| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Q-on" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 09:23:50 PM |
| Object: |
Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
(ok, bryan testing 1 2 3...)
Quoting Richard Feynman in his book "Feynman Lectures of
Physics Vol. 2" pp. 12.12, 12.13:
"Could it be that the real world consists of little X-ons which
can be seen only at very tiny distances? And that in our
measurements we are always observing on such a large scale that
we can' t see these little X-ons, and that is why we get the
differential equations?
Our currently most complete theory of electrodynamics does indeed
have its difficulties at very short distances. So it is possible,
in principle, that these equations are smoothed - out versions of
something. They appear to be correct at distances down to about
10-14 cm, but then they begin to look wrong. It is possible that
there is some as yet undiscovered underlying "machinery," and
that the details of an underlying complexity are hidden in the
smooth - looking equations - as is so in the "smooth" diffusion
of neutrons. But no one has yet formulated a successful theory
that works that way."
LaViolette, a scientist, comments on the above Feynman lectures
in the following (I like his theory that particles are not
close system but open system, I'll comment after the following). La
violette wrote:
"The idea that a particle's energy potential field could be due
to the diffusion of some kind of subquantum medium was put forth
in a very hypothetical way in 1964 by the Nobel laureate
physicist Richard Feynman and two of his colleagues, R. B.
Leighton and M. Sands. In their introductory physics text,
Feynman Lectures of Physics, they compared the electric potential
field around an electron to the concentration profile produced by
neutrons diffusing out of the core of a nuclear reactor. They
portrayed an e lectron as a tiny nuclear reactor whose core
radiates a flux of subquantum particles called "little X-ons";
the concentration of these outwardly diffusing particles, they
noted, would drop off inversely with radial distance, just like
the electric potential field around an electron. Speculating that
the electron's field might actually be an X-on concentration
profile, they state:
(shown in the Feynman quotes at the start this message - Q-on)
At the time of their writing in the early 1960s, little work had
been done on open reaction systems. Had these physicists known
about the Model G reaction-diffusion system and its ability to
spawn localized field-generating concentration patterns, perhaps
they would have given more serious attention to their reactor
model analogy. To do so, however, they would have had to take the
bold step of rejecting the special theory of relativity and
returning to the concept of an ether. (X-on note: La Violette is
using the Lorentz Ether Theory as support of his extended model)
By explaining how a particle's charge and mass originate and how
they generate a particle's electric and gravitational potential
fields, the open-system physics ("") explains aspects of the
microphysical world left unexplained by modern physics theories.
Modern physicists usually reduce charge, mass, and spin to
symbols (q, m, and s) and mathematically define them in reference
to specific sets of observational data. They do not explain how
these properties come into being, nor how they generate a
particle's electrostatic or gravitational field.
The energy fields of the ("") ether physics have several other
advantages over modern field theory models. First, they avoid the
so-called infinite-energy absurdity of contemporary physics. in
conventional field theory, a particle's field arises from an
infinitely small point, and the energy potential of the field
increases without limit toward the particle's center. In the ("")
reaction-kinetic physics, on the other hand, the particle's field
potential tapers off to a finite value at the particle's center .
The field model that emerges from the ("") physics also resolves
the so-called field-particle dualism that has long troubled
physics. This problem had its roots in the mechanistic
luminiferous ether theory devised by physicists of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Physicists in those days sought to
describe nature in terms of two very different substances: ether
and matter. They hypothesized the existence of an ether primarily
as a way of explaining the long-range transmission of light,
radiant energy, and forces. Material bodies, on the other hand,
were thought t o be composed not of ether but of fundamental
particles configured as tiny impenetrable spheres. The ether was
conceived to surround these spheres as water surrounds immersed
stones (figure 10.6a). Moreover, the ether was assumed to be
completely frictionless and inert and hence incapable of exerting
any kind of force on matter.
This ether-particle dichotomy presented the following problem. An
electrically charged particle was supposed to generate and
somehow impress an electric field upon the ambient ether, and
this in turn was supposed to exert forces upon distant charges
and cause them to move. But how could two compositionally
distinct entities, matter and ether, act upon one another and, at
the same time, be totally isolated from one another and mutually
noninteractive? When physicists abandoned the ether concept, they
did not rid themselves of this dualism. The same force field
equations developed during the era of the luminiferous ether were
carried forward, leaving this dualism hanging in the vacuum of
space like the grin of an invisible Cheshire cat. Only its name
changed; it came to be called the field-particle dualisrn. Fields
mediated the interaction of fundamental particles, but
paradoxically they did not compose them.
