# conservation of momentum II

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by DRZion, Jun 21, 2010.

1. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
Who knows, maybe I'm not using the behemoth equation that requires it.. :/ I was using the basic formula already mentioned earlier on this thread. I got something many orders of magnitude greater than the newtonian solution. AFAIK aerospace companies and even nasa don't use relativistic equations when designing aircraft. And if they do its because they're appeasing a bureaucracy of pedantic asshats! Relativity is completely irrelevant when you're dealing with velocities below 100,000 m/s!

In fact my entire scenario has nothing to do with relativity so you can forget that . . . but honestly I have to question whether bremsstrahlung would be significant at non-relativistic velocities.

I was just responding to your style of bringing up things which other people don't understand in an attempt to sound sophisticated. For instance, I never asked about any of the stuff you brought up and whenever you do bring up something relevant I shoot it down with half a second of consideration. You can do all the blackboarding you want, thats not how everything is done.

3. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
I was only putting up smokescreen for AN. If he didn't start spamming me with 4th year physics I wouldn't have tried that..

Doesn't matter! Just take the parts which are yes/no statements and work with those. Its a yes/no statement saying that accelerating charges emit radiation when they accelerate.

You have to admit, from what you know of my experience that is too much for me.

5. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Its not a behemoth. The expression is the one Pete has given, which is just $mc^{2}(\gamma - 1)$. That's it, that's the kinetic energy. If you can do high school level calculus then you can do the Taylor expansion for $\gamma$ and you obtain the expansion Pete has given. The first term is the Newtonian expression, all other terms are relativistic corrections which are very very small if $v << c$ but are vital once $v \sim c$. Thus you can use the expression $KE = (\gamma-1)mc^{2}$ at all times and you'll get a better answer than the Newtonian one. It might be more algebraicly complicated if you use a multi-term expansion but for a computer to evaluate the value of $\gamma = \left( 1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ for a given value of v is easy.

These aren't difficult equations, they are so basic I learnt them in high school.

You obviously struggle with basic calculus and algebra then.

Because the Newtonian expressions are often simpler to work with (I speak from personal experience) and for most applications are sufficiently good. Newtonian gravity is simpler than GR, even though GR says (pretty much) the same thing for dynamics of the solar system, so NASA uses NG for anything less than a GPS network.

You have no clue what engineers or physicists do or don't use in their work, you've made that very very clear. Why do you persist in telling me my business? How many times do you need to be exposed as a liar and an idiot?

You might want to look up the GPS orbital velocity. Once again you vastly over simplify things because you're naive. You try to tell me my business only to expose your stupidity.

Except what I say is correct and I understand it. What you say is not and you don't. Keep digging.

And you honestly believe what you're saying?! Really? I'm actually amused you say that.

I didn't say that's how everything is done. You're doing what I've already commented on, you're trying to argue that because something doesn't apply everywhere then its okay to utterly ignore it. QED applies to the physical processes relevant to your claims. It demonstrates your claims wrong. Your comments about thermodynamics were irrelevant, trying to convince yourself that its okay to ignore a counter example to your claim if it isn't applied to all physics. Yes, we don't know everything but that doesn't mean you can justify ignoring all physics, all experiments. QED isn't just 'black boarding', its experimentally tested. It does accurate modelling of electron-photon interactions which you claim cannot be done.

I asked you to provide some algebra/numbers for your claims. Given you've just admitted to Pete that a Taylor expansion is beyond you, which is high school calculus, how you can possibly think you're in any position to say what highly complex unifications of quantum mechanics and special relativity can or can't do I simply don't know. Really, do you think you're in any position to honestly provide an informed evaluation of quantum field theory? You don't know even qualitative stuff. Further more you can't do mathematics a person is required to know to gain entry to a physics degree course which covers the requirements for gaining entry to a masters course which then covers the basics of quantum field theory. You're at least 4 years of full time education below the minimal level expected of anyone studying quantum field theory and you think you can tell people decades beyond the minimal level their business (ie professors, I'm only 5 years beyond that level)?! You're going from naive to just down right wacko.

So you weren't wrong, you were just pretending to be wrong and make it seem like you know nothing. If you want to get me to play nice then why don't you put me in my place, if you aren't the naive idiotic dick you appear to be.

You've made claims about a variety of physics areas and I've commented about how you're wrong and its well known material which you're mistaken about. We've ended up going down the route of Noether's theorem and QFT because you've claimed things like it not being possible for a model of photons and electrons interactions to conserve energy and momentum and be accurate. QED is a counter example. The fact you've below the minimal level to understand QED doesn't mean you can ignore it. Its not my fault you have made unsupported claim after unsupported claim about areas of physics utterly outside your experience.

I hate to break it to you but some things in the real world are complicated. Sufficiently complicated that you don't understand them. Sufficiently complicated that even the smartest people in the world need several years of building up their knowledge and understanding before tackling them. The fact you have some kind of mental block to accepting that something can be valid or worth someone else learning even if you don't understand it is not my fault.

And no one has said they don't. The issue is whether they do it in a way which is consistent with energy and momentum conservation and whether we can build accurate models of said processes. The answer to both questions is yes. You don't seem to want to accept those answers, despite there being clear well known experimentally tested models in the freely accessible public domain.

And yet you presume to tell people who have taught this stuff their business. How can you possible compartmentalise your mind so much? You admit to being in over your head with high school level physics and yet you presume to tell people that their research level models which have made experimentally validated predictions don't exist?!

7. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
AlphaNumeric,
I apologize if I am getting under your skin. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You are BY FAR more experienced than I am with physics and math. I cannot ever hope to argue with you about any of the fine points of QED, or probably newtonian dynamics even. I do not try to. However, you do not seem to be getting my point -

look at the scenario.
in conjunction with the hyperphysics link I know that when you get a two particle decay involving a massless particle (neutrino), the only way momentum is conserved is if there are defined energies and momenta for the particles. This tells me that there are some definite rules to decays involving massless particles, and his applies to braking radiation too.

What am I even arguing? Maybe I'm just trying to point out that there is something interesting going on here, even if it isn't violation of conservation of momentum.

Sure, i don't know high school math. But I know logic and sound reasoning, which is enough to make a good investigator. Of course, I won't get anywhere because you need a stupid piece of paper to show everyone how smart you are, after all smart people should have to work hard too right? Wrong. I will entrench my sloth with my intellect and I think I still have a good shot at success.

