Mass Explained

[ChildInAZoo]

But the very idea that a photon is a distortion in space is contradictory to QED.

No it isn't. Feynman said nobody knows why it works, and that we don't have a picture of the underlying reality.

But he also established limits on the possible size of a photon. How do these square with your claims?

So far, you can't even show how a photon becoming an electron can be consistent with the presence of charge in an electron.

Yes I did, in the Understanding Electromagnetism thread. The distortion travels through itself, so its path is distorted. At 511keV it's closed.

But you haven't shown how this creates charge. Let's see this worked out so we can see, from your principles, how an electron can have charge.

If you want to show that your ideas are actually describing QED, you have to show how they end up with the same mathematical theory as QED. Yet you refuse to do this.

Only because it will take too long, and is merely an attempt to derail the thread.

How is asking you to defend a claim that you have made in this thread a derail of the thread?

If I was to post links to other forums, would that show that you were a liar? I will give you some time to think whether or not you want to retract your claim that, "nobody has pointed out the mathematical and scientific flaws in those papers".

Post away. And repeat the arguments here. When you can't, we'll see that I'm not the liar.

IWhen I have some spare time, I'll look them up.

Yet you contradict yourself in the course of your argument. You write above, "Imagine it’s you moving instead of the photon." This is part of your explanation for mass. So I ask you to explain this part of your argument.

Thin gruel. This is part of relativity+, and in relativity, motion is relative. So asking the reader to imagine that the photon is at rest in order to see the symmetry between momentum and inertia is perfectly legitimate. i make it clear that the photon is not at rest when It's in the electron configuration.

This makes it look like your argument rests on a contradiction and you know that your argument rests on a contradiction. Please explain the symmetry that you are talking about when you write, "Imagine it’s you moving instead of the photon."

What in the above has anything to do with dark matter?

It explains why it doesn't exist.

But how does it do this? You can't simply make a Papal pronouncement, you have to actually show the science.

Again you are making a prediction about dark matter without any details. Are you prepared to defend your claims about dark matter with actual details?

I already have. In How gravity works. You can pretend this doesn't give details, but it's so simple that no more detail is required. Here it is again in case you missed it:

It's energy that causes gravity, not matter per se. Matter only causes gravity because of the energy content. See The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity and look at page 185 where Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". A gravitational field is a region of space that contains extra energy and in itself causes gravity, hence an integration approach is required, as per page 201. But we don't consider a gravitational field to be dark matter. We don’t go looking for WIMPs. Yes, space is "dark", and the mass of a system is a measure of its energy content, so if you defined the space around a planet as a system, it has a mass of sorts. But it isn’t matter. It’s just space. What did Einstein say about space? Neither homogeneous nor isotropic. What does the FLRW metric say? ”The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space.” Spot the difference? Gravitational anomalies aren’t evidence for dark matter. Dark matter is just a hypothesis that attempts to explain them. And those who promote it sweep the raisins-in-the-cake analogy under the carpet. The universe expands, but the space within the galaxies doesn’t, because galaxies are gravitationally bound. So each and every galaxy is surrounded by a halo of inhomogeneous space. That’s a gμν gradient. It’s a gravitational field without any matter on the end of it. So when you hear people talking about the hunt for dark matter, bear this in mind.

This is what I asked for details about. What does this have to do for observations of dark matter that do not involve the FLRW metric? How can we use the above to predict a galaxy rotation curve?

[lpetrich]

Because pair production and annihilation proves you wrong.

They do NOT. Why don't you read some textbook of quantum electrodynamics some time?

They DO, and I have. And be aware that I'm not saying that QED is wrong. I'm describing the reality that underlies it. The evanescent wave is the reality behind virtual photons. A photon travels many paths because it's a travelling displacement, a distortion that distorts all the surrounding space, and where the distortion is, the photon is.

Farsight, you are presuming the truth of your theories, which is unjustified.

You also refuse to address these questions:

• Whether you can derive QED's Lagrangian from your theories
• What departures from QED your theories predict

And more generally about the Standard Model of particle physics. Mainstream physicists are willing to address these questions, which is why their theories get taken seriously by their colleagues.

The scientific support is in the scientific evidence,

Farsight, you once again refuse to try to demonstrate that mainstream physical theories cannot account for them.

and no, nobody has pointed out the mathematical and scientific flaws in those papers,

Maybe the ones who know about those papers think that a detailed analysis would be a waste of time. Like finding the errors in a ruler-and-compass angle trisection or what makes a supposed perpetual motion machine non-perpetual.

