Abraham Lincoln quote - "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".

While I know many of you will think I should be silent, that I am the fool, but the burden of Understanding is mostly upon you, the reader (of these theories).

Darkchilde, I caution you with this quotation because I just read some of your responses and when I have the time, I have many corrections to suggest regarding what you have posted. It seems more than obvious to me that you are making many errors here.

It may be days before I can post any more responses though.

Yeah right, when everyone, including all of mainstream science say you're wrong and you have no clue what you're talking about, it must them being wrong and not understanding your "theories".

Dunning-Kruger in action.

Unfortunately, at this time I am unable to enter any debates. I have some rl stuff to take care of, and I will not be able to do proper research and anything similar, at least until the end of April. After that, depending on how some stuff has proceeded, I may be able to enter a debate.

Yeah, probably, hack, but still, I cannot at this time. After the end of April I may be able to.

After this response, please post your questions and comments meant for me on the forum: Work of Harley Borgais...
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post793302.html#p793302
I will not be checking this one very often.

DarkChilde wrote:

Seems like you fail at maths too...
You can calculate the area between a curve and a straight line using INTEGRALS.
They can be 100% accurate.
You can say that a circumference is equal to π. No need to go further...
No need for long winded calculations, with hundreds and hundreds of decimals.
We do not need the 100% accuracy.
There is a way to calculate errors accurately, especially when doing scientific experiments. It always depends on the kind of calculations you are doing, and how much accuracy you need.

As my references said, using Pi, Sine, Cosine, Tangent, and other equations which utilize Pi (involving the relationship between a curve and a straight line), will always have a range of error. Pretty much all the important equations have this problem. All of these examples, including algorithms, integrals, etc. are inaccurate because they always have this range of error, they always have these indivisible remainders. In every case you must round something off or estimate for a definite answer, and you never know if it is exactly correct.

Nothing you have posted disputes this, rather you have supported these conjectures.

When you are plotting trajectories to other planets you are dealing with for example 34,175,415 miles to get to Mars (The closest point in recent memory was back in 2003, when Earth and Mars were separated by only 55 million km). If the orbiter strikes Earth's atmosphere at an angle of less than 28 degrees, the orbiter could bounce back into space.
If the angle is more than 38 degrees, the drag will be so great that the orbiter will burn up in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Earth's atmosphere is about 300 miles (480 km) thick, but most of the atmosphere (about 80%) is within 10 miles (16 km) of the surface of the Earth.

When figuring out black hole equations you must relate atoms and particles to stellar masses. Under most definitions the radii of isolated neutral atoms range between 30 and 300 pm (trillionths of a meter), or between 0.3 and 3 angstroms. Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm). The size of our Milky Ways central Black Hole is 287,602,922,000 miles. The size of Neutrons and Protons (not to mention Quarks, Photons and Electrons), compared to Stars, Black Holes and Galaxies is an extreme scale.

A small mis-calculation within these scales causes failure of Re-Entry and death to the astronaut. We used to use Vernier sliding scales (rulers) to figure these things out (like the first moon landing) and that was more accurate in certain ways.

-----------------------------------------
Here is the rest of the link for the following quote:

"How Do We Know Quarks Are Real? The answer is simply that all our calculations depend on their existence and give the right answers for the experiments."http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html

DarkChilde wrote:

"Again you are wrong. Because it is not just protons and neutrons that exist, but other particles as well. Particles made of quarks and anti-quarks, that have been observed in particle collision. And if you do remember an atom of anti-hydrogen was made, using anti-quarks."

"What is new is that we have managed to hold onto those atoms,” said Hangst, by keeping atoms of antihydrogen away from the walls of their container to prevent them from getting annihilated for nearly a tenth of a second." (http://www.universetoday.com/79370/anti ... irst-time/)

All those other particles last for much smaller fractions before annihilating into photons, and those photons are eventually absorbed by electrons in atoms (and turned into extra momentum of that electron -or spat back out as a photon).

