[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Overdog

So you admit this theory of yours is based on an assumption.

Now we're getting somewhere.

My assumption is based on a real electric field that exists.

It is not something that I just snatched out of thin air.

Even the establishment scientists recognize these as 'virtual' particles. But to me, they are real because the EM fields are real.

What knowledge you do not have, you have to use your own imagination.

Mike C

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Mike, please focus on C1ay's statement quoted below. This is the crux of the issue. Not that you have a thought that is different than the standard theory. But that you don't have anything to challenge the standard theory unless you can put forth an actual hypothesis.

The current argument here is whether the universe was a bang or not.

So I said it is not a bang IMO. Reason?

This BBT is a evolving universe. That means it had a 'starting point'.
That point is 'zero' time.

Therefore, this is a creation concept and cannot be physics because it violates the Conservation Laws.
So with this violation, I refute the BBT.

I am a Law and Order man!

Mike C

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Personal interpretations and assumptions are NOT science. Science begins with a falsifiable hypothesis so you could begin with stating your falsifiable hypothesis and the testable predictions that will support or refute that hypothesis. You could also add any experiments you've done to test your hypothesis.

I have used REAL evidence to falsify the BBT.

It violates the Conservation Laws. I am sure you understand them?
The M-M Interferometry experiments falsify the space as the cause of the Cosmological Redshits and I cite Halton Arps Redshift Anomaly that also refutes the space as the cause of the redshift.

I repeated this many times and it seems to fall on deaf ears.

The BB'ers refute this evidence as irrelavent. You cannot just discard real evidence.

Mike C

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by freeztar

This is the Astronomy forum, not the "new science" forum. If you'd like to present alternative theories, use that forum. If you want to refute existing, and accepted, theories, back up your claims with evidence. These are the forum rules. If you choose not to follow them, then you will receive disciplinary action.



No. See above.


Mike, please see my post called "Science is closed-minded".

I read that post. So you claim it is 'open minded'. GOOD.
However, back in the 1600's, the Catholic church was close minded.
Since it was wrong, its political empire crashed. It is now just a 'point' source on the map .

The current Latin educational system is close minded. It refutes 'free thinkers'. Apparently to ban the new Copericuses.

The US science of the BBT is close minded. Arp is a well known example.
He had to leave the US and is now settlrd in Germany.

Therte are other tactics.

Mike C

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Mike C

I have used REAL evidence to falsify the BBT.

It violates the Conservation Laws. I am sure you understand them?
The M-M Interferometry experiments falsify the space as the cause of the Cosmological Redshits and I cite Halton Arps Redshift Anomaly that also refutes the space as the cause of the redshift.

I repeated this many times and it seems to fall on deaf ears.

The BB'ers refute this evidence as irrelavent. You cannot just discard real evidence.

Mike C

Not so fast there Mr. Strawman. First you make an absurd claim about photons having charge. Then you state that your proclamation is based on an assumption and then you quote me out of context to make a new claim about falsifying BBT in some lame attempt to steer the conversation away from your claim about photons. Now, back up and support your claim about photons having charge with real evidence. Where's the science Mike? Can your support your claims about photons or not?

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Not so fast there Mr. Strawman. First you make an absurd claim about photons having charge. Then you state that your proclamation is based on an assumption and then you quote me out of context to make a new claim about falsifying BBT in some lame attempt to steer the conversation away from your claim about photons. Now, back up and support your claim about photons having charge with real evidence. Where's the science Mike? Can your support your claims about photons or not?

Below is a web site on photons

Photon - What is a photon?

Rather than read all that data, there was a statement that photons have momentum and energy.

So I said that photons have charge. That is the energy that cannot be anything else.

My definition of energy is motion, but motion has to have substance to be in motion.
The words momentum without substance is nothing.
Energy without substance is nothing.

Mike C

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Below is a web site on photons

Photon - What is a photon?

Rather than read all that data, there was a statement that photons have momentum and energy.

So I said that photons have charge. That is the energy that cannot be anything else.

My definition of energy is motion, but motion has to have substance to be in motion.
The words momentum without substance is nothing.
Energy without substance is nothing.

Mike C

Mike, what you said is this:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Craig

My own personal opinion is that magnetic fields could bend a light beam depending on its orientation relative the the two fields.

Electric fields transmit the photons and in my opinion, these photons are 'condensed'' field particles that have an electric charge that would be negative.
So passing through a magnetic field created by gravity, this magnetic field would bend the photon ever so slightly.
Proof? Electrons passing through a magnetic field will have their trajectory bent.
This is known basuc physics.

Mike C

There is nothing in your link that supports this conclusion. Quit obfuscating the issue with diversionary tactics and support your claim with real proof. BTW, "your" definitions don't matter and your statement:

Originally Posted by Mike C

My definition of energy is motion, but motion has to have substance to be in motion.
The words momentum without substance is nothing.
Energy without substance is nothing.

is tantamount to claiming that photons have mass in addition to the charge you claim them to have. I will be looking forward to your irrefutable proof of these claims in your next post.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by C1ay

There is nothing in your link that supports this conclusion. Quit obfuscating the issue with diversionary tactics and support your claim with real proof. BTW, "your" definitions don't matter and your statement:

is tantamount to claiming that photons have mass in addition to the charge you claim them to have. I will be looking forward to your irrefutable proof of these claims in your next post.

That link defined the meaning of photons as 'momentum and energy'.

I agree with this definitions. We can understand the meaning of momentum but how do you define the 'energy' that is being transferred through space?
There are many types of energy.

How do you define the word energy in this case?

Mike C

P. S. I have made a 'tremendous' new discovery regarding the Planck Constant but cannot post it because Tormod is blocking me from new posting.
Can you convince him to remove that 'block'?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Mike C

That link defined the meaning of photons as 'momentum and energy'.

It says nothing about charge.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Mike C

That link defined the meaning of photons as 'momentum and energy'.

I agree with this definitions. We can understand the meaning of momentum but how do you define the 'energy' that is being transferred through space?
There are many types of energy.

How do you define the word energy in this case?

Electromagnetic radiation.

Have a look at this Mike:

The quanta of an Abelian gauge field must be massless, uncharged bosons, as long as the symmetry is not broken; hence, the photon is predicted to be massless, and to have zero electric charge and integer spin.

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you reconcile this with your idea that a photon has charge?

P. S. I have made a 'tremendous' new discovery regarding the Planck Constant but cannot post it because Tormod is blocking me from new posting.
Can you convince him to remove that 'block'?

I see no blocks on your account. Besides, you just posted.