What are quarks made of?

[Farsight]

Please give a reference to this.

You mean a reference to conservation of energy and conservation of momentum? No I won't. But I will reiterate: a single 511KeV photon can't spontaneously morph into a 511KeV electron and a 511KeV positron that somehow manage to turn back into a single 511KeV photon that nevertheless continues to propagate at c. That's not some scientific explanation, that's a fairy tale.

As far as I know, in every vertice in a Feynman diagram you have 4 dimensional delta function on the sum of the 4 total 4-momenta. The particles may not be on their mass shell but energy is conserved.

If energy is conserved, the "tautological" QED given explanation for gamma-gamma pair production has to be deficient, hasn't it? Here it is again:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple."

They do not talk about a photon-photon interaction. Here they talk about the bremsstrahlung process where an electron changes its momentum-energy and radiates a photon exactly as the interraction $$iqA_{\mu}\psi\psi^{\dagger}$$ as MarkM125 said.

The photon interacts with field, not a charged particle. If that's not good enough for you google on strong-field QED. You'll find papers where people propose pair production via lasers. You'll doubtless find mention of virtual electron-positron pairs, but remember that virtual particles are virtual, and they're talking about lasers rather than electron beams.

What is a partial positron?

There aren't any partial positrons. However the front portion of an electromagnetic wave is a +ve field variation, so it can be likened to part of a positron.

 

[Farsight]

I recommend that you read up on relativity.

Farsight, I'm getting extremely close to giving you a warning for nonsense like that. Farsight, I'm getting extremely close to giving you a warning for nonsense like that...

It wasn't nonsense. A concentration of energy causes gravity. OnlyMe was wrong to say photons contributing to any gravitational field remains theoretical. Now if you don't mind, we're having an interesting, sincere, and high-level discussion here. You're a moderator. Your job is to prevent ad-hominem abuse, not to permit it and then weigh in with your own and threaten to destroy the discussion. Now can we get on please?

 

[OnlyMe]

It isn't false, OnlyMe, it's relativity....

Farsight, as is often the case you seem to miss the point I was attempting to make. This may be at least in part due to my tendency to over talk an issue...

The point is, it seems to me, that very often in your posts, you fail to maintain a clear distinction between what is theoretically understood and what is known to be the fact! — take a moment and think about that.

Do you understand the difference between what we think we know and what we really know?

 

[OnlyMe]

It wasn't nonsense. A concentration of energy causes gravity. OnlyMe was wrong to say photons contributing to any gravitational field remains theoretical. Now if you don't mind, we're having an interesting, sincere, and high-level discussion here. You're a moderator. Your job is to prevent ad-hominem abuse, not to permit it and then weigh in with your own and threaten to destroy the discussion. Now can we get on please?

Just following up, where is the factual support of the above theoretical position?

Keep in mind I am concerned with the implication that free photons have a proven contribution to gravitational mass.

Don't take this wrong and assume that I am disagreeing with the theoretical position. I am disagreeing with your misuse of the distiction between theoretical and known fact.

 

[1100f]

No. I referred to the Aharonov-Bohm effect because like relativity it tells us that Lorentz force is not the full story. See this section of the Wikipedia article. Also see the next paragraph where you can read this: "Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental".

Your answer has nothing to do with the photon not having electric charge. As you were allready told, the interraction involving matter and photon is $$qA_{\mu}\psi\psi^{\dagger}$$ with q being the matter charge. I guess you never learned quantum field theory and/or QED since you don't know what is the $$A_{\mu}$$ part of the interraction if you cite the complaint of Feynmann which has nothing to do with the photon not interracting with photons (there is no $$A_{\mu}A^{\mu}$$ in the QED lagrangian).
The answer that you gave against what I said to you about the Aharonov Bohm effect is like if you would have answerd me that the sky is blue. It is true but totally irrelevant.

We know this is inaccurate from something as simple as Faraday rotation, which is "a Magneto-optical phenomenon, that is, an interaction between light and a magnetic field in a medium".