Einstein opposed this fragmented view of nature. He noted that
the practice of treating subatomic particles as mass points
distinct from their field ambient fragmented the field-continuum
of space into a nearly infinite number of pieces. He felt that a
workable field theory should require that the field have unbroken
continuity throughout all regions of space. In his 1950 magazine
article, he stated:
The combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of
material points discontinuous in space appears inconsistent. A
consistent field theory requires continuity of all elements of
the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points
of space. Hence the material particle [as a distinct entity] has
no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory.
Einstein sought to devise a unified field theory that could
represent physical reality by a continuous field that in turn
would account for the laws of electromagnetics as well as for the
laws of motion and gravitation. He saw a material particle not as
a mass point, but as a limited region in space having a
particularly high field strength or energy density, a bunching of
the field continuum itself (figure 10.6b). His thoughts later
developed into what is today called quantum field theory.
In proposing this bunched-field concept, Einstein was borrowing
an idea put forth earlier by ether theorists such as Hendrik
Lorentz and Gustav Mie, who had proposed that subatomic particles
form out of an ether substrate. A similar concept is encountered
in the ether physics of ancient times as well as in contemporary
subquantum kinetics. The field pattern that forms the subatomic
particle farther out becomes the particle's peripheral field; one
blends into the other in a continuous manner. Mie, Lorentz, a nd
Einstein, however, did not offer an explanation of how the
particle might come into being out of the surrounding ether or
field continuum. Nor does modern quantum field theory offer an
explanation. On the other hand, ("") subquanturn kinetics present
a feasible theory of matter creation.
End of Laviolette quote:
---------
Back to X-on
Note La violette is producing the conceptual foundation of
Lorentz Ether Theory. His work is in
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html
I am studying it as alternative because if I use Einstein Special
Relativity. I require to believe that when I throw dirty qi from
a patient body to a basin of salt water. I am throwing away
superluminal substance from the patient to the basin. How can
superluminal stuck to the salt in the water. This doesn't make
much practical sense even with Tiller 9D deltron particles
coupling superluminal and subluminal realm. I'm running out of
model to explain my experience. Thomson and Keto got most of
their hypothesis incorrect. So there is nothing much left and I'm
struggling with the physics of qi in an hourly basis. Then I got
hold of his book by Paul A. Laviolette and it put some sanity to
everything as it can explain the physics of qi. Laviolette thesis
imply that particles are not close system but open system with
exchange of something from the surrounding.. this is exactly what
qi do that we qi healers categorically know is real. Of course
it boils down to whether Laviolette and Lorentz Ether Theroy can
explain Qi.
Q-on
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 01:03:39 AM |
|
|
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108610630.214806.227450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(ok, bryan testing 1 2 3...)
Quoting Richard Feynman in his book "Feynman Lectures of
Physics Vol. 2" pp. 12.12, 12.13:
"Could it be that the real world consists of little X-ons which
can be seen only at very tiny distances? And that in our
measurements we are always observing on such a large scale that
we can' t see these little X-ons, and that is why we get the
differential equations?
Our currently most complete theory of electrodynamics does indeed
have its difficulties at very short distances.
Please give an example of a difficulty experienced by QED at very
small distances, and mention the distance at which such putative
difficulties begin to be apparent.
So it is possible,
in principle, that these equations are smoothed - out versions of
something. They appear to be correct at distances down to about
10-14 cm,
Experimental observation of the Bhabha differential cross section,
analysed by an application of QED has been used to determine the
radius of the charge distribution on an electron to within a
resolution of
2.8 * 10^-19 metres (to the usual 95% confidence level). The result
is compatible with being zero.
but then they begin to look wrong.
Please show how what begins to look wrong.
--
Franz
Science is the topography of ignorance
Oliver Wendell Holmes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 02:55:09 AM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108610630.214806.227450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(ok, bryan testing 1 2 3...)
Quoting Richard Feynman in his book "Feynman Lectures of
Physics Vol. 2" pp. 12.12, 12.13:
"Could it be that the real world consists of little X-ons which
can be seen only at very tiny distances? And that in our
measurements we are always observing on such a large scale that
we can' t see these little X-ons, and that is why we get the
differential equations?
Our currently most complete theory of electrodynamics does indeed
have its difficulties at very short distances.
Please give an example of a difficulty experienced by QED at very
small distances, and mention the distance at which such putative
difficulties begin to be apparent.
