Re: MD Read & SQ & Coherence

From: Scott Roberts (
Date: Thu Oct 07 2004 - 05:56:41 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD Read & SQ & Coherence"

    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:

    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 -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 07 2004 - 05:58:53 BST