STM Videos, Documents, and News.

Perhaps I should mention that in psychology RM can also explain why some people get pointlessly pedantic.

“If God can do anything then God can do what God can’t do. So God really can’t do anything.
Harharhar…
…~burp~ …~fart~ …~snif~.”

I don’t think what I said was pedantic, and I also don’t think what I said was remotely analogous to the italicized quote.

If your theory does not constrain your predictions, then your theory is as useful as having no theory at all.
If it is able to explain anything and everything, then it predicts nothing.
For a theory to be useful, there has to be certain possible occurrences that it WOULDN’T be able to explain.

A sloppy example:
Basic math can explain how, when you start out with 2 apples, and you get 2 more apples, you have 4 apples.
Basic math CAN NOT explain how, when you start out with 2 apples, and you get 2 more apples, you have 5 apples.

If basic math is to mean anything, it must EXCLUDE certain possibilities. If it could explain 5 as well as 4, as well as any other number of apples, then…we couldn’t use it for anything, could we? We couldn’t use it to figure out anything about anything at all. Because it just wouldn’t produce any predictions about how many apples there should be.

This is not pedantic. This is very, very important. If your theory can explain anything, even things that are not true, then you might as well have no theory at all. Having no theory and a theory that explains everything are equally useful.

Did you read the RM Intro?

I read what you said. You said that RM can explain anything. If you’re now trying to say that that was mistaken, then that’s fine, just say that. If you’re not trying to say that, then I don’t know what you’re trying to say. It’s not clear, you’re not being explicit enough for me. Can RM be falsified? Are there possible things which it in fact couldn’t explain? Or are you going to stick with what you said a few posts ago, that it can explain anything? I’m not holding you to that, you’re free to say ‘No, I take that back.’ I suggest it, in fact.

What I am saying is that you used the word “anything” in a ridicules way.
I replied, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that RM can “explain anything” (logically rational)

Your hyperbolic misuse of the word is the only issue here.

…and you still don’t seem to be actually reading the posts.
AGAIN;

I still don’t get this. Ambient just means surrounding. There is lots of space around particles cause they are really small. When a positron get created, it is a positive particle which is exactly the same size as an electron(which is negative). You seem to be saying that a positron should be bigger than an electron. Your graphs suggest the same thing. How is the ‘ambient space’ different for them? :question:

Oopps… I just noticed that I left out a “not” in that quote… #-o
“Positive and negative particles are not treated identically.”

In the same field of affectance density (energy density from zero energy or “mass field”), a positive particle will naturally grow slightly larger than a negative and form into a polyparticle. But that does not mean that they cannot exist as smaller or larger entities for at least a short while.

You have to change the environment in order to create a negaton (anti-proton). And for that particle to remain stable requires a specific range of ambient affectance. By orbiting a positron around a negaton, you alter the space immediately around both of them due to the other. They cannot contact each other due to the exclusion barrier that they naturally develop. But realize that the space between them is filled with affectance/energy of a specific characteristic that causes that barrier, else they would merely fall into each other.

My interest involves exactly what conditions they require in order for that stable anti-atom to be stable. In a very low affectance region of space, a large negative particle simply cannot exist as a stable particle at all. Thus I know that they at least had to have a level of energy/mass field density merely to allow for the existence of the negaton. The positron wouldn’t really care but would be tempted to grow.

A proton (and thus a negaton) is a “polyparticle” (a single particle made of multiple sub-proto-particles). A positron is a monoparticle. Both are normally stable (stable in normal space). But a monoparticle is inclined to grow into a polyparticle through encounters from its environment in high density fields, such as running into other monoparticles at high speed or merely absorbing too much positive affectance such as to grow. Although in most cases, polyparticles are formed all together at once (more or less).

So the existence of the positron isn’t really a surprise, but I am curious how dense the ambient field is because that affects its stability and I know that the field is very probably higher or at least different than normal space.

Even that’s too much though. I mean, if I’m understanding you correctly. The way I read that is that RM can explain anything that’s not a-priori disprovable, ie anything logically possible, in which case…yes, that’s still useless. It’s logically possible that pigs have gills, it’s logically possible that mass pushes things away instead of pulling them closer, it’s logically possible for the entire universe to be conway’s game of life. It’s logically possible that there is a preferred reference frame instead of all inertial frames being equal in physics. It’s logically possible that noble gasses chemically bond with other noble gasses – seriously, all you have to do is imagine two atoms of noble gasses, and imagine their electrons orbiting around both of them, binding them. There’s nothing logically impossible about it, so RM doesn’t constrain against it, right?

If the only anticipation-constraints RM gives you are to anticipate that everything you experience will be ‘logically possible,’ then you don’t need RM at all. We can already anticipate that without having ever heard of RM.

But maybe you mean something different when you say it can explain anything logically rational. It’s hard to tell, ‘logically rational’ is a weird phrase, redundant. But yes, even a theory that can only explain everything logically possible doesn’t constrain anticipations.

FJ, read the RM Introduction.
…all of it.
…slowly.

No, I’m not gonna read that silly baloney. I’m just telling you that if your theory means anything at all, it shouldn’t be able to explain absolutely anything that could possibly happen. That’s the opposite of a meaningful theory. If you have a meaningful theory, then there is some experience you could feasibly happen that would make you say, “Fuck, my theory doesn’t explain that.” Eg if QM is the theory under question, a QM scientist would have the experience of running the double-slit experiment and finding that a wave pattern was no longer produced under the conditions he thought produced it, and he would say “Fuck, QM doesn’t explain that.” Or they test the speed of light in different inertial reference frames and find that the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT in different inertial reference frames, and we say “Fuck, Relativity can’t explain that.” Regardless of what’s said in the RM introduction, there has to be something which would cause you to say “Fuck, RM can’t explain this” for RM to be meaningful at all.

quid pro quo.

Has that ever been observed? Positrons growing?
Or protons being temporarily smaller or larger?

Protons and electrons don’t crash together or cancel because of this ‘exclusion barrier’. Why do electrons and positrons annihilate each other? On your graphs they should be mirror image spikes - negative spike electron and positive spike positron. Why does the ‘barrier’ exist in one case and not the other?

How is an antiparticle different from a particle in RM?

Two issues (maybe three)
A) they are too small for truly accurate measures and are very close in size
B) they have always been taken for constant sized entities never thinking to see if they actually grow in dense fields
C) physicists are over willing to presume that positive is merely the reverse of negative with no other concerns involved

The much larger mass is what causes the stable exclusion barrier between them. When the particles are relatively close in size, that barrier can’t form thus the particles continue toward each other and annihilate.

Positive and negative are not “equal but opposite” in RM, but the antimatter arrangements are not greatly disturbed by this other than the ability of such antimatter to exist in specific regions of space (not due to the prior existence of normal matter, but due to affectance field densities).

The only reason the japanese are interested is because they want to reduce the karma debt by eating one big squid instead of several single ones overtime. Remember, they are buddhist and have a addiction to uncooked seafood, two don’t easily go hand in hand.

[size=150]Farthest Supernova Yet Discovered by NASA: Star Explosion Reveals Cosmic Distances[/size]

scienceworldreport.com/artic … tances.htm