I suggest you to read also here: Faraday effect
It explains how the Farady rotation is performed: In circularly polarized light the direction of the electric field rotates at the frequency of the light, either clockwise or anticlockwise. In a material, this electric field causes a force on the charged particles comprising the material (because of their light mass the electrons are most heavily affected). The effected motion will be circular, and circularly moving charges will create their own field in addition to the external magnetic field.
If you translate this in terms of photons, this means that in the Faraday effect, a photon interract with an electron (bounded to the material) which in turns create a new photon whos polarization is different from the original. By how much it will be rotated depends on the behaviour of the electron which itself depends on the material (since the electrons is bounded to the material). Anyway this will not happend with all materials. And since photons do not interract with photons it will surely not happen in vaccuum.
So maybe you should look also at the link I gave.
But..., but..., hey... This is the same linke that you gave.
So we can conclude that according to you (via the link that you gave) there is no photon photon interraction.

Gamma-gamma pair production supports my claim, along with the certain knowledge that virtual particles are not real particles. Again see Matt Strassler's article. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, magnets don't shine.

I don't know what you call Gamma-Gamma pair production but if you mean two photons creating an electron-positron pair than you should know exactly how it goes: At the tree level, you have a photon that gives a pair electron-positron, the electron interracts with the second photon which is absorbed by this electron (this is something like the opposite of bremsstrahlung) and the electron is the second particle whilst the firs particle is the positron (of course you can have the opposite (change between the positron and elctron). This is at the tree level and you see that at each interraction, there is no photon-photon interraction. Any way the electron that is used in the pair production that I described is virtual. So no matter what you think you know about virtual particles, there is no photon photon interraction.

If you think that there is a direct interraction between the photons that gives the Gamma-Gamma pair production, please give the model and show the calculations of the reaction: gamma + gamma ---> electron + positron, even at the tree level.

I know this. I also know of Percy Hammond's The role of the potentials in electromagnetism. See the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction."

No problem. I reiterate that the photon-photon interaction is nothing to do with gravity. By the way, I'm not fond of the term "gravitational charge", and would say the issue involves the relationship between electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism rather than gravity.

Totally irrelevant

Gamma-gamma pair production and the fact that virtual particles are virtual says you're wrong.

As I described you the process, including virtual particles, there is no direct photon - photon interraction

And again the deficiency in QED is that it offers only a tautological description of gamma-gamma pair production, which needs to be rectified.

Because the only particles that are there are photons.

You just do not understand QED. Since QED describes well the interraction and gives the correct cross-section. The prediction of QED says that given a flux of incident photon, QED gives the correct rate of pair-production (without using photon photon interraction). What is tautolgical wuth that?

You mean a reference to conservation of energy and conservation of momentum? No I won't. But I will reiterate: a single 511KeV photon can't spontaneously morph into a 511KeV electron and a 511KeV positron that somehow manage to turn back into a single 511KeV photon that nevertheless continues to propagate at c. That's not some scientific explanation, that's a fairy tale.

This is your invention

If energy is conserved, the "tautological" QED given explanation for gamma-gamma pair production has to be deficient, hasn't it? Here it is again:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but half wavelength is a positive charge and the next half wavelength is a negative charge. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple."

So?

The photon interacts with field, not a charged particle. If that's not good enough for you google on strong-field QED. You'll find papers where people propose pair production via lasers. You'll doubtless find mention of virtual electron-positron pairs, but remember that virtual particles are virtual, and they're talking about lasers rather than electron beams.

Please give a reference where the calculation being done without virtual pairs.

There aren't any partial positrons. However the front portion of an electromagnetic wave is a +ve field variation, so it can be likened to part of a positron.

You were the one who said

I said the front part of the photon behaves like a partial positron.

Please explain, there is or there is no partial positrons?

 

[Undefined]

Farsight, as is often the case you seem to miss the point I was attempting to make. This may be at least in part due to my tendency to over talk an issue...

The point is, it seems to me, that very often in your posts, you fail to maintain a clear distinction between what is theoretically understood and what is known to be the fact! — take a moment and think about that.

Do you understand the difference between what we think we know and what we really know?

Hi onlyMe. Perhaps you could have qualified your strident opening remark (#154) to Farsight, ie: "the above is a false statement".

As far as I can tell, he only restated what the mainstream knowledge/understanding is regarding all forms of energy (including E-m/photonic energy) make contribution to gravity effect whether alone or as part of a larger energy-matter body.

Relax. I know that you mean well, and do not intend to troll. But you have done this often before elsewhere, and barged in and confused an issue as effectively as anyone with the intention to do so.

Maybe you should be more guarded in your enthusiasm to 'correct' others, especially when your own grasp of the essentials of the discussion/point eludes you (as you, obviously incorrectly, claimed it eludes Farsight in this instance?).

