Why c is the limit

[Farsight]

The picture tells us nothing. Can you demonstrate how the orbital behavior produces spin 1/2 behavior? You are making predictions about specific behavior described mathematically, so step up and show us.

The picture tells you plenty, munchkin. Look at the dark black line and how it loops round twice to form the moebius doughnut. You want the maths, go read the original paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw

[ChildInAZoo]

The picture tells us nothing. Can you demonstrate how the orbital behavior produces spin 1/2 behavior? You are making predictions about specific behavior described mathematically, so step up and show us.

The picture tells you plenty, munchkin. Look at the dark black line and how it loops round twice to form the moebius doughnut. You want the maths, go read the original paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw

What part of that article details the spin 1/2 behavior?

[Farsight]

Where/how do muons and tau leptons (and their associated neutrinos) appear in your model? How does your model explain a muon's rest mass? And that of a tau lepton anti-neutrino? Can you post a table of elementary entities and their properties? Does your model predict any new entities at lhc energies or beyond?

Take a look at muon decay work it out. A muon is a configuration that combines the electron configuration with neutrino configurations. It usually decays into an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino. An electron-neutrino or antineutrino is a running-loop stress-energy configuration, a muon neutrino is similar but with more loops. A muon is thus like an electron in terms of twist, but with a lot more turns hence more stress-energy and hence more mass. It's like a moebius strip after you've added a number of additional untwisted loops. I haven't explained the muon rest mass, or the proton mass either. The tau involves more loops again. "My" model predicts stable pentaquarks then septaquarks etc, maybe a lot more. See http://www.knotplot.com/zoo/ for a table of knots. Massive stable particles are knots of stress-energy in a closed-loop configuration. See topological quantum field theory and Atiyah and knots. or better still just sit down and read relativity+. It only takes an afternoon. Then you'll get the gist of it, or alternatively better able to argue against what I'm saying. There's a couple of little mistakes in there, but nothing serious.

Gotta go.

[lpetrich]

The picture tells us nothing. Can you demonstrate how the orbital behavior produces spin 1/2 behavior? You are making predictions about specific behavior described mathematically, so step up and show us.

The picture tells you plenty, munchkin. Look at the dark black line and how it loops round twice to form the moebius doughnut. You want the maths, go read the original paper: http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw

Farsight, that argument is nothing but an argumentum ex picturis bellis. I cannot find anything in that diagram that indicates that electrons have spin 1/2.

[lpetrich]

Where/how do muons and tau leptons (and their associated neutrinos) appear in your model? How does your model explain a muon's rest mass? And that of a tau lepton anti-neutrino? Can you post a table of elementary entities and their properties? Does your model predict any new entities at lhc energies or beyond?

Take a look at muon decay work it out. A muon is a configuration that combines the electron configuration with neutrino configurations. It usually decays into an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino. An electron-neutrino or antineutrino is a running-loop stress-energy configuration, a muon neutrino is similar but with more loops. A muon is thus like an electron in terms of twist, but with a lot more turns hence more stress-energy and hence more mass. It's like a moebius strip after you've added a number of additional untwisted loops. I haven't explained the muon rest mass, or the proton mass either. The tau involves more loops again. "My" model predicts stable pentaquarks then septaquarks etc, maybe a lot more. See http://www.knotplot.com/zoo/ for a table of knots. Massive stable particles are knots of stress-energy in a closed-loop configuration. See topological quantum field theory and Atiyah and knots. or better still just sit down and read relativity+. It only takes an afternoon. Then you'll get the gist of it, or alternatively better able to argue against what I'm saying. There's a couple of little mistakes in there, but nothing serious.

Farsight, that is pure assertion, and rather bizarre sorts of assertion at that. So a muon contains a muon neutrino, an electron antineutrino, and an electron?

That's strange, because scattering experiments show that muons follow the Dirac equation, just like electrons do -- they don't have other particles inside of them, and they act just like electrons.

Farsight, since you have access to all these difficult-to-get books and papers, you could use some of your access privileges to hunt down reviews of e+e- scattering and tests of the Standard Model of particle physics. You'll find that the Standard Model is right on the dot as far as it can be tested. The Standard Model is also right on the dot about muon decay.

[newolder]

Where/how do muons and tau leptons (and their associated neutrinos) appear in your model? How does your model explain a muon's rest mass? And that of a tau lepton anti-neutrino? Can you post a table of elementary entities and their properties? Does your model predict any new entities at lhc energies or beyond?

Take a look at muon decay work it out. A muon is a configuration that combines the electron configuration with neutrino configurations. It usually decays into an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino. An electron-neutrino or antineutrino is a running-loop stress-energy configuration, a muon neutrino is similar but with more loops. A muon is thus like an electron in terms of twist, but with a lot more turns hence more stress-energy and hence more mass. It's like a moebius strip after you've added a number of additional untwisted loops. I haven't explained the muon rest mass, or the proton mass either. The tau involves more loops again. "My" model predicts stable pentaquarks then septaquarks etc, maybe a lot more. See http://www.knotplot.com/zoo/ for a table of knots. Massive stable particles are knots of stress-energy in a closed-loop configuration. See topological quantum field theory and Atiyah and knots. or better still just sit down and read relativity+. It only takes an afternoon. Then you'll get the gist of it, or alternatively better able to argue against what I'm saying. There's a couple of little mistakes in there, but nothing serious.

Gotta go.