You are arguing out of belief that QED is right and quantities are conserved. And hell, maybe they are 99% of the time. I am saying that there are exceptions. I am trying to show you that there is an exception here. Is this so wrong?

8. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
i) neutrinos aren't massless
ii) Didn't we cover this before? A particle that decays radiate a photon must lose mass. That lost mass is included in the photon energy, which directly resolves your problem.

Intellect without education is wasted, DZ.
It doesn't have to be formal education, but the other way is much harder work.

My impression of AN's argument is that it is an argument from informed understanding. AN doesn't have to just "believe" what QED says about energy and momentum - he has actually worked through it, and found out for himself what it says.

If you or I were to make a statement about what QED says, we'd be stating an unsupported belief. But if we actually learned how it works, and understood it, we could state the facts, right?

Do you think that AN is lying about his understanding of QED?

9. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You're failing to understand the relevant physics. There's no 'decay' in the processes you're talking about, an electron emits a photon and it remains an electron. Its represented by the interaction Feynman diagram component. Alternatively you can think of it as an electron and a positron combining to become a photon. No decay.

You don't know the relevant physics, you think 30 seconds using Google gives you relevant understanding and you've been shown to be wrong many times now. Why do you persist?

How can you possibly point out anything interesting when you know nothing about either theory or experiment. Either you're pointing out something interesting in the theoretical models or you're illustrating there's observed phenomena which are not accounted for by theory. Neither of which you're doing and neither of which you're capable of.

No, you don't know logic or sound reasoning or you wouldn't be trying to argue you grasp stuff because you've looked at the hyperphysics page. I'll tell you now, you aren't a good investigator.

Once again you epically fail to grasp my point. My point about how difficult QED is is that if it takes the best in the world years of work to grasp it why in the fuck do you think you can leap ahead of all of them through the use of Google for 30 seconds? If you were logical and you had real experience with science you would know that it can't be grasped with a simple Google. There's more to science than knowing facts, understanding is needed and it can take time.

I don't say "You're wrong" because I've got some bit of paper you haven't, I say "You're wrong" because the knowledge I've gained while getting that bit of paper provides me with understanding and information which I know absolutely negates your argument. And its not something which is a matter of interpretation, its black and white, either in the form of mathematics which you claim cannot exist or its in the form of experiments which have been done which you claim cannot exist. In each case you claim something cannot occur, which you claim to base on 'logic' and 'sound reasoning' but if you read the sound logic and reasoning found in thousands of freely available books or lecture notes you'd know that its not only possible to construct a logically sound model which does what you claim can't be done but people have applied it successfully to the real world. The real world works in a way you claim it cannot. Thus you are wrong. Nothing to do with how many letters you or I have before or after our names, you are claiming something which is demonstrably false in experiments.

Are you trying to imply you don't need to work hard to understand theoretical physics? How come you suck at it then?

Still? You're not doing physics or maths any more. You missed your chance for success and you're clearly below average when it comes to maths, physics and even basic rational thought.

No, I know QED says energy and momentum are conserved, I can and have proven it on paper to myself (and examiners) many times. And again you completely fail to grasp what I said, despite me correcting you before!! I didn't say QED is exactly right, I've even said the opposite, I know it isn't exactly right both on theoretical and experimental grounds. Can't you fucking read? The point I've repeatedly explained to you is that your claim that another particle is needed to account for electron-photon interactions which conserve momentum and energy simultaneously is false. QED is at least 99.99% accurate in such processes (as proven by experiments) and it conserved momentum and energy.

You keep claiming the photon can't account for both momentum and energy. I've asked you to prove quantitative justification for that, to back up your qualitative claims with quantitative arguments. You've failed to provide. Not only did you ignore my request but you've admitted you can't even do areas of high school level physics or maths. Basically you cannot do and do not understand the equations involved and yet you're claiming the equations absolutely cannot come out to give a result which they in fact do. And I'm not taking this on 'belief', on the word of some book, I can do the proofs myself, I can work through the QED methods to go from the Lagrangian to conserved quantities and on to scattering cross sections. And then I can look up what experimental values for these things experiments have produced and I can compare them. You can't. Not only can you not but you're denying that such work, such experiments and such comparisons have been done or in some cases even exist! I'd suggest you read Peskin and Schroeder's 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory' but because you don't know anything about any mathematics or physics beyond high school you'll fail to understand it and then I'd imagine you'll make the same mistake you just did, you'll think that because you have to take the conclusions of the book on 'faith' because of your inability to understand then everyone else does. No, some of us actually understand it. The fact you can't understand high level science and consider it all on 'faith' doesn't mean others do.

I've never denied QED is only an approximate model, it doesn't include anything from QCD for instance. However, you're claiming that the photon's such a huge issue for momentum and energy conservation that some other particle must be involved, it cannot be explained any other way. No, processes which involve only electrons and photons can be modelled using QED to such a high accuracy we currently cannot tell the prediction from experiment. Consider processes with other particles, like the neutrino, and you need electroweak theory or the full Standard Model.

Your point about the massless photon packing a weak punch is nonsense. Its even more nonsense when you consider the massless gluon. The LHC is currently smashing protons together to make (hopefully) Higgs bosons. If you'd ever done any kind of experimental particle physics you'd know that the main channels this will be done by is through gluon-gluon interactions. The gluons can carry so much momentum and energy that they'll be able to produce Higgs bosons when they collide with one another.

Part of the issue is all your arguments are arm wavy. You claim there's an issue with momentum and energy conservation in photon exchanges. How much of an issue? Is it impossible for photons to account for 100% of the energy and momentum exchanged? 90%? 50% 2%? Does it depend on the interaction? Perhaps if you provided some quantitative arguments you'd be a little clearer?

Furthermore you're arguing entirely from hypotheticals. You have your interpretation of physics other people have done which you read about on Google and you're trying to use that (claiming its 'sound logic') as an argument why some things are impossible or cannot be explained. Your argument is only as strong as your initial assumptions and they are terrible. And this isn't my 'opinion', its a fact because they end up contradicting reality. Now you can (try to) argue about one hypothetical model's worth compared to another but you can't argue with reality unless you're also arguing that reality itself is illogical and wrong (in which case using logic is inappropriate anyway, catch 22!). Processes involving only photons and electrons exist which conserve energy and momentum to at least parts per billion.

10. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
i. according to the link they might as well be for calculations involving momentum and kinetic energy; a neutrino can be treated like a photon in experiments
ii. actually this is wrong. in fact energy and mass are inherently linked. for example, when an atom bomb goes off, the 'constituent parts' (however you would measure this...) lose mass due to fission. But, its not staight up conversion of matter to energy. Its actually a reduction in the binding energy of the atoms in the bomb, which actually has weight. Its THIS energy which is unleashed in an atomic blast, and it is enough energy to lower the mass of the atom bomb.
Compare it to heating a cup of water. When you heat up the cup of water it gains mass as it gains thermal energy. This mass radiates away as thermal radiation. Mass decreases, but it is actually contained in the mass of the emitted photons. The two are equivalent.
Likewise, when the electron loses kinetic energy it inherently loses mass and the photon carries away that same mass. Its the same mass.
I read the wiki page on e=mc^2 today

Furthermore, the wiki on bremsstrahlung very clearly shows that kinetic energy and nothing else (significantly) contributes to the photon energy.

I disagree. There is very little motivation for me to go through all the hoops of formal education, while there is great motivation for me to pursue my own projects. And by picking what I work on I actually save time by not going to the courses I would have to otherwise. And having a university degree grants comfort in which it is easy to forget what we were learning for in the first place. Unfortunately a lot of people (including me sometimes) do not value the knowledge people obtain in ways other than formal education, or if they do not have anything to show for it. I think this is the bottom line - informal education is often purposeless, and it basically boils down to a hobby if nothing comes of it.

Yes, he has given ample evidence that bremsstrahlung has been studied through and through as with the LHC example.

Sure.

No. I just can't see the hole in my logic. Photons carry less momentum/energy than any massive particles...

if I apply the same logic to this debate, I have to conclude that either
i. I am missing something and I am at fault
ii. someone is being thick and not admitting what has already been established
iii. neither I or the others present fully understand what is going on and we are arguing on each other's 'blind spots', while our knowledge combined is complementary and contains all the necessary knowledge to solve the scenario
iv. there are things none of us know about this scenario and even if we were communicating perfectly we wouldn't know the truth

all options other than one mean I am at least partially ignorant, so I will conclude that perhaps I am wrong.

11. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You again fail to grasp what the thing you read meant. A neutrino can be treated as 'ultra-relativistic', in that its energy and momentum expressions can be that of a massless particle, perhaps with a single correction term. You previously illustrated you didn't understand this when you talked about the high or low velocity validity of particular equations. The exact equation, valid at all energies and momenta, for any on shell particle (ie non-virtual) is $E^{2}-(pc)^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2}$ where p is the 3 momentum. If you have a light or high momentum particle than $\frac{m}{p}$ is small and you end up with $E = pc + O(m/p)$. If its slow then you have $\frac{p^{2}}{m} << 1$ and so $E = mc^{2} + \frac{p^{2}}{2m} + \ldots$.

These approximations can be applied for any particle, even ones with mass. But they have restricted domains of applicability, you can't use an ultra-relativistic expression for an electron if the electron is moving slowly. Neutrinos are almost always ultra relativistic because their mass is so very very low. This doesn't mean they are "treated like a photon in experiments" (as you just said), as they have properties photons do not. The way they are treated alike is to use E=pc. Things like spin, charges, interactions etc are quite different.

And you're pleased you did this after making claims you couldn't back up? Tell me, why did you PM me that time you asked if I wanted to work on Einstein manifolds with you? You admit to having no knowledge, that you're aware you can't do jack shit, so why did you send me that PM? Is the answer anything other than self delusion?

The Newtonian notion of kinetic energy doesn't work well in relativity, I suggest you stop thinking about things in such basic terms.

Yeah, whoever gained anything from learning.

And you've obviously doing such a stellar job on your own....

A dangerous game to play as you aren't in a position to know what might or might not be relevant to your work. I made the mistake of not paying much attention to group theory in my 1st year only to learn in my 3rd that its everywhere in physics. Now I'm experiencing the same thing with Markov processes, a course I didn't take in my 2nd year. Having a broadening knowledge base is only a good thing.

Speak for yourself. You're assuming other people share your short comings.

Are you again insinuating I have some mental block about listening to people without formal education? You sound like you're trying to give yourself an excuse for not learning and simultaneously trying to imply I pay no heed to non-formal education. Wrong, there's more to knowledge than gaining it from formal education, I've never said otherwise. And I find it humorous you dismiss formal education yet run to Wikipedia every chance you get, to look up what other people have written, which they often learnt via formal education. You don't want to put the effort in and yet you want to be taken seriously. If you were actually coming up with something interesting or justified you might be taken seriously but you're not.

To have a hole in ones logic one must first have some logic.

Bingo.

Your 'blind spot' is everything in maths and physics beyond high school level! You have zero relevant knowledge so how can you be complementing anyone's knowledge in a relevant way? And the stuff I've said to you isn't complicated stuff compared to actual research level material, its far easier to grasp Peskin & Schroeder than Weinberg or Hawking. I have barely even posted any mathematics. If I'm writing less than 75% mathematics then its below the typical level of mathematics I normally work with.

Tell me, what actually is your knowledge which could be used to 'solve the scenario'? Its not any theoretical understanding or capabilities or knowledge, its not mathematical abilities and its not experimental know-how or results. You have nothing.

If I'm wrong then lets see you back up your claims quantitatively. Hell, just telling me the percentages I asked previously would be a start.

12. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
AlphaNumeric,
In my previous post I have not made a single error - we are talking about momentum and kinetic energy and the link dealt with momentum and kinetic energy so I assumed that you might make the connection between me saying that 'they are treated the same' and the fact that they are treated the same in terms of kinetic energy and momentum. Do you honestly need symbols to connect the most basic facts ??
Because if thats the case I could be a lot more verbose and make my posts ridiculously bloated and formal in the fashion of the bureaucracy which I'm sure you hope to be a part of one day.

Aside from misunderstanding my one point, your entire post was an attack on character!! Which is one of the most basic logical errors (courtesy of wiki). You prove nothing by showing that my math skills are inadequate for college physics. I never claimed to understand math or based any of my arguments on my understanding of math and so undermining my math cred in no way undermines my argument in this thread!!

If you ever heard of Michael Faraday, he was a great scientist who did not know calculus. And he made contributions important enough to have one of Maxwell's laws be named after him, as well as having a (extremely cumbersome) unit named after him.