By the way, OnlyMe, Farsight, anyone, can you remind me where I may have read long ago in the mainstream literature about a loose 'aggregation' of multiple bodies having a collective gravitational field stronger than would be expected from just 'summing' the contributing bodies individual gravity field strengths?

If that observation is still correct mainstream, does that in any way tend to 'confirm' what Farsight has alluded to about gravitational energy being like any other energy contributing to the gravitational field etc etc.? Just a thought/question in passing.

 

[OnlyMe]

Hi onlyMe. Perhaps you could have qualified your adamant reply (#154) to Farsight, ie: "the above is a false statement". As far as I can tell, he only restated what the mainstream knowledge/understanding is regarding all forms of energy (including E-m/photonic energy) make contribution to gravity effect whether alone or as part of a larger energy-matter body.

Perhaps you could provide a referece to the experimental evidence that proves that light, as photons, contributes to gravitational mass.

Rest mass, gravitational mass and inertial mass seem to be all.., at least equivalent, if not the same thing. Photons have no rest mass, and though it is fairly clear that they do have momentum, it is debatable whether attributing relativistic mass — (a term which should be dropped and forgotten as it serves to create more confussion than enlightenment) — to photons has any meaning beyond its association with momentum... Even setting that debate aside, there is no evidence suggesting that momentum or relativistic mass are associated with gravity.

As for qualifying my earlier statement, I thought it was pretty clear...... There is a difference between what we know and understand of the world as a function of our theoretical models and the hard truth of direct observation and experimentally proven, knowledge and understanding....

 

[Tach]

By the way, OnlyMe, Farsight, anyone, can you remind me where I may have read long ago in the mainstream literature about a loose 'aggregation' of multiple bodies having a collective gravitational field stronger than would be expected from just 'summing' the contributing bodies individual gravity field strengths?

You couldn't have read it in "mainstream literature", you must have made it up yourself. For the simple reason that the gravitational field of "many bodies" is additive. Read here, mainstream literature. Perhaps taking a class is in order?

 

[Undefined]

What I said was 'person independent'. If people want to spew their pet theories or take on things, this isn't the place. Due to a prolonged absence by myself recently the forum swung too much into crackpot BS and a number of people still haven't realised that isn't going to fly. As such I'm explaining, when appropriate, the rules.

With all due respect, AN, you used MY post as an 'example' of what you 'consider' as a MOD in your OPINION to be etc etc etc. So please don't try to change the facts trying to defend against valid response by me on that basis. Thanks.

The rest of the above makes a generalized statement/implication as if I was doing that too in this instance. The facts I pointed out to you, and which you obviously did not take the time to acquaint yourself with before INCORRECTLY and unjustifiably making my post part of your generalize complaint/prejudices again 'some people' etc etc. Not a good way to make a 'mod' adjudication, AN, unless you want to make your 'uninformed mod actions' part of the problem. Yes?

I haven't said anything in regards to this.

Personally I'm slightly inclined to let returning sock puppets slide, usually because they use said rope to hang themselves in short order.

Again with all due respect, AN, but how can you possibly present yourself as an impartial mod when that last (my bolding) bit positively DRIPS with expectation and prejudicial biased-reading potential which would only tend to reinforce your own 'personally prejudged world view' of what does or does not constitute 'rope'?

And the point actually was that the whole thing was innocent and straightforward, beginning with a case of mistaken identity which was corrected and that was that...until the trolls started in. And then made worse when they continued to troll an innocent SUGGESTION for further discussion made to sane and reasonable folk. The trolls further compounded their personal malicious trolling until I challenged and reported them as per Admin advice.

So where were YOU as 'mod'? Why did I have to defend myself against the malignant troll and get criticized by YOU (by choosing my post to include as an 'example' in your uninformed mod post) for something which I never did?

And the question of allowing previously banned members to return if they behave themselves was not the problem. Since as you say, I am still here. That is because the moderation/admin is a lot more fair and recognizes the REAL trolls more readily now than before (even though you still haven't done anything to PUNISH the REAL troll in THIS instance, and instead choose to make some generalization 'tarring with same brush' post while ignoring all the facts and the need for ACTION in this instance against the REAL troll. Else what good is your OPINIONS about others born of your prejudices when you allow the OBVIOUS troll in this instance to again get off scot free? Where is the respect for moderation to be earned there?