Why the evasion?

What particles does this model predict that are not a construction of the following items and their anti-matter cousins?

[Farsight]

That's strange, because scattering experiments show that muons follow the Dirac equation, just like electrons do -- they don't have other particles inside of them, and they act just like electrons.

That's a straw man argument, lpetrich. I didn't say particles have other particles inside of them. I said different particles are different stress-energy combinations, which one can emulate using paper strips.

Farsight, since you have access to all these difficult-to-get books and papers, you could use some of your access privileges to hunt down reviews of e+e- scattering and tests of the Standard Model of particle physics. You'll find that the Standard Model is right on the dot as far as it can be tested. The Standard Model is also right on the dot about muon decay.

Another straw man. I haven't been saying that the standard model is wrong. What I have said is that your interpretation of the underlying reality is wrong, but that's a different thing altogether.

[Farsight]

Why the evasion?

There's no evasion, just a two-year-old.

What particles does this model predict that are not a construction of the following items and their anti-matter cousins?

A fourth generation. And a fifth. Like I said, there's no end to it. The point you're missing newolder, is that all these components are in themselves constructions. These aren't the lowest common denominator. Instead stress-energy travelling at c is, and when it's in some particular configuration, we give it a name. Like a photon or an electron or a neutrino or a quark. A quark is a loop, that's all. Go and look at low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons, and really take on board the fact that those quarks have totally and utterly gone.

Gotta go. He's woken up.

[ChildInAZoo]

[hat's a straw man argument, lpetrich. I didn't say particles have other particles inside of them. I said different particles are different stress-energy combinations, which one can emulate using paper strips.

Can you demonstrate how your "paper strips" make predictions about the properties of muons?

[mistermack]

How does matter emit light? If it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to light speed?
.

[Farsight]

Can you demonstrate how your "paper strips" make predictions about the properties of muons?

No. All they do is offer intuitive understanding that is superior to the commonly-held "point particle" concept.

[Farsight]

How does matter emit light?

There's various ways. Typically you slow down an electron, and the emitted light is akin to the "inverse" Compton effect. But instead of increasing photon energy from x to y, you increase it from 0 to x so creating a photon. Another way to emit light is via annihilation. But then the matter isn't there any more.

If it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to light speed?

Yes it would. But do read the thread to understand why. It's scarily simple.

[newolder]

A fourth generation. And a fifth. Like I said, there's no end to it.

Your model predicts a fourth generation of fermions. Can you calculate the rest masses these objects will have upon discovery? Get 1 right and you win a prize.

The point you're missing newolder, is that all these components are in themselves constructions.

My toy box contains 33 known items: 6 quarks + 6 antiquarks, 6 leptons + 6 antileptons, a gluon and its anti, 2 charged W bosons & their antis, a neutral Z boson and its anti and a photon. In order for me to construct something with rest mass (such that it doesn't explode at c in all directions upon being revealed to another human being), my kit requires at least one additional item. How do you construct mass from your loops?

stress-energy travelling at c is

the lowest common denominator.
How does this not radiate during a direction change?

[ChildInAZoo]

Can you demonstrate how your "paper strips" make predictions about the properties of muons?

No. All they do is offer intuitive understanding that is superior to the commonly-held "point particle" concept.

How do they do this? The "point particle" concept comes with the ability to make predictions about the porperties of muons. How can that not make it superior to your "paper strips"?

[lpetrich]

That's strange, because scattering experiments show that muons follow the Dirac equation, just like electrons do -- they don't have other particles inside of them, and they act just like electrons.

That's a straw man argument, lpetrich. I didn't say particles have other particles inside of them. I said different particles are different stress-energy combinations, which one can emulate using paper strips.

Farsight, you won't EVER be taken seriously in the mainstream scientific community unless you work that out mathematically. You can whine all you want about how hard it is to get published, but you won't make life easier for yourself by wanting to publish what journal editors would consider shoddy work.

I haven't been saying that the standard model is wrong. What I have said is that your interpretation of the underlying reality is wrong, but that's a different thing altogether.

All this talk about "interpretation" strikes me as changing the rules in the middle of the game. Farsight, are you conceding that you are unable to derive

Standard Model (mathematical formulation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from your photon loops?

What particles does this model predict that are not a construction of the following items and their anti-matter cousins?

A fourth generation. And a fifth. Like I said, there's no end to it. The point you're missing newolder, is that all these components are in themselves constructions. These aren't the lowest common denominator. Instead stress-energy travelling at c is, and when it's in some particular configuration, we give it a name. Like a photon or an electron or a neutrino or a quark. A quark is a loop, that's all. Go and look at low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons, and really take on board the fact that those quarks have totally and utterly gone.

Antiprotons have antiquarks, antiparticles of the quarks in protons. Farsight, such elementary flubs won't get your theories accepted.

Also, Farsight, can you predict the masses of the quarks and leptons? Their mixing angles? Can you do that for the 4th and 5th and additional generations that you claim to exist?

Can you demonstrate how your "paper strips" make predictions about the properties of muons?

No. All they do is offer intuitive understanding that is superior to the commonly-held "point particle" concept.

What does "intuitive understanding" have to do with the correctness of a theory?

Farsight, all we've been getting from you is empty verbiage and pretty pictures.

If it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to light speed?

Yes it would. But do read the thread to understand why. It's scarily simple.

Farsight, your theory is worthless unless you can predict Einstein's value of the kinetic energy.