If such a paper does not describe how its theory of the electron relates to the Dirac theory, it deserves the same status.

and they have appeared in science journals.

Which ones? Give us the journal citations.

The electron is akin to the photon-in-a-mirror-box example, only the photon is going round and round at c rather than back and forth, and there is no box. The photon is trapped by itself. Its presence increases the mass of this system from zero, because it is the system. Only we don't call it a photon any more. We call it an electron.

How does that self-trapping work? What experiments would you propose to detect the effect responsible? The existence of electrons does NOT count; invoking it is begging the question.

But the very idea that a photon is a distortion in space is contradictory to QED.

No it isn't. Feynman said nobody knows why it works, and that we don't have a picture of the underlying reality.

Pure Feynman-thumping. Just like your Einstein-thumping and Maxwell-thumping.

If you want to show that your ideas are actually describing QED, you have to show how they end up with the same mathematical theory as QED. Yet you refuse to do this.

Only because it will take too long, and is merely an attempt to derail the thread.

Farsight, that's a dumb excuse. Mainstream physicists don't make excuses like that -- they try to get the Standard Model out of their theories, mathematics and all.

What in the above has anything to do with dark matter?

It explains why it doesn't exist.

What do you think causes the effects that mainstream astronomers attribute to dark matter?

[Farsight]

Can anybody tell me anything about Rotating Hopf-Kinks: a realistic particle model by U Enz, Physica D (2006)?

[Farsight]

But he also established limits on the possible size of a photon. How do these square with your claims?

Give me the reference and I'll comment on it in the Understanding Electromagnetism thread. I'm a Feynman "fan" but he wasn't right about everything. Nobody ever is.

But you haven't shown how this creates charge. Let's see this worked out so we can see, from your principles, how an electron can have charge.

Yes I did. If you want more ask me again in the Understanding Electromagnetism thread which I started in response to a challenge from Twiglet to explain pair production.

How is asking you to defend a claim that you have made in this thread a derail of the thread?

Because you've demonstrated your insincerity, like Twiglet with his demands for mathematics merely to waste my time and distract from the discussion.

When I have some spare time, I'll look them up.

No you won't. Because there aren't any, and you know it. If there were, you'd have posted them up already. Just as you'd have posted up any flaws in this here Mass Explained. There aren't any there either.

This makes it look like your argument rests on a contradiction and you know that your argument rests on a contradiction. Please explain the symmetry that you are talking about when you write, "Imagine it’s you moving instead of the photon."

No it doesn't make it look like my argument rests on a contradiction. Don't be specious.

This is what I asked for details about. What does this have to do for observations of dark matter that do not involve the FLRW metric? How can we use the above to predict a galaxy rotation curve?

Are you for real? There are no observations of dark matter. Just of gravitational anomalies. I've given enough detail, it's simple, stop pretending otherwise.

[ChildInAZoo]

This is what I asked for details about. What does this have to do for observations of dark matter that do not involve the FLRW metric? How can we use the above to predict a galaxy rotation curve?

Are you for real? There are no observations of dark matter. Just of gravitational anomalies. I've given enough detail, it's simple, stop pretending otherwise.

Gravitational anomalies that all just happen to be exactly right for dark matter. Let's be specific: how do you predict galaxy rotation curves so that there aren't any anomalies? You have given no details about this. Where is your simple explanation that allows us to do away with these anomalies?

[Tigger]

I just split a derail from here. Please keep on topic in the "serious stuff" threads. Thanks.

[Twiglet]

I just split a derail from here. Please keep on topic in the "serious stuff" threads. Thanks.

Hey!!!

My theory is as serious as any farsight has proposed, with similar amounts of supporting evidence. Are you objecting because my particles have silly names?

Just you wait Tigger!

When the drongo field revolutionises physics, your scorn will be noted. The first glimmerings of the new physics were thrown out and cast into the pub.

[newolder]

I just split a derail from here. Please keep on topic in the "serious stuff" threads. Thanks.

Hey!!!

My theory is as serious as any farsight has proposed, with similar amounts of supporting evidence. Are you objecting because my particles have silly names?

Just you wait Tigger!

When the drongo field revolutionises physics, your scorn will be noted. The first glimmerings of the new physics were thrown out and cast into the pub.

What's a drongo derail?
[/stand-up]

Is the drongo field a) additional to Higgs, b) Hodge dual, c) Other (plz xplain)?

[Twiglet]

I just split a derail from here. Please keep on topic in the "serious stuff" threads. Thanks.

Hey!!!

My theory is as serious as any farsight has proposed, with similar amounts of supporting evidence. Are you objecting because my particles have silly names?