Electrons and Protons can exist indefinitely. Neutrons can also, inside of stable atoms. Outside of atoms Neutrons get about 15 minutes, then they break up into an Electron, a Proton, and a Neutrino (which turns to a photon in nanoseconds).

Something exists when its form can perpetuate. If a form cannot be maintained, it cannot exist for any extended period of time.

Maybe it is inappropriate for me to say the "don't Exist" though. I will need a better way to distinguish between real and virtual particles (those names are not well understood however).

I said: "A neutron breaks into a proton and an electron with some extra momentum (the neutrino)."

DarkChilde wrote:

A neutrino is not momentum! Do you ... know anything about physics? Do you know what a neutrino is? Do you know what momentum is? If you did you would not say the above.

Here is a reference to support that...

The fact that the electrons produced from the neutron decay had continuous distributions of energy and momentum was a clear indication that there was another particle emitted along with the electron and proton. It had to be a neutral particle and in certain decays carried almost all the energy and momentum of the decay.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

--If you prefer, I could define particles as Pressure in Motion, or Volumes (or regions) of Pressure in Motion. Those would actually be more accurate.--
Other scientists call it the Ether, Virtual Particles, Quantum Foam, Etherons, or my preference, the Medium, but no matter what you call it, particles are composed of simply Two Opposite Pressures (-/+) and Momentum.

Sure, I said Neutrino, when I should have said anti-neutrino, but they are their own anti-particles. That means the only difference between an anti-neutrino and a neutrino is the direction it is moving. That is not a real difference to me.

DarkChilde wrote:

A neutrino or anti-neutrino is a particle with mass and no charge!

Like all particles, Neutrinos have magnetic moments, so they do have two opposite charges. Magnetic dipoles are produced by spinning charges. -&+ Charges are pressures (of 3D space itself). Any neutral particle is both -&+, not something different. Neutron decay proves that. Please find your own references for these points.

Notice how these equations revolve around momentum and how you cannot describe what they are without mentioning their momentum. The difference between particles is the configuration of momentum around the three axis.

Photons are supposed to have no mass, but they obviously can induce momentum (see a Crookes radiometer).

The difference lies between stable particles like Electrons and Protons (and Neutrons in atomic nuclei), and then all the other ephemeral particles like photons, neutrinos, quarks, etc. Photons would be the most common and therefore, likely the simplest configuration of momentum around three axis.

So that is how I will distinguish them from now on: Stable Vs. Ephemeral Particles.

I think that covers it.

Again...PLEASE DIRECT ANY RESPONSES FROM NOW ON TO: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... 15672.html

hackenslash wrote:I think Darkchilde would be the perfect candidate.

Actually, I withdraw that comment. Last time I made such a comment, we had the sticksnstones/Theropod débâcle, for which I'm still not sure Theropod has forgiven me.

Oh I never held any ill will towards you, hack, for suggesting such a shitfest as that supposed "debate".

RS

Harley wrote: If Dark Matter is specially interlinked Neutrons

Oldskeptic wrote:IceCube has pretty much eliminated all particles except WIMPs as composing dark matter. I don't think that neutrons were ever even considered.

I would like to see a link to the above elimination of particles as dark matter, as well as any real evidence that shows the hypothetical WIMP's actually even exist.

And why were neutrons not even considered?

Search the thread linked below for my description of how Neutrons get Coupled during certain supernovas, and form into a crystalline form of matter which is unique in the universe, and makes Black Holes which account for much of the Dark Matter (possibly most of it). Also note that the Dark Matter is NOT inside of the solar systems, but between them, or perhaps only in the center and/or halo of galaxies. (I am working this one out)

Harley wrote: and if Neutrons are an Electron and Proton in a special, tight, binary orbit

Oldskeptic wrote:An electron orbiting a proton is a hydrogen atom. And the tightest orbit that an electron can have around a proton in a hydrogen atom is called the rest state/lowest energy level of the atom, the electron can't get any closer. Furthermore a binary orbital system between a proton and an electron is not likely due to the extreme differences in mass.