So it is possible,
in principle, that these equations are smoothed - out versions of
something. They appear to be correct at distances down to about
10-14 cm,
Experimental observation of the Bhabha differential cross section,
analysed by an application of QED has been used to determine the
radius of the charge distribution on an electron to within a
resolution of
2.8 * 10^-19 metres (to the usual 95% confidence level). The result
is compatible with being zero.
but then they begin to look wrong.
Please show how what begins to look wrong.
--
Franz
Science is the topography of ignorance
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Does anyone have the book "Feynman Lectures on Physics
Vol. II."? See page 12.12, 12.13. The above quotes
allegedly came from the book written by Richard
Feynman in 1964. I don't have this book. It was
La Violette who mentioned it. Can anyone check? If
the above quotes (the one where Heymann is pertaining)
doesn't come from Feynman book. I'll slam La Violette.
The quotes are the following (again):
"Could it be that the real world consists of little
X-ons which can be seen only at very tiny distances?
And that in our measurements we are always observing
on such a large scale that we can' t see these little
X-ons, and that is why we get the differential equations?
Our currently most complete theory of electrodynamics
does indeed have its difficulties at very short distances.
So it is possible, in principle, that these equations
are smoothed - out versions of something. They appear to
be correct at distances down to about 10-14 cm, but
then they begin to look wrong. It is possible that
there is some as yet undiscovered underlying "machinery,"
and that the details of an underlying complexity are
hidden in the smooth - looking equations - as is so in
the "smooth" diffusion of neutrons. But no one has yet
formulated a successful theory that works that way."
Did Feynman really wrote the above in his "Feynman
Lectures on Physics Vol II" book page 12.12,12.13?? If
yes, maybe they are not updated with the latest?
But Feynman and company are supposed to be the
discoverer of QED. How can they not understand their
own work?
Anyone can enlighten all this? Thanks.
Q-on
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 04:01:59 AM |
|
|
Q-on wrote:
[snip]
Does anyone have the book "Feynman Lectures on Physics
Vol. II."? See page 12.12, 12.13. The above quotes
allegedly came from the book written by Richard
Feynman in 1964.
And that's a long time ago. Physics has progressed in the last
40 years, if you didn't notice.
I don't have this book.
I have it available, but not here in the moment. I'll try to look
it up when time permits.
It was La Violette who mentioned it.
You wrote that La Violette is a "scientist". That's rather vague.
What are his credentials? Where does he work? On what does he work?
What has he published?
[snip]
Did Feynman really wrote the above in his "Feynman
Lectures on Physics Vol II" book page 12.12,12.13?? If
yes, maybe they are not updated with the latest?
Indeed. AFAIK, the Feynman lecture notes are based on the lectures
Feynman gave back then, in the 60s, and have not been updated
with newer discoveries since then.
But Feynman and company are supposed to be the
discoverer of QED. How can they not understand their
own work?
Quite possible that he missed something, or that the experiments
back then seemed to posed a problem which was resolved soon after.
E.g. Maxwell also misinterpreted his own equations.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 06:32:43 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Indeed. AFAIK, the Feynman lecture notes are based on the lectures
Feynman gave back then, in the 60s, and have not been updated
with newer discoveries since then.
But Feynman and company are supposed to be the
discoverer of QED. How can they not understand their
own work?
1. La Violette is addressing the issues of how point
particles and field are related since they are not
the same or of dissimilar nature. So he propose that
point particles are not really point but formed out
of an ether substrate and the fields are extension
of the ether substrate.
2. La Violette says that calculations of point particles
produced infinities because the energy potential of
the field increases without limits towards the particles
centres. What do you say about this? He propose his
subquantum kinetics to address that and many problems.
In his model. "the particle's field potential tapers off
to a finite value at the particle's center" as he
put it.
3. La Violette said our instruments may not able to
detect the ether substrate in the particle because it
can only see the whole particle resulting in zero
size as Heymann love to say it. Counterarguments??
Q-on
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 03:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Indeed. AFAIK, the Feynman lecture notes are based on the lectures
Feynman gave back then, in the 60s, and have not been updated
with newer discoveries since then.
But Feynman and company are supposed to be the
discoverer of QED. How can they not understand their
own work?
1. La Violette is addressing the issues of how point
particles and field are related since they are not
the same or of dissimilar nature. So he propose that
point particles are not really point but formed out
of an ether substrate and the fields are extension
of the ether substrate.
Unless he can produce at least one prediction for the outcome of a
possible experiment which will agree with his proposal, and disagrees
with a corresponding prediction made by current theory, his proposal
contains no physics.
2. La Violette says that calculations of point particles
produced infinities because the energy potential of
the field increases without limits towards the particles
centres. What do you say about this? He propose his
subquantum kinetics to address that and many problems.
