Can you stop the subdivision?

So are the laws of physics. What works for a 5 ton truck also works for my football.

Actually this was about matter not light.

But they are not the ones that gave us quantization.

Then this goes for the laws of physics as well.

But annoying you was my sole intent from the start since you tried to do the same to me from your arrogant and stuck up behavior. I know better than trying to reason with you. As long as you post in my thread this is what you are going to get. If you want the insults to stop either stay away from the thread or deal with it.
Yes go to the moddies saying so and so guy annoyed me please use the banhammer on him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most of what you said is true but also true is the fact that QM also has its share of fallacies. I am not opposed to learning it for now. I'm merely stating how it contradicts itself some times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, And?

Yes. And?

Correct. That isn't in their remit.

Yes. And?

Ah I see.
You made assumptions about me.

It isn't "your" thread. Anyone is free to post.

Or you could learn something.

That's always an option.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why shouldn't it work at the quantum level.

I got the feeling that you were bringing mass less abstractions known as photons into the argument.

Then the one who proposed quantization must also try and explain the reasons.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You seem to have forgotten about me scroll up and see the attitude you have been giving me for yourself since the thread begin.

But of course I was the one who started it and I am obligated to reply to whoever posts in it especially if the posts are directed at me.

This same goes for you.

So whats stopping you?

 

That's the question that's being asked... by physics.
Simply put: we don't have all the answers. And may never have them.

Nope.

No. "Why" isn't in the remit of science.

Wrong again.
If you see it as "attitude" then that's your perception.
You post unsupported statements and expect ... what? Slavering respect?

Not even. There are many posters who've started a thread and left it to others. Regardless, who replies and who doesn't isn't up to you.

Correct. But not from you.

[/quote]
No need. So far.

 

Agreed on this atleast.

Yes it is in this case at least.

Haha. Then I should do the same to you.

Your posts are aimed at me and I'll be the one who replies.

But for you of course.

Lets see how long can you last.

 

Ah I see.
You, personally, think that physics as a discipline should change its remit and methods just on your say-so.
Interesting.

Except that I'm not the one posting unfounded speculation...

 

Explain the reason for its explanations atleast(reason quantization exists)

You pinhead neither am I. I'm only saying that you can infinitely divide an object of mass. If you think its false then gimme the proof.

 

It's being worked on.

Wrong.

That is an unsupported supposition.
And you STILL haven't explained how it's supposed to work.
If everything material can be further split down then what is at the bottom?
Oh wait... turtles all the way down?

Wrong again.
What evidence do you have to support YOUR contention?

 

Thats the proper way to answer

Yup you got it buddy. Remember you also said about how we may never find all the answers?

And what evidence do you have that it can't be done? Everything we have known has broken down into smaller particles. compounds ,molecules ,atoms, protons,neutrons. Why do you think quarks and electrons are fundamental just because they are out of our grasp for now. Its the inherent nature of division however annoying it may sound to you or anyone. Its transcendental just like the endless expanses of the universe.

 

One which you shouldn't have needed to have me make.

So the Planck length means nothing?

Ah the woo woo cry: "what evidence do you have that my idea can't be right?".
Here we go.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ooh extrapolation again...
I repeat: what makes you think that will hold true all the way down?

 

Nope I needed to do this otherwise you would keep on whining again and again and would say that my science today pwns all.

Ah the Planck's length. The minimum length allowed after which quantum gravity dominates and makes a black hole. Where is your proof that this is what is going to happen? In fact the Planck's length also depends upon the postulate of SRT that speed of light is constant in all of the inertial frames. If this is not the case then....

Try again pinhead.

And I repeat: What makes you think it won't especially if there is no planck's length?

 

Wrong again.

Huh?
Misunderstanding things again I see.

Ah. MORE stuff that just happens to be "wrong" according to you.

Well first of, just so I can have some hope understanding you. What else are you going to declare to be wrong?
Just so I don't make any more silly mistakes and mention stuff you don't like...

 

Haha. Seems you are really obsessed with the word "wrong". But maybe the pinhead brain of yours has nothing better to say.

Nope. But it seems to me that you are.

Ya so what?

Alright dum dum what I can't take for granted is
SRT ( after reading QQ's thread does light move and the extinction effect in electrodynmics)
QM notion of point particles and probability.

 

Maybe because that's all you've managed so far: to be wrong.

Wrong again.
You apparently have no idea what Planck length is.

So you're as much a crackpot as he is.
Okay, I'm done with you.

 

And all that you managed is to spell the word "wrong" right.

Pinhead go to wiki.

Yes you better run.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So much for the learning stuff

 

Plus discover that you have no clue as to what you're talking abou.

Don't need to to. I did physics.
But even on looking at Wiki I see you've misunderstood.
As expected.

Bye.

 

Same to you.

You misunderstood me probably seeing as that I only quoted half their def.

Run dum dum.

 

Wrong. It is better described as a spinning ring of charge. It explains more with less the assumptions. It is lesser known but more accurate.

 

If the electron is a ring of charge, what is the ratio between its angular momentum and magentic moment?