All your statements above are exactly true, except they do not apply to what I am referring to.
When a Neutron decays it turns into a Proton, Electron, and an anti-neutrino...

As for the binary orbital pattern between the opposing charges, I probably cannot prove or disprove that until I learn some more math (which is my current obstacle/goal for "How We Exist" at: freeornottobe.org), and get a 3D animation made to represent it.

Harley wrote: Like all particles, Neutrinos have magnetic moments,

Oldskeptic wrote:No they don't, if they did then they wouldn't be neutrinos. If neutrinos had magnetic moment then they would be effected by magnetic fields, which they are not in any way. Neutrinos have no electrical charge and only interact with the weak force and gravity. Neutrons do have magnetic moment though it is very small, and this is because a neutron is composed of three quarks. Two down with electrical charge of -1/3 each and one up with electrical charge of +2/3.

The source of Magnetic Dipoles is the spin of a charge differential. All particles spin, and have Either negative, positive charge, or both combined. That is why all particles have magnetic moments...
"The upper limits for the neutrino magnetic moment with and without atomic ionization mechanism were found to be 5.0x10^-12 and 3.2x10^-11 Bohr magnetons at 90% CL, respectively. " (http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2736)
"A minimal extension of the Standard Model (with non-zero neutrino masses) yields a neutrino magnetic moment of" (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0601/0601113v1.pdf)

Harley wrote: so they do have two opposite charges.

Oldskeptic wrote:No they don't, they have no charge whatsoever. Neutrinos are not composed of quarks. They don't have offsetting charges, they do not have charge.

The thing is that quarks, WIMPs, and many other so called particles cannot exist for more than a small fraction of a second, which is why I like to call them "Ephemeral Particles". They are temporary or transitional forms of energy, not real particles like Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons. Their anti-matter counter-parts may count as real particles, but the longest lived anti-matter atom was still only in existence for a small fraction of a second.

Quarks are called "Partons" because they are really only Parts of particles. Neutrinos also are short lived. They are not composed of more elementary particles, that is a mis-conception.

So the Neutrinos are composed of Negative AND Positive charge from the Separation of the Electron and Proton which did form a Neutron. And when an atom forms a neutron from a proton (when it is short a neutron), it consumes an electron from its shells and emits a Neutrino (the exact opposite of what it emits when the neutron decays).

All particles are essentially composed of just relative angular momentum. What physically carries that momentum is irrelevant since the smallest stable units of matter are Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons. I prefer to call it the Medium, or the fabric of space-time, which is woven by threads which are all the EM waves combined. The difference between the particles is the geometric arrangement of angular momentum (around the three physical dimensions) and charge (-&+ which is along the same 4th dimension as time).

Harley wrote: Any neutral particle is both -&+

Oldskeptic wrote:Not true.

Above I described why it is.

Harley wrote: Neutron decay proves that.

Oldskeptic wrote:No it doesn't.

Above I described why it is.

Harley wrote: Please find your own references for these points.

Oldskeptic wrote:You're getting pretty smug about something that you do not seem to understand.

Yeah, I should not have posted that sentence.
But in this very post are some, and in this thread are many more references: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... 15672.html

harleyborgais,

I thought you were done with this thread and would only participate in your work thread. What happened there?

You have assertions to support elsewhere!

RS

theropod, that was because it was more than I could handle at the time, but this post from Oldskeptic made me want to reply.

The neutron magnetic moment is measured to be −1.9130427(5) μN, where μN is the nuclear magneton.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment)

"The neutron's predicted magnetic moment is −1.913 036 7μN, versus −1.913 042 7 ± 0.000 000 5μN measured" (http://physicsessays.org/resource/1/phe ... horized=no)

And as you see, the magnetic moment of the neutron is slightly larger than measured. However, the proton measurements matched predictions on the bottom link.