Therefore, would it be too much to ask/expect that you NOW do something to punish the real incorrigible culprit (who has ruined a multitude of otherwise fair and reasonable OP threads/discussions of the mainstreamers as well as 'outsiders'; and has already been suspended more than once for it with the warning to the effect that "Your next infringement will result in a perma-ban of your latest iteration of your troll aliases")?

Else how is your 'mod' action/attitude fair and reasonable under any light regarding that troll?

The presumption is I'm all pally with said people. I'm not, though I would say things with brucep are definitely better than they used to be. Tach PM'd me within an hour of posting my last message to highlight you're, from his point of view, a sock puppet. If I wanted to placate Tach and stamp on you I could have banned you without thinking any further. Yet you're still here.

Yes, some time back (in the bad old days of the, since well proven, mod-troll gang problem) that same TROLL also PM'd another mod when that INTERNET EXPERIMENT was conducted confirming the problem/gang activity existed. He colluded with that mod to spoil, personalize, frame and otherwise do everything EXCEPT to fairly engage on the actual OP/discussion points! What happened? The mod just strode in and did the troll's bidding and just locked the thread and banned the member without any just cause! I am glad you didn't fall for the same tactics/fraud and collusion attempt from that troll this time round, AN. Thanks sincerely for that, AN. Kudos for that!

I suggest you actually go back and read the post of mine you quote, which is not about sock puppets and return accounts but about what is or isn't acceptable discussion for the main physics subforum, regardless of who is saying it. Let's pick someone I do respect, Rpenner. If Rpenner posted the same kind of "I know all of this, I have all the answers" stuff that Farsight has been posting I'd react the same way as I will with Farsight, I'll move the posts and possibly issue a warning. Unlikely a warning, as it would be a first offence for Rpenner and I'd be more inclined to suspect he's trying to draw other hacks into incriminating themselves but if it persisted.

I have no problem with people not being scrupulously correct in 'presentation' of ideas. I am capable of sorting through and reading context and apply objective reasoning and prior/new insights to make sense of the arguments one way or the other. The LAST thing that a truly free and open science and humanity discussion venue needs is a CENSOR of ideas just because it doesn't suit one person or another who happens to be a mod. Unless a poster pursues personality tactics and trolls intended to disrupt flow of sane and reasonable discourse, there is no reason to jump in and 'frame and shape' a discussion before it goes naturally to completion between the parties involved. Only then can any true adjudication be said to be 'impartial' about what's what. And the participants would determine that based on all the arguments p[resented during the course to completion, and not be tainted by opinions and prejudicial preconclusions made by mods who don't like the source or the presentation style etc etc. That is all I want. Fair discussion without fear or favour or unwarranted intrusion by ANYONE (trolls or mods), and mods should only make themselves heard in cases of TROLLING and abuse etc etc. Unless real serious cause exists, a mod should only post in a thread as mere ORDINARY MEMBER participating in the free and fair discourse. Reasonable expectation, yes?

You complain about the "PM a mod" etc thing, when I wasn't talking about trolling or sock puppets but which side of the scientific discussion line people are on. I might be a moderator but frankly I care very little whether someone is a sock puppet of a previously banned person, provided they aren't making trouble. What I do need to care about to get this forum to function as it should do is whether someone is espousing science or their personal ignorance. I'll react a lot more brutal to violations of that than the "He hasn't done anything wrong yet but I know he's a sock puppet!" sort of infraction. Of course sock puppets acting up will get bans very quickly, no "short holidays", that is the difference.

It was not a 'complaint'. It was pointing out its past failures/injustices (in the days of the troll-mod gang problem now hopefully long gone) as JUSTIFICATION for my not taking up your advice to "PM me" or "open another thread in the political section".

And when the 'trouble' is started and escalated and confused to such an extent by an INCORRIGIBLE TROLL (now well recognized by ALL HERE mainstream and outsider alike) such that you haven't time to search through the thread for all the facts of who is actually causing btrouble and who is being FRAMED again and again (by the troll who is obviously playing to a mod's own personal baggage/prejudice etc), how can you be in a position to judge/act fairly and on the facts? Better to stay out and let it go, rather than ban the VICTIM rather than the TROLL responsible just because the mod hasn't time or inclination to get things straight before disastrously intruding into a thread. As everyone knows happened all too often in the bad old days of the since well proven troll-mod gang problem, yes?