The reason I wanted to work with you is because you claim to have extensive technical skill and I wanted to utilize you like the well crafted tool that you are - have you figure out the equations for me. I expect to have to work with people like you in the future.

And yes, group theory seems to be quite useful. Its very important in figuring out molecules' cross sections for emission and absorption of radiation and fluorescent and phosphorescent processes as well as much photochemistry. Too bad its so god damn tough! I even ordered a book on it but water damage claimed its knowledge faster than I could.

What percentages do you mean?

13. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
No, I simply don't give you any credit or benefit of the doubt, given your track record. Given you've said so many wrong things about relativity and quantum mechanics why should I assume you weren't making another one of your naive incorrect statements?

Ah, an attempt at insulting me and simultaneously giving an excuse for why you don't put in any effort to learn, there's too much 'bloated bureaucracy'.

The level of bureaucracy in academia has absolutely no relevance to your claims, you're just trying to avoid backing up your claims.

Besides, wanting to be a part of the research community is not something I'm ashamed of or want to keep quiet. Yes, I want to contribute to science, hardly a shameful thing to want to do. You're trying to convince yourself its all bureaucracy and 'faith' so that you can feel more comfortable with the fact you couldn't be a part of it even if you tried. You can't get into the club and now you're trying to tell yourself "Well its a crappy club anyway!". Hacks always do it. And don't try to pretend you haven't got a chip on your shoulder about science, you've lied and Googled enough times in this thread to demonstrate you want people to think you're well read. If you didn't give a hoot you'd not be trying so desperately to convince people you've got insight into physics. You try to insult me for having formal education in mathematics, yet you try to convince people you know about Godel's work.

Well given you're unable to answer my question about precisely how much electron-photon interactions have energy or momentum conservation issues and you're unwilling to enter into any informed honest discussion its impossible for me to discuss any actual science with you. How can we discuss relativity when you can't do it and don't know it? How can we discuss electromagnetism and acceleration radiation when you can't do it and don't know it? How can we discuss the specifics of neutrino processes when you don't know the electroweak model? How can we discuss momentum conservation in black hole systems when you can't do it and don't know it?

You're making claims about high level topics which you haven't looked at and you're refusing to listen to anyone who has. We can't have qualitative conversations because you simply wave your arms or ignore my explanations. The only way I could clear, unequivocal demonstration of your mistakes would be to demonstrate explicitly various results from things like QED, but you don't understand the mathematics. Discussion is impossible if you won't accept qualitative corrections for being too devoid of justification and you won't accept quantitative corrections because they are over your head. That is a comment on your character, its your attitude which is at fault (as well as your 'facts').

If you want a more formal discussion provide the quantitative things I asked for.

He was an experimentalist, he produced HUGE quantities of measurements for a plethora of phenomena. I never said someone must know mathematics to do physics (but it sure as fuck helps). In fact I've said (more than once) that its possible to argue for new ideas using experiments. I said someone trying to present new ideas has 3 main routes; they've constructed an entirely new model which explains more phenomena than current models, they've found a mistake in the structure of a current model or they've done experiments which they or others can use. You aren't doing the first two since you don't know any models and you don't know the mathematics they are written in. So that leave experiments. Are you doing experiments involving breaking radiation no one else has ever done? Are you doing any experiments? No. Faraday did. Hence he contributed to physics and you haven't.

You can only bring up the example of previous physicists if you're doing precisely as they did. Faraday did tons of experiments, you're arguing purely from your interpretation of the world, most of which you don't know about.

Then you have absolutely no clue as to how theoretical physics is done. It isn't "Oh lets think up some arm wavey idea we all like and then fill in the mathematics later", its "What are the basic underlying rules of nature and what do they then imply?". Farsight thinks as you do, that you can do science by simply doing wordy explanations and the details can be left to others. Wrong!! The devil is in the details.

Your naivety about how theoretical physics is done is only out stripped by your arrogance to think you'd have anything worthwhile to say about Einstein manifolds (you didn't know what they were then and given your utter lack of calculus knowledge you don't know either) and that I'd be your 'calculus monkey', turning your arm waving into viable work. That's the hard part, coming up with a quantitative model, so the work would be 99.9999% me anyway. And given you don't even know what an Einstein manifold is I'd end up doing all the work anyway. I'm absolutely certain you'd have nothing, nothing, to contribute. And if you expect to work with 'people like me' in the future you really need to reevaluate your approach to science.

Yes I'm sure.....

You claim there's an issue with photons not being able to explain momentum and energy conserving interactions between electrons, that the photon can't carry momentum well enough and another particle is needed. I want you to quantify this. How much momentum and/or energy can the photon alone exchange? How much momentum and/or energy does this other particle need to carry in order to keep them conserved?

Basically I want you to stop just waving your arms and I want you to quantify the issues you claim QED and other models have. Demonstrate that QED cannot explain electron scattering processes with just a photon. You previously said things like "Compton scattering does conserve momentum by ejecting an electron which compensates for any 'new' momentum in the system so that it is all conserved. In my case the only thing which can be ejected according to theory is photons, and I have already said that these photons will carry away more energy than momentum. ". Quantify how much more energy the photon carries away and illustrate quantitatively how this leads to a conservation violation.

14. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
Not in this thread I haven't. I was posting a scenario whose conclusions appear to be incorrect according to quantum mechanics or quantum mechanics incorrect as its consequence. Or not. Maybe there is an unknown force or particle which could make up for the momentum inequality. I am just saying it can't be as simple as a photon being emitted due to loss of kinetic energy.

I think you're right, I won't ever be a part of the physics research community, or perhaps not even the biology research community - its too much paper work and 'pure science' doesn't interest me as much as new products. I would rather work for the industry.

And you're wrong, I'm not here to sound well read (at least not on the conscious level); but rather to demonstrate some critical thinking skills and to prove that formal education and mathematics isn't as important as clear thinking and visualization of concepts. You're also wrong that I'm trying to insult your for your formal education!! Why the hell would I want a 'calculus monkey' if it wasn't well trained??!

Nope, I can't do it qualitatively but I can convince to some degree that there is some disparity (maybe). It will be up to the academics to do the formal investigation.

Yes, I am beginning to come to the same conclusion.