In his model. "the particle's field potential tapers off
to a finite value at the particle's center" as he
put it.
Point particles are dealt with in our current understanding by noting
that a naked particle is always dressed by a surrounding cloud of
virtual particles.
3. La Violette said our instruments may not able to
detect the ether substrate in the particle because it
can only see the whole particle resulting in zero
size as Heymann love to say it. Counterarguments??
I gave them just up above here.
Who is Violette?
What has he published when in which professional physics journals?
--
Franz
One Galileo in 2000 years is enough. Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 08:08:58 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
1. La Violette is addressing the issues of how point
particles and field are related since they are not
the same or of dissimilar nature. So he propose that
point particles are not really point but formed out
of an ether substrate and the fields are extension
of the ether substrate.
Unless he can produce at least one prediction for the outcome of a
possible experiment which will agree with his proposal, and disagrees
with a corresponding prediction made by current theory, his proposal
contains no physics.
Yes. I will look for this. He has written a more technical book
called "Subquantum Kinetics" where many equations are written
and experiments. I just ordered it a while ago and it will arrive
to me next week. I'll return about this when I read more
details of it. I only learned about his theory when I read
his book "Genesis of the Cosmos". Well. I just find the current
Standard Model so limiting and so many arbitrary and wondering
if there are alternatives that are more elegent that can make
more predictions current Standard Model can't (such as Qi).
The book ($24) is available at:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html
Amazon.com is selling it more expensive at $32 but this is
great for those living in another country.
I'm aware how many cranks want to make money out of books
but when there is a serious one with a serious theory. It's
worth it.
Qion
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 06:22:49 AM |
|
|
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 03:53:43 PM |
|
|
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing musing.
--
Franz
One Galileo in 2000 years is enough. Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
18 Feb 2005 05:15:00 AM |
|
|
In article <cv33p6$dm3$4@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing musing.
And the computer biz picked it just a tad earlier. Well, it's
a heads up for me to take care of context when the word shows up.
Thanks.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
18 Feb 2005 07:12:22 AM |
|
|
In article <PIqdnfISzudSRIjfRVn-tg@rcn.net>, wrote:
In article <cv33p6$dm3$4@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing musing.
And the computer biz picked it just a tad earlier. Well, it's
a heads up for me to take care of context when the word shows up.
Thanks.
As long as I'm spending the bandwidth on words, does physics
have such a thingie as q-rays?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
19 Feb 2005 03:55:39 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:7cudnUNFJtTNaIjfRVn-hA@rcn.net...
In article <PIqdnfISzudSRIjfRVn-tg@rcn.net>,
wrote:
In article <cv33p6$dm3$4@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article
<1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing
musing.
And the computer biz picked it just a tad earlier. Well, it's
a heads up for me to take care of context when the word shows up.
Thanks.
As long as I'm spending the bandwidth on words, does physics
have such a thingie as q-rays?
Not as far as I know.
It did have N-rays for a while, till the scam was exposed.
--
Franz
The designers of foolproof equipment often forget the ingenuity of
fools
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
18 Feb 2005 09:06:10 AM |
|
|
In message <7cudnUNFJtTNaIjfRVn-hA@rcn.net>, writes
In article <PIqdnfISzudSRIjfRVn-tg@rcn.net>, wrote:
In article <cv33p6$dm3$4@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing musing.
And the computer biz picked it just a tad earlier. Well, it's
a heads up for me to take care of context when the word shows up.
Thanks.
As long as I'm spending the bandwidth on words, does physics
have such a thingie as q-rays?
No, but there were the infamous N-rays, the "cold fusion" of their day.
http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/07patholog.html
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html
http://www.rexresearch.com/blondlot/nrays.htm
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
18 Feb 2005 08:25:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 wrote:
In article <PIqdnfISzudSRIjfRVn-tg@rcn.net>, wrote:
In article <cv33p6$dm3$4@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing musing.
And the computer biz picked it just a tad earlier. Well, it's
a heads up for me to take care of context when the word shows up.
Thanks.
As long as I'm spending the bandwidth on words, does physics
have such a thingie as q-rays?
