Time Machine

The strong force, the weak force and gravity are not different forms of expression of EMR. The strong force binds the particles of atomic nuclei together. The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay. Gravity is an expression of mass. EMR is photons.--Percy

To All:I don't know why V-Bird is posting as he is, but my advice is to take everything he says with a large grain of salt.--Percy

And yet...here you are!You might find FFA better suited for you. Except for not straying too far or too long off topic, there's mostly no moderation here. You can say and do pretty much as you like, including taking pot shots at the admins and moderators.Of course, it's also an opportunity to demonstrate you're ready to have the restrictions removed.In Welcome visitors you asked why you'd been restricted. In Message 4 you said, "The acid on my tongue is as natural as the serpents and will fall from the sky much like Doves do when they annoy the hell out of me on a Sunday Morning." I had no way of knowing at the time whether this was truth or hyperbole, but naturally such a style will inevitably conflict with the Forum Guidelines, e.g.:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

Your posts exhibited a number of violations of this guideline, and you effectively combined this with violations of guideline 2:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

Also, your posts contain what appear to be obvious errors, to the point where in very short order myself, Eta Carinae and Beercules decided you either didn't know what you were talking about or were being purposefully obscure. Then your Message 119 gave me cause for concern.Your behavior in FFA and the other permitted forums will determine if and when the restrictions are lifted.--Percy Fix typo. --Percy[This message has been edited by Percy, 03-25-2004]

You are asserting much and explaining little. It would help if you would frame your arguments in familiar terms. For example, EMR is photons, while the strong force is gluons. Why do you believe they're really both EMR?--Percy

That isn't what you said, though. If you'd like to make a different point about the energy of photons and gluons then please go right ahead, by all means, but this particular subthread is about your statement in Message 47 about the four fundamental forces being different expressions of EMR: This is wrong.Right?--Percy

Perhaps we can approach this another way.Do you believe you're describing current accepted views within physics? If so, could you point us to a website or book that explains the same things you're trying to explain?Or are you actually presenting your own particular physics theories?--Percy

What you're doing is avoiding explaining your views. I've read much by Einstein and Feynmann, as I'm sure have many others here, and nothing you've said sounds familiar. If you believe you're presenting currently accepted views within physics, then I suggest you provide a reference to a website or book you believe is saying the same thing. Perhaps once your statements are placed in a familiar context they won't look so wrong.--Percy

We don't have any opposing views. The vast majority of us here accept the current views of modern physics, which you claim to also be expounding, except that no one can make sense of anything you're saying.You've only been asked for a reference to material saying the same thing you are. Your refusal to do so is the typical response of someone who's blowing smoke, which is just what everyone already suspected anyway. I didn't expect you to so quickly or unambiguously confirm suspicions.--Percy

Does anybody? As I've said before, I never weighed in on this issue. Most of the rest of your message is just a list of unsupported assertions.I originally commented solely on your assertions regarding the four fundamental forces being expressions of EMR, and I have and will continue to confine myself solely to that. In this message you say it again: If this is actually a prevailing view within contemporary physics, why not just provide a reference? Your continued avoidance of this simple request is really all the answer necessary.--Percy Fix typo. --Percy[This message has been edited by Percy, 03-29-2004]

Well, obviously not me. I never claimed any particular gift for comprehending nonsense.Your link, Chapter 6, Virtual Photons, is from An Advanced Treatise In SUBSPACE and QUANTUM ASPECTS of BIOLOGY by Professor William C. Nelson of the College of Practical Homeopathy, London England, and it appears at the website of Quantum Alliance where "Ancient Healing Meets Modern Technology". This is a quack website, plus it offers you no support since it says: The question was whether you were describing prevailing views within modern physics. You replied by referencing Einstein and Feynman. Now, when pressed, you provide a link that not only is of questionable merit, but even it only characterizes such views as yours as speculations. If you'd like to discuss some of the more esoteric ideas being explored in modern physics, then you should just say so, because misrepresenting them as accepted is contrary to the Forum Guidelines (see #7) and can get one restricted to Free For All. But I guess you knew that already. Your other link is to The Origin of Galaxies by Erik Haeffner. He proposes the CER (Condensed Electromagnetic Radiation) Wave Packet Concept to explain mass and charge. There are few links for CER found by Google, and they all derive directly or indirectly from the aforementioned Haeffner. He's written a couple of unpublished papers, one mentioned above, the other A Physical Origin of Mass and Charge that appeared at Galilean Electrodynamics, a website promoting work critical of relativity theory - interesting that you mentioned Einstein as supporting your views earlier today.There doesn't appear to be much at this point separating your views from those of the quacks you cited. You might consider joining Alan Cresswell over at the Perpetual Motion thread --Percy

I never said otherwise. I only commented on the irony of offering both Einstein and Haeffner in support.Do you want to discuss your ideas? Now that we've gotten past the pose that they're part of mainstream physics, this might be possible. I suggest taking it one very small step at a time. Speaking of time, we could start with that.I don't think anyone here believes time has any physical manifestation, but reaching agreement on the nature of time might be problematic because of it's somewhat ethereal and relativistic properties. Is there some property of time especially important to explaining your views? Perhaps we could focus on that.--Percy

--Percy