So you are saying that 'theoretical experiments' aren't worth anything? Just because I haven't gotten my hands dirty doesn't mean that I haven't done any experiments. A theoretical investigation can involve either symbols or concepts - in modern science the symbols are a proof of expertise. Its necessary to bottle up all your research in a neat formula, but there is plenty of stuff behind that, right? Well, I have some of the stuff behind that but I can't do the formulas.

What do you mean 'You can only' ?? Who are you to judge how people do science? Or is science just the name of the corporation you're a part of, and you control science and truth? Screw this institution and its traditions. You keep doing science this way for another few centuries and a religion is exactly what you will get!

Wrong, thats what they call inspiration! You become inspired to do something and they you do everything to accomplish that. You set the goals, you do the research, and then you work out the details. In that order. Otherwise, where's your motivation?

This is the same attitude some people at my university have - lets just do research and see where it takes us. I have tried to adapt this attitude with some success, and I can see why its called pure science. Its true, if you are investigating every nook and cranny you might in fact find something which is beyond anyone's wildest imagination - a true discovery.

I think its the other way around - the creative part is really the more important. Alas, I realize creativity in itself isn't enough if you want to do something other than write a novel or paint a picture. Thats why I am trying to keep an open mind and at least try to consult with the experts. I think it works out well that we each think our part is the most important.

If you didn't have a topic for research, how could it be done? You need an interesting topic to keep you motivated and honest about your work.

Yes, something about symmetries of particles - you need group theory to calculate that.

I will re-evaluate my scenario and re-post if I find anything worthy of posting. I might be beginning to get where momentum is conserved.

Its like the momentum is already changed due to the force and its the extra kinetic energy which is emitted.. maybe something like that

Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
15. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
No, that was a mistake, I uphold my claim.

I don't think I can quantify my claim but we can start with this -

Say you start with two charged objects of identical mass on the x axis, positioned on massless carts so that they are free to move on the x axis. At the origin you have a +z charge while 1 meter away on the x axis you have a -2z charge. You release both charges simultaneously. The system has 0 momentum to begin with. Where on the x axis do the two charges meet?

If bremsstrahlung is significant, the objects won't meet at .5 meters, they should meet slightly to the right of .5 meters since the -2z charge will emit more bremsstrahlung and thus have lower kinetic energy and lower average velocity before the two objects come into contact. After they come into contact the two objects taken alone (excluding the photons emitted) will have momentum greater than zero. I think you should agree with this so far.

After this you just have to calculate the momentum of the emitted photons and add that to the momentum of the two objects - it should end up at zero if you are right.

Do you see any glaring flaws with this kind of 'experiment'?

Here is an interesting hand-wavey idea - the emitted photons will have a gravitational pull on the objects won't they? Maybe this will somehow affect the momentum of the system over a long period of time... :shrug:

16. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Denial of reality doesn't serve you any good.

You've admitted you don't know calculus expected of high school students, so you definitely don't know the details of quantum mechanics (and your qualitative understanding is terrible too) so you have nothing to base your claims on. You talk about how there's an inability to account for kinetic energy and momentum properly yet you don't even know the relevant equations!!! Honestly, I cannot fathom why you're keeping up this. You'd admitted that one of the simplest equations in relativity is over your head yet you're claiming the equations of quantum field theory don't add up?! How can you claim things about something you admit to having no knowledge of?

Yes, tell yourself excuses. Its not because you're rubbish, its just you don't want to try.

I work 'for the industry', turning 'pure science' into 'products', and I stand by my comments about you having to really rethink your attitude and approach to science if you plan to do anything even vaguely close to it as a job.

You just pretend to grasp things you haven't read for what then?

You've demonstrated you can't think critically. I ask you to back up your claims, you are unable to. I ask you if you know anything relevant, you don't. You admit you don't know anything relevant. You admit to being years behind the material you make claims about (even if you worked full time from now on you'd need at least 3~5 years to get up to the level of quantum field theory). I point you to material which demonstrates your claims contradict experimental reality and you ignore it. You think being able to Wiki for something means you have a better grasp than those people who write Wiki pages.

How precisely have you displayed critical thinking skills?

Nice black and white there idiot. Formal knowledge without understanding is worthless, hence why having Google at your fingertips doesn't make you capable of doing quantum mechanics. Imagination which isn't tempered by rationality or informed thought is worthless too. You make it sound like everyone who does formal education in mathematics or physics becomes a robot without imagination. Another way of convincing yourself that its okay you're shit at physics and maths, you wouldn't want to 'taint' your creativity. Every hack thinks the same.

If formal education were so subservient to creativity why haven't all those 'creative' hacks online revolutionised physics and mathematics 10 times over? Why hasn't a single 'alternative physics' forum or poster managed to do even 1% of the things they claim? How many people have been in pseudo here claiming a theory of everything? And how many of them have got even one thing published in a reputable journal? None.

Its possible to have extensive formal knowledge and be creative and original thinking. Hacks view any work done using formal knowledge as not thinking originally because they want to convince themselves its impossible to be original and have formal knowledge so that its okay that they have none. Its yet another defence mechanism they (you) have to convince themselves they aren't just rubbish.

Why would someone well trained at differential geometry and capable of doing research themselves or with other people educated in differential geometry and who can also do research want to be a 'calculus monkey' for someone like you, who has to Wiki for what 'Einstein manifold' means? Tell me, what could you possibly offer me which I couldn't get from someone else more educated in relevant topics? The fact you think a 'well trained calculus monkey' would be willing to spend their time trying to convert your ignorance into something viable rather than working with educated informed rational people demonstrates your naivety about research and your terrible attitude to science.

Convince who? I've explained where you can find clear unequivocal explanations of how you're incorrect in your claims about electron-photon models and you're incorrect about reality. Theory and experiment contradict you. That isn't a matter of opinion or my word against yours, its fact.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You think science can be done by some 'creative person' coming up with vague ideas about topics they know nothing about then the 'calculus monkey' just fills in the gaps. If you knew anything about physics you'd know that its naive to think that any vague qualitative idea can be turned into a quantitative model. And even if a qualitative idea seems right the quantitative side can be wrong. Both Newtonian gravity and GR predict Mercury's orbit to precess. Only GR gets it right. If you didn't do the details you might be convinced Newton was the correct model but you'd be wrong.

Besides, the formal investigation has been done. I've been saying this for 4 fucking pages now. I've given you the names of various areas of physics and even a book reference. Its there for you to read. No academic capable of doing quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is going to be your 'calculus monkey' because they'd all say "Errr.... we've done experiments and you're wrong". Reality says you're wrong. How the hell are you not getting this? Seriously, do you have some kind of learning difficulty?