Not that I know of.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 07:36:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Richard Feynmann was the one who used "X-on" in his
book "Feynmann Lectures on Physics". Don't know
why he used it. Can anyone who own the book
check page 12.12, 12.13 if indeed such paragraphs
exist? Anyway, according to La Violette, Feynman
was comparing "the electric potential field around
an electron to the concentration profile produced by
neutrons diffusing out of the core of a nuclear
reactor. They portrayed an electron as a tiny nuclear
reactor whose core radiates a flux of subquantum
particles called "little X-ons"; the concentration
of these outwardly diffusing particles, they noted,
would drop off inversely with radial distance, just
like the electric potential field around an electron"
Q
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 03:53:45 PM |
|
|
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108647368.761706.126190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Richard Feynmann was the one who used "X-on" in his
book "Feynmann Lectures on Physics". Don't know
why he used it. Can anyone who own the book
check page 12.12, 12.13 if indeed such paragraphs
exist?
Of course they exist.
Why did you quote it if you did not know whether or not it existed?
Are you just a mummer?
Why did you not read it before parroting what this bloke La Violette
is supposed to have said?
Anyway, according to La Violette, Feynman
was comparing "the electric potential field around
an electron to the concentration profile produced by
neutrons diffusing out of the core of a nuclear
reactor. They portrayed an electron as a tiny nuclear
reactor whose core radiates a flux of subquantum
particles called "little X-ons"; the concentration
of these outwardly diffusing particles, they noted,
would drop off inversely with radial distance, just
like the electric potential field around an electron"
Feynman was surely only whetting the readers' appetites with what is
the current understanding of the origin of the electrostatic field of
an electron, namely that it is the average effect of a cloud of
virtual photons surrounding it.
--
Franz
One Galileo in 2000 years is enough. Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
18 Feb 2005 04:35:18 AM |
|
|
Q-on wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Indeed. AFAIK, the Feynman lecture notes are based on the lectures
Feynman gave back then, in the 60s, and have not been updated
with newer discoveries since then.
But Feynman and company are supposed to be the
discoverer of QED. How can they not understand their
own work?
1. La Violette is addressing the issues of how point
particles and field are related since they are not
the same or of dissimilar nature. So he propose that
point particles are not really point but formed out
of an ether substrate and the fields are extension
of the ether substrate.
2. La Violette says that calculations of point particles
produced infinities because the energy potential of
the field increases without limits towards the particles
centres. What do you say about this? He propose his
subquantum kinetics to address that and many problems.
In his model. "the particle's field potential tapers off
to a finite value at the particle's center" as he
put it.
3. La Violette said our instruments may not able to
detect the ether substrate in the particle because it
can only see the whole particle resulting in zero
size as Heymann love to say it. Counterarguments??
You completely ignored everything I wrote in my post, so I see
no reason to answer anything you wrote above.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 05:30:45 AM |
|
|
see , this guy Q-on is A.S. following the advice Bilge and I have given
in the following:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/1e6638e846ca90c6/7fe694e5672cfe93?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics%3F&_doneTitle=Back+to+topics&_doneTitle=Back&&d#7fe694e5672cfe93
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/1e6638e846ca90c6/7fe694e5672cfe93?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics%3F&_doneTitle=Back+to+topics&_doneTitle=Back&&d#7fe694e5672cfe93
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 08:54:18 AM |
|
|
Q-on wrote:
[snip 170 lines of crap]
Of course
it boils down to whether Laviolette and Lorentz Ether Theroy can
explain Qi.
Idiot. First explain Keebler elves.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Q-on" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
17 Feb 2005 09:13:18 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Q-on wrote:
[snip 170 lines of crap]
Of course
it boils down to whether Laviolette and Lorentz Ether Theroy can
explain Qi.
Idiot. First explain Keebler elves.
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Oh. I haven't mention about the elves. Using the La
Violette model for sake of description. The Ether that
produced electric based particles become physical
substance or matter. Our body comes from this of course.
However, The Ether also produced non-electric based
particles that doesn't interact with our physical atoms.
They are not like the nutrinos as they don't travel at
light speed. These etheron particles can get stationary.
Over time, evolution of these etheric particles have
created etheric beings. Consciousness doesn't only evolve
in the physical world but also in the Ether domain.
These are what the elves are. The Philippines has
lots of elves. My aunt has seen one. Many have seen them.
They are about 8-12 inches in height. They exist in etheric
matter so only those with etheric sight can see them.
I'm not kidding, and I'm not nuts. I will debate this
with anyone. Game Bjoern?
Q-on
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons |
16 Feb 2005 10:20:53 PM |
|
|
stick with this nick from now on will you, so people know that it is
you, and don't have to repeat themselves over and over again. if this
is an interesting topic i'm sure you will get the attention of Bjoern,
Al, Bilge, and Heymann. good luck on your qi-search Landle ( i still
don't believe it exists, and have you written to randi already???).
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