Anyhow, AN, I trust we are now all friends here, despite the past. Even the incorrigible troll should be allowed to return under another username IF he promises to (and actually does) mend his disruptive personal malice gameplaying trollish ways. No hard feelings and no grudges or prejudices or unwarranted censorship should be the order of the day as far as this otherwise excellent science and humanity discourse site is concerned! Can anyone disagree with that?

Thanks again, AN, for not falling for that trolls personal games PM-ing you about this or that person when the troll is himself one of the most hypocritically egregious offenders when it comes to returning as 'sockpuppets of banned members' all over the net.

I have said all I wanted to say on the facts of the matter; and now humbly, sincerely and respectfully trust to your personal and mod integrity to decide what to do next, AN. Good luck and good thinking and good conversation to us all!

 

[Undefined]

Perhaps you could provide a referece to the experimental evidence that proves that light, as photons, contributes to gravitational mass.

Rest mass, gravitational mass and inertial mass seem to be all.., at least equivalent, if not the same thing. Photons have no rest mass, and though it is fairly clear that they do have momentum, it is debatable whether attributing relativistic mass — (a term which should be dropped and forgotten as it serves to create more confussion than enlightenment) — to photons has any meaning beyond its association with momentum... Even setting that debate aside, there is no evidence suggesting that momentum or relativistic mass are associated with gravity.

As for qualifying my earlier statement, I thought it was pretty clear...... There is a difference between what we know and understand of the world as a function of our theoretical models and the hard truth of direct observation and experimentally proven, knowledge and understanding....

The understanding in mainstream is that everything is at root 'energy'. Matter and mass is just another form of the 'energy content'. And that all such 'energy content' contributed to gravitational field. Reasonable, no?

And like I pointed out, Farsight was only restating mainstream understandings. So your beef is with mainstream, not him. Yes?

Have you any references that say this is not correct mainstream? If so, I would greatly appreciate you posting same, OM. Thanks.

 

[Undefined]

By the way, OnlyMe, Farsight, anyone, can you remind me where I may have read long ago in the mainstream literature about a loose 'aggregation' of multiple bodies having a collective gravitational field stronger than would be expected from just 'summing' the contributing bodies individual gravity field strengths?

You couldn't have read it in "mainstream literature", you must have made it up yourself. For the simple reason that the gravitational field of "many bodies" is additive. Read here, mainstream literature. Perhaps taking a class is in order?

That is where your arrogance and personal malice betrays you again, troll.

I remember some years back, during a discussion at physforum/physorg or another science site (can't remember which) I actually linked to (and quoted) a section of a Wiki page where that aspect was mentioned/explained. So I did not "make it up". If the page has since been re-written based on new observations, and the section is superseded, that's another matter. I am not fussed either way.

So you're wrong again, troll. You just blast away without any real information as to the facts.

No wonder your credibility and motives are held in such deep distrust by practically everyone, whether they are mainstreamers or not.

As per excellent Admin advice, you are best ignored and reported, troll.

 

[Tach]

That is where your arrogance and personal malice betrays you again, troll.

I remember some years back, during a discussion at physforum

You mean the place that permabanned you for trolling and sockpuppetry.

/physorg or another science site (can't remember which) I actually linked to (and quoted) a section of a Wiki page where that aspect was mentioned/explained. So I did not "make it up".

Basic mainstream textbook says that you did make it up. Anyway, your claim is false, so why do you persist?

 

[Undefined]

You mean the place that permabanned you for trolling and sockpuppetry.




Basic mainstream textbook says that you did make it up. Anyway, your claim is false, so why do you persist?

There you go again, trolling the person and making accusations/attributions which you cannot prove because they are false. And in case it escaped your sharp intellect, I made no 'claim'. I only asked for any reminders about that piece I recall linking/quoting to in wiki many years ago during some other forum discussion.

So anything else is your usual 'miscontruings' and trolling silliness which has made you untrustworthy in the eyes of practically all here, mainstream and others alike.

More of your hypocritical bravado, Tach; from someone who has been banned from there himself. And who has been banned here more than once for stupidly trolling and maliciously disrupting threads/discussions.

As per excellent Admin advice, your trolling post has been reported.

 

[Tach]

There you go again, trolling the person and making accusations/attributions which you cannot prove because they are false. And in case it escaped your sharp intellect, I made no 'claim'. I only asked for any reminders about that piece I recall linking/quoting to in wiki many years ago during some other forum discussion.