A 'theoretical experiment' (ie a thought experiment) is a way of investigating the logical consistency of a set of premises. It does not investigate reality, it investigates some part of a theoretical construct. If a contradiction or flaw is found then it means the assumptions which the construct is made from are inconsistent and thus cannot possibly be a valid physical model.

So what are the postulates you're basing your theoretical construct on? Its not those of quantum mechanics, you don't know them. Its not that of relativity, you don't know them. Its not that of quantum field theory, you don't know them. Its not that of electromagnetism, you don't know them. You have simply made up what you think physicists say and you're proclaiming that because you think your interpretation of work you haven't read is that there's a flaw then the work of physicists is flawed. You aren't doing a 'theoretical experiment' with actual quantum mechanics or any other area of mainstream physics because you don't know what mainstream physics actually says!! You've made a strawman, you've invented what you think physicists said, attacked what you think they say and proclaimed that thus what physicists say is not right. You've just made a huge flawed argument and your claims of being a clear thinker are all the more ironic for it.

And even if a theoretical model were consistent that doesn't mean its physically valid. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity are theoretically valid models but they don't model reality. The theoretical models of physicists for electron-photon interactions are physically accurate, in contradiction to your claims. Your claims disagree with reality, how much more obvious does this need to be?

Well done on failing to grasp my point. You brought up Faraday, saying that he didn't do any maths, just like you're not. But your comparison is flawed, you brought up someone who didn't do any mathematics but did a ton of experiments. Have you? No. Thus I said you can't bring up Faraday for comparison with your approach because you aren't doing anything like him.

What have you done? You've thought a bit and proclaimed some supposed flaw in work you haven't read. You can't justify it and you haven't. Have you done any experiments? No. So you've not actually done any science. Its funny you accuse me of a methodology which might lead to 'a religion', thinking in your head about something you haven't got any logic behind and which you can't quantify and then reaching some conclusion is precisely how the Catholic Church works out its dogma. I've told you your claims contradict reality, you've ignored me, sorta like how the Catholic Church didn't accept a heliocentric solar system till something like 192-fucking-2.

Again, you're telling me my business. You have no experience with physics education, never mind physics research and you're telling me how its done? I hate to break it to you but I'm speaking from person experience and historical fact. If you don't do the details you don't accomplish much. Even Faraday made sure to do his experiments carefully. Yes, a current through a wire in a magnetic field produces a force but how much? If I throw a ball in the air it'll come down, but where? If I burn this petrol it'll release energy but how much?

The fact you can't see the motivation someone doing the details might have doesn't mean the motivation doesn't exist. Some of my most satisfying achievements have been demonstrating something algebraically, to provide an air-tight solution to a problem no one else has solved before. Yes, there's a particular kind of mentality needed to do quantitative physics and mathematics research but don't be so naive and arrogant to think that because you don't do it no one else can get motivated by it.

This doesn't negate what I said, working with the details can lead you down plenty of paths you never thought about. Hell, that's how string theory got to where it is, the details running off down paths no one ever imagined and lead to fundamental rethinks of various areas of gravity and particle physics research.

Stop telling me how research is done when you haven't done any and you have little understanding of the scientific method. When you put your methodology into practice and your baseless assertions become justified let me know.

And yet you're ignoring anything and everything I've said which doesn't back up your preconceptions. You have the presupposition that there's something wrong with electron-photon models and the fact you don't know what those models actually say or what experiments in them actually say doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest. That isn't an open mind.

You don't have any part. You're making qualitative claims about something you haven't even got accurate information on. Its like me trying to describe your appearance despite having no clue who you are and never having seen a picture of you. What would you say if I asserted that you have green eyes, ginger hair, are 4ft 4" and 30 stone? You'd likely say that its silly of me to presume I know your appearance, irrespective of whether I managed to get anything right and most likely I didn't. That's what you're doing, you're asserting things about subjects you have insufficient knowledge of and also flat out ignoring reality.

Is that example simple enough for you?

Do you really think your ability to copy from Wiki a single line is going to convince me you understand group theory? You haven't done high school level mathematics or Noether's theorem or quantum mechanics or anything else and yet you're pretending to know group theory? Are you so desperate that you need to repeatedly lie about the same thing, each time more ridiculous, in the hope I'll magically forget you've gotten so many things wrong and say "Wow, you're a whiz at physics!". You need to really re-evaluate your attitude to science and just intellectual honesty in general.

Yes, you can get it from a book where the explanation and experimental evidence will be provided for you in a manner which is meant to help people learn. You aren't going to get it from just thinking in your head, you aren't going to magically rederive Maxwell's equations and Noether's theorem in your head. You can't even manage calculus. You're acting as if its a matter of opinion, that you'll just think about it some more. Its not, its a matter of fact. QED conserved energy and momentum. Electromagnetism does too. GR does too. Experiments say the universe does too. No amount of musing in your head is going to change that.

You don't need to consider forces, Noether's theorem does it for you. Besides, instantaneous forces due to particle emissions is not something easily quantified. If you haven't done calculus the notion of delta function impulses is going to be within your grasp. Green's functions are central to so much of mechanics, including quantum mechanics, but that's the sort of thing you learn in that 'formal education' you're trying to convince yourself you don't need.

Well reality still disagrees with you.

Why don't you work it out? Oh wait, you haven't the first clue in how to do it.

Why don't you work it out? Oh wait, you haven't the first clue in how to do it.

Why don't you work it out? Oh wait, you haven't the first clue in how to do it.

GR and Newtonian gravity conserve momentum so immediately the answer is you're wrong. By Noether's theorem the fundamental equations of GR and NG lead to conservation of energy and momentum. Its impossible therefore to construct a system (no matter how convoluted) where momentum and energy are not conserved. The equations which govern the dynamics do not change the overall energy or momentum, that's all there is too it.

Besides, if you have any experience with gravitational mechanics (or electromagnetism) you'd know that the total momentum of the system can be written in terms of the centre of mass and no internal forces can ever act within a system which change the momentum of the centre of mass (due to Newton's Third Law) and thus while the individual momenta of the different components can change the overall momentum is unchanged, else an external force would have to act. The photons in your setup might change momentum due to gravitational interactions, altering the momenta of the charged particles but never will the total momentum change.

