From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Oct 07 2004 - 05:56:41 BST
David M,
> Again Read, I think, in this new
> article make help us to think
> more deeply about how SQ
> may work for anyone interested:
>
> http://www.onlineoriginals.com/showitem.asp?itemID=287&articleID=23
I lost it when he uses the word 'electron' as *the* fundamental particle.
And then talks of positrons and negatrons as electrons with positive and
negative charge. What happened to quarks, with 1/3 or 2/3 charges? And to
gluons and neutrinos and all the rest of the particle zoo, which by no
stretch of the imagination can be seen as built out of electrons? What
happened to what physicists call positrons, which if it meets an electron
annihilates both? What about electron spin, polarity, isospin, and other
properties that are not measured by space, time, mass, or charge?
Physicists have long since understood that a neutron cannot be considered a
merged proton and electron, but Read assumes it. He ignores that there are
two nuclear forces (at least as far as I read). In short, he is twisting
physics to fit it into his quite arbitrary assumptions.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 07 2004 - 05:58:53 BST