I remember some years back, during a discussion at physforum/physorg or another science site (can't remember which) I actually linked to (and quoted) a section of a Wiki page where that aspect was mentioned/explained. So I did not "make it up". If the page has since been re-written based on new observations, and the section is superseded, that's another matter. I am not fussed either way.

Anyways, your "recollection" is false, so why do you persist? Why don't you read the linked material instead of trolling? It is quite good and instructive, beats all the fringe speculations.

 

[Undefined]

Anyways, your "recollection" is false, so why do you persist? Why don't you read the linked material instead of trolling?

I asked for a reminder from someone about a particular reference I linked/quoted long ago in wiki; and whether it had any bearing on what was being discussed by others. The rest is your trollish obsessive-compulsive 'need to correct' and 'win' using your usual most petty/trivial 'strawman', even when I made no claim or contention one way or the other.

As per excellent Admin advice, your continuing trolling post persisting in your strawman 'controversy/correction' etc is best ignored and reported.

 

[Tach]

I asked for a reminder from someone about a particular reference I linked/quoted long ago in wiki;

There is no such reference in wiki, wiki is pretty clean of fringe ideas. Anyways, why don't you spend some time studying mainstream textbooks, you look like you need it.

 

[Undefined]

There is no such reference in wiki, wiki is pretty clean of fringe ideas. Anyways, why don't you spend some time studying mainstream textbooks, you look like you need it.

There was at the time. Haven't you got that yet? It was what I linked/quoted in wiki at the time years ago. I am not fussed either way whether it has been superseded. Did you get that? Your insecure ego's need to 'win' makes you a very poor scientist and interlocutor, as practically everyone here has realized by now.

Who needs to study the mainstream textbooks? That's right, you. Remember when you were WRONG when you first denied that the rock/clock sitting on the ground was still under accelerative effect even though it was not translating downwards any further? You then came here under another name and AGREED with what was said by the person who said it was. And that wasn't an isolated case of YOU being disastrously WRONG while insulting and sabotaging another's perfectly valid OP/discussion. And you have never apologized to your victims. Get some character and integrity while you're at it.

Stop it, at least for your own sake if not for the sake of sanity and fair play in the science and the humanity discourse.

Try, Tach. Start afresh with a better and fairer attitude and all will be forgiven and forgot. Ok?

 

[Tach]

There was at the time.

If there was, you should be able to prove it by finding it but I very much doubt it. Maybe your memory is starting to play tricks on you, comes with age. Anyways, I provided you with an excellent mainstream textbook , why don't you make some better use of your time by studying it?

It was what I linked/quoted in wiki at the time years ago.

Go back through your posts when you were posting as RealityCheck and find it.

I am not fussed either way whether it has been superseded.

Then stop trolling and start studying the textbook that sets you straight on the subject.

 

[Undefined]

If there was, you should be able to prove it by finding it but I very much doubt it. Maybe your memory is starting to play tricks on you, comes with age. Anyways, I provided you with an excellent mainstream textbook , why don't you make some better use of your time by studying it?





Go back through your posts when you were posting as RealityCheck and find it.




Then stop trolling and start studying the textbook that sets you straight on the subject.

Are you still being intentionally obtuse? I already indicated up front that the link/quote was made in passing to another person's discussion/thread years back. That Is why I asked if someone could remind me if and where it may have been in the literature/wiki or in the posting record.

I have no real indicators by which to immediately narrow down the search, even if I wanted to. Which I don't, because I am not so fussed about it either way; and also especially because, as you know (since you were one of the trolls cheering on the 'bookburning'), much of the record of RealityCheck's post was deleted/distorted 'over there' by the same ones who were part of the old troll-mod gang problem back then. You are perfectly welcome to search. Good luck. Maybe it was at another forum. I can't recall. That was the point of asking for reminder from someone who may have come across it.

Anyhow, have you decided yet to apologize to those whom you have victimized even when you were disastrously WRONG on both the science and the humanity, Tach?

 

[Tach]

and also especially because, as you know (since you were one of the trolls cheering on the 'bookburning'), much of the record of RealityCheck's post was deleted/distorted 'over there' by the same ones who were part of the old troll-mod gang problem back then.

You mean that "prometheus" is a troll? Just because he banned you (as RealityCheck) for your incessant trolling and posting crank stuff?

You are perfectly welcome to search. Good luck. Maybe it was at another forum. I can't recall. That was the point of asking for reminder from someone who may have come across it.

Not interested in your crank ideas. I posted the mainstream view, you would do well to learn it.