That's another high school result, the whole 'centre of mass' thing. And 'centre of momentum' frames get used all the time in particle collider models as they simplify the algebra but thanks to Lorentz invariance (which leads to momentum and energy conservation) that choice of frame doesn't change the predicted results. Electron-photon scatterings, electron-electron scatterings which exchange photons, proton-proton scatterings which exchange gluons, all of them are experimentally tested models which are accurate to the limits of our ability to test. Reality once again disagrees with you. And you'd know this if you'd looked at the book I recommended, centre of momentum frame is covered in that, right around the section where they do the calculations of electron-photon processes and compared to experimental observations.

Reality says you're wrong. How much more stupidity do you want to post?

Oh and if you do choose to post more ignorance, I'll not be replying tomorrow or Thursday. I get my doctorate conferred on me Thursday. Something to do with having done original creative research, that thing you keep telling me about.....

17. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
Hey congratulations on the doctorate! It was my 21st birthday and I just woke up from a coma. I don't believe in coincidence..

This is the 4th or 5th time I am attempting to reply to your post, but it is very disheartening.. the man attempts to put me down again. I KNOW what the textbooks say AN, and I KNOW that they say I am wrong. But, I will continue to pick at this issue of electric-field momentum or whatever it may be called. I would appreciate it if you told me something about the momentum of electric fields.

I have in fact figured out a way to determine the momentum of the massive objects and the emitted radiation in a very simple way.

Take the two charged objects of equal mass - one with z positive charge the other with 2z negative charge. They are placed several meters apart and let go at which point they are unaffected by any outside forces. They accelerate towards one another and because they accelerate they emit radiation.

One emits 1x radiation, the other emits 4x radiation. This is because radiation emitted is emitted according to the square law in relation to charge.

Hence, when the objects meet one will have ([potential energy] - x) kinetic energy while the other will have ([potential energy] - 4x) kinetic energy. After contact (and I am assuming they stick) the two objects will have a kinetic energy of 3x since 2x cancels out (the two objects are accelerating in opposite directions).

And I will add that things only work out this neatly if the acceleration is very small, otherwise the bremsstrahlung itself will cause acceleration and the ratio of 1:4 won't be an accurate description of emitted radiation.

So, we have an object with 3 x kinetic energy and 5 x of emitted em radiation. There is an infinite amount of scenarios with variable charge and mass and distance where momentum will not be conserved and only a few where things work out.

This is assuming we are looking at all the momentum in the system - that is why I am asking about momentum of electric fields. It certainly exists if I understand anything about canonical momentum.

18. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I'm unable to tell if you're sarcastic or not, it doesn't come over easily in text. What are you trying to say?

Its not just the textbook, its experiments too. How many times do I have to explain this to you? You say you're disheartened, as if its my fault you simply utterly fail to grasp this isn't a matter of me rejecting something which isn't mainstream, its about me rejecting things which contradict reality.

No, you really don't know what the textbooks say. You didn't even know that relativity applies at low speeds!! You've admitted you don't even understand basic calculus, so 99.99% of any actual QM textbook is inaccessible to you. You don't know what they say about photon momentum or you wouldn't just have asked that question.

How do you plan to do that? You don't know any mathematics to understand textbooks, you don't know the models in the textbooks and you have no knowledge of what experiments say. Please explain how you think you can accurately describe something which you have zero data on?

Its not my responsibility to give you a crash course in physics. If you're genuinely interested you'll put in the effort yourself. Instead you want to skip the required things to do any real physics, ie learning the relevant mathematics and reading about experimental results. I know that doing basic things like F=ma and $\nabla \cdot \nabla \times \phi = 0$ are not 'cutting edge' but they are a necessary step to getting to the cutting edge stuff. You lack the tools to comprehend the physics you denounce. It's like me correcting the grammar of someone whose speaking a language I don't know at all.

Ah, another one of your thought experiments which you've developed via intuition, calling on your considerable experience in physics.

A naive model. Initially both are at rest and feel an attractive force due to Coulomb's law. When released they accelerate towards one another and radiation breaking occurs. This produces a force, which means the net force on each particle is different from if they were say massive particles attracting one another via gravity. To find their velocities you'd need to integrate the relevant equation of motion involving acceleration. The force they feel depends on their separation and their velocity but the velocity is dependent on the force felt over the time since the particles were released. You haven't done this.

To see why this is a problem you can consider the forces the particles feel. Each particle exerts an equal and opposite force on the other, ie if you shut off radiation breaking they'd accelerate symmetrically, at any given time they'd be moving with equal and opposite velocity. If they start at say x=d and x=-d then they'll collide at x=0. Fine. But suppose you could just 'flick a switch' and turn on radiation breaking at some point during this attractive movement. It is as you say, at that instant the 2q particle would have a power output via radiation 4 times than the q particle. What you've done is assume that this is true throughout, so if you had breaking from the beginning then over the time till they collide the 2q particle will emit 4 times as much energy. Wrong. For a given velocity the 2q particle emits 4 times the energy per unit time than the q particle. But since the 2q is emitting more breaking radiation than the q particle it will feel a different net force than the q particle and thus will experience a different acceleration. It'll not be moving at the opposite velocity to the q particle for any time other than when you first 'flick the switch'. It'll emit more so it'll not be as fast and thus if 2q starts at x=-d and q at x=d then they'll collide at some x=D < 0 with the q particle moving faster than the 2q particle. This doesn't have zero momentum total, unlike the initial state, but that's to be expected as the 2q particle has emitted more photons than the q particle has and they carry momentum.

It is, however, done for the non-relativistic case here. That page also mentions how this is precisely the kind of thing which is measured in QED and is the most accurate prediction EVER.

The power output due to radiation breaking depends on the charge and the acceleration, but the acceleration itself depends on the force exerted due to that output of photons! This interdependency is non-trivial and so your assumption the 2q emitted 4 times as much is wrong. If all other things (ie acceleration) were equal you'd be right but they aren't all equal. Throughout the 2q particle feels a smaller net force and thus experiences a smaller acceleration. Hence it emits less than 4 times the amount of breaking radiation energy than the q particle does.

This is precisely the kind of mistake you'd avoid if you actually bothered to find out how the models work. You just looked up that the force due to breaking radiation is such that $F \propto Q^{2}$ but you failed to grasp that its also dependent on the motion of the particle, which is in term dependent on the force! As the Wiki page says, this kind of self interaction is quite central to such things as quantum field theory. Vacuum polarisation, beta function flow, renormalisation, g-2 precision tests. All of them involve systems whose properties interrelate to one another.