Just you wait Tigger!

When the drongo field revolutionises physics, your scorn will be noted. The first glimmerings of the new physics were thrown out and cast into the pub.

What's a drongo derail?
[/stand-up]

Is the drongo field a) additional to Higgs, b) Hodge dual, c) Other (plz xplain)?

The drongo field underpins the Higgs mechanism, but with deeper significance. Higgs was a charlatan who did not extend his work to the logical conclusion. The drongo field is both luminiferous and transient. The field is instanced through measurement, but permeates spacetime like a fixed membrane. This is why the uncertainty principle manifests, because when events happen, the drongo field is forced to localise regionally. This creates curvature explaining gravitation.

Is the drongo field a) additional to Higgs, b) Hodge dual, c) Other (plz xplain)? [/quote]

[newolder]

The drongo field underpins the Higgs mechanism, but with deeper significance.

It's the paper (or other surface) from which the Higgs mechanism emerges after long, deep thought and scratching?

Higgs was a charlatan who did not extend his work to the logical conclusion.

You speak of Peter Higgs in the past tense.

The drongo field is both luminiferous and transient. The field is instanced through measurement, but permeates spacetime like a fixed membrane.

Ah! It's more like the template of a pdf document.

This is why the uncertainty principle manifests, because when events happen, the drongo field is forced to localise regionally. This creates curvature explaining gravitation.

So a drongo particle (a field localised at an event) would be like day 1 in the life of a 'Best seller' novel (instant attraction to a new paradigm) that is then read/annihilated in/by literary circles of various dimension. The drongo field is neutral but the quanta expressed may be fractionally charged. This leads naturally to currents in the flow.

Am I close?

[Twiglet]

The drongo field underpins the Higgs mechanism, but with deeper significance.

It's the paper (or other surface) from which the Higgs mechanism emerges after long, deep thought and scratching?

You will never understand how deep newolder, never! But yes, you have bgan to scratch the surface. It is deep, very deep.

You speak of Peter Higgs in the past tense.

I speak of his actions in the past tense. Except that tense is a function of time, and therefore the formulation of your sentence is incorrect. Higgs inhabits a surface, much like a painting of all that is Higgs throughout the spatial possibility of Higgs. In a small but significant corner of that painting, Higgs is located in charlatan space, but I reduced myself to describing charlatan space in temporal terms and must now go and flog myself!!!

Whoops, look, I did it again! See what you made me do... I now inhabit the cordinates of my existence where I am reduced to describing events in temporal terms... dammit!

Ah! It's more like the template of a pdf document.

Yes!

Because it's really difficult to get it to do anytrhing useful.

So a drongo particle (a field localised at an event) would be like day 1 in the life of a 'Best seller' novel (instant attraction to a new paradigm) that is then read/annihilated in/by literary circles of various dimension. The drongo field is neutral but the quanta expressed may be fractionally charged. This leads naturally to currents in the flow.

Am I close?

You are close whenever you appreciate my genius and expand my ideas in unintelligable ways which are generally disagreeable to anyone who knows anything about science. That is when you are closest, and may reflectively bathe in my genius. I applaud your openmindedness newolder. Together we will crush the old physics!!!

Onwards!!!

[newolder]

Onwards!!!

Health & Safety report that moving onwards requires more foundation here before the next step is made. IOW, This path is new to me but recognisable so I'll probably take a few steps backwards before attempting further progress. If you don't mind?

In a system where 1 <> 0 we have a non-trivial field, D.

[Twiglet]

Onwards!!!

Health & Safety report that moving onwards requires more foundation here before the next step is made. IOW, This path is new to me but recognisable so I'll probably take a few steps backwards before attempting further progress. If you don't mind?

In a system where 1 <> 0 we have a non-trivial field, D.

The pdf comment was a gem still chuckling about that one

Anyway, I think the theory has reached the limit of its predictive value.....

[newolder]

Onwards!!! to 'limit' in 1 post. Now that's what I call parsimony.

P.S. Here's a working example of mass transfer:

[Farsight]

Twiglet: you started a thread on mass that was garbage because it portrayed the Higgs Field as being responsible for mass when in fact it's only responsible for 1% of mass. Now you're trying desperately to derail this one? That's dishonest, and it's damaging to the forum. I'm putting in a complaint.

Now who wants to talk about mass? It's all very simple. See the OP. Don't let anybody tell you it's mysterious, and that you couldn't possibly understand it, or start wittering on about the fabulous Higgs boson. Einstein solved the mystery of mass in 1905.