h0 =h/387.7 are not natural constants, the Boltzmann constant k and a possibly further generalized constant describe the equilibrium state of matter. And one principle for the determination of the equation of motions of the field and the particles. ... without "capitol letters".