Your lack of experience with such things (basic examples of this are seen at high school level) has lead to you a false conclusion. This alone wouldn't be an issue, provided you were willing to accept correction but you aren't. You know you don't know the mathematics yet you presume that you have an absolutely accurate understanding of physics you know you've never understood (or even looked at in some cases). When I get a result which doesn't match a book or paper my first thought is "I've done something wrong". So I do it again. If I get a different answer from the book or paper each time then I ask someone else for a 'sanity check', a fresh set of eyes on the problem. If they can't see a fault in my method then I ask someone else. Only after a lengthy period of asking for other people's help do I then conclude its not me who is at fault. You're just jumping from "I don't know anything about this but I get a contradictory result" straight to "Therefore everyone else but me is wrong" without doing any checking. Its an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

How many times more are we going to go through this? How many times do you need to be demonstrated explicitly incorrect and woefully ignorant before you realise you're at fault. This isn't about whether current physics is accurate, its about you misrepresenting what you think physics says. You know you don't know yet you can't accept you're at fault when you just make stuff up and get called on it.

19. ### DRZionTheoretical ExperimentalistValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,046
I'll just keep picking at it and I'll simplify as far as I can ..

Okay, I get it, I don't know physics. But, I'm not looking to flesh out any models, I'm looking for a new propulsion system. Frankly, I don't care if momentum is conserved as long as it is done in some non-standard way.

Yeah, thats why I said the acceleration has to be vanishingly small. Like when x approaches zero. At this point the particles will meet very VERY close to the origin, and the ratio of energy emitted will be very very VERY close to 1:4. At this point we can still say that -2q emitted 4 times as much as q although its some ridiculously small quantity.

As for the recoil, I have not considered that ... at first glance it seems that if recoil is perfect, the momentum will remain 0 meaning that the emitted photons do not affect the momentum of the system so the two particles meet at different velocities while the emitted radiation does not affect momentum at all.

To expand on this - if the moving charge experiences a recoil equal to the momentum of the emitted photon, the momentum of the entire system does not change at all, right? Of course, this is not necessarily what the abraham-lorentz force is and I may be jumping to conclusions too quickly.

I think I am getting a bit too excited here but the wiki says that momentum is conserved between the charge and the emitted photon meaning the momentum of this system is 0... do you see what I'm getting at? Or do you think this argument is too superficial?

Whoa whoa whoa you are generalizing way too much here. I know you have to include the lorentz factor in the bremsstrahlung equation, meaning an integral inside of an integral, which is why I am staying the hell away from doing the calculation!!!!!

Well, it is morally and emotionally dishonest not to pursue something which I believe in - I'll pick the lesser evil thank you very much. You may be right 99% of the time but its the 1% I'm picking at.

20. ### Uno HooRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
383
I have a perplexing question. In the set of threads referenced at the bottom of this page there is an entry: "Is Conservation Of Momentum Valid In Physics In This Physics Forum?". It was initiated by CANGAS, (now permabanned) on 05-15-07. I copied the progress of this thread daily until it was locked and cesspooled. The present condition of this thread as accessed now is VASTLY different than my archive copy of it. A great number of posts have been heavily edited, and a great number have been deleted.

I am not inclined at this moment to copy my archive onto this forum, but I will briefly describe. Pete had, in another thread, blatantly claimed that Relativity does not conserve momentum but it is not to worry. CANGAS energetically defended conservation of momentum in all circumstances. One fine day, etched into my archives, Pete's posts were miraculously heavily edited and deleted so as to suddenly repent his early position and change it to a defense of momentum. Then quickly CANGAS was dirty-tricked and banned.

I have never understood what happened and why it happened.

Oh, about Dr. Zion desire for a NEW propulsion. It has been developed. It will be published at the right time and the right place.

My shrewd guess is that the story will NOT be broken on this snake pit site.

21. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
The gamma factor has nothing to do with it, the argument holds in non-relativistic electromagnetism too. The energy dumping of the 2q charge alters its velocity in a way different to the energy dumping of the q charge and thus their motion is asymmetric.

So what? The fact is that any non-zero acceleration will mean asymmetric motion between the two particles and the asymmetry is accounted for exactly by the emission energy and momentum of the photons.

You're trying to argue things don't add up right in physics yet you're basing that on a simplification you've made which is designed to make things not add up! Your entire argument is "My simplification leads to invalid predictions" and instead of saying "So my simplification isn't to be trusted too much" you say "Therefore the original full model was wrong!!". Simplifications are used when you aren't interested in exact results, only qualitative or approximate ones. You are making claims about exact models based on simplifications you've made and which are going to, by their very nature, not give exact results.

But if your simplification leads to a model/result which is only 90% accurate then you're incapable of reaching a justified conclusion.

If this 'snake pit' is such a waste of time and you refuse to 'publish' anything here and you have no interest in talking to mainstream lackeys why do you come here? There's plenty of other forums for science discussion, to come to this one and then complain its a waste of your time is just stupid.

Let me guess, it was developed by you. Is that why you wanted to know who to contact to get a Nobel Prize, you think you've got something worthy of it? All talk and no peer review makes Uno Hoo full of BS.

Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
22. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,734
You seem to a great interest in this CANGAS character; you even seem a little sympathetic to the "wrong" that was done him. Why is that?

I can assure you I am among the many members here who were irritated by his constant ignorant trolling and his arrogant assertions regarding subjects he knew nothing about, and was greatly relieved when he was banned.

I suggest you read his entire history and see if you can agree. I am sure you will...

PS You are aware the creating sock-puppets to side-step a ban is frowned upon here? I make no accusation, but just a thought.....

23. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
• CANGAS was banned temporarily, not permanently.
• You've been talking about your archives of my claim that momentum is not conserved since at least [post=1422431]March 2007[/post]. Despite [post=2059320]repeated requests[/post], you've never produced any evidence of your claim. That's why you were temporarily banned by James, as he [post=1432451]clearly stated[/post].
• You appear to think that I have engaged in wholesale editing and revamping of threads in which we were involved. You are mistaken. When I was moderator, I did, on occasion, edit posts and threads. However, I never did so without leaving a clear trail - a post explaining what was edited and why.

Last edited: Aug 1, 2010