The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:Mass is a property of gravity and gravity is an inversely logarithmic function of time.

You have just said that the mass of the universe is increasing exponentially. I hope you don't mean that!

When it comes to the helium atom gravity has nothing to tell us. The gravitational interactions between electrons are 42 orders of magnitude smaller than the electrostatic interactions. They Can be ignored! How well would say this policy has been working out for the past century? Are we any closer ...

Clearly i'm wasting my time, you have no understanding of the physics you claim to talk about. Newtonian gravity is a perfectly good approximation for the solar system triplet Sun, Earth, Moon as Poincare knew (all his work was done with it!). I say nothing about relativity, special nor general as w...

To generate the observed electron magnetic moment the surface of the ball would have to move at faster than the speed of light. This is not possible... Thanks. But replacing a real spin with zero spin does not help anymore ? Nature has two types of particle Fermions (spin 1/2, 3/2,5/2 etc) and Boso...

Nix, I isolate for you my 2 central points: Technetium is unstable whatever its isotope we consider, and I am afraid that a model representing a bag of badly defined bullets cannot. Mathis could explain why Technetium is unstable whatever the isotope we consider, nothing less !! -And the second is ...

THE MOTION OF EVERY PHYSICAL ENTITY IN THE UNIVERSE CAUSALLY AFFECTS THE MOTION OF EVERY OTHER. I ask again. Why should this not be true for the motions of sub-atomic particles? The notion that the universe should operate any differently at the subatomic scale than it does at the galactic scale is ...

It may be a convenient heuristic, but it has a well defined meaning which connects directly to facts of nature. This rather depends on the way we think the world. If we think the world in terms of process then all sub-atomic events are merely expressions of causal relationships,..... Why does the S...

I'm not going to be an apologist for him by trying to straighten out his arguments, nix, but will merely point out that the Bohr radius is a convenient heuristic in a particular procedure of thought and not a fact of nature. It may be a convenient heuristic, but it has a well defined meaning which ...

Nix. You're doing it again. You're assuming that which you seek to establish. I'm not a great fan of the way that Mathis constructs his arguments but his work does not contradict the evidence. It merely contradicts the QM interpretation of the evidence. He does contradict the evidence, for example ...

Here is exactly what he said on pg2 of his paper: "We can immediately see from studying mainstream explanations of nuclear binding energy that we are being misdirected. We are told that nuclei weigh less than their constituents, and that the difference in weight is a “mass defect.”… But how can...

His nuclear "physics" is even worse crap than his atomic physics! Clearly the product of a disturbed mind. He ascribes the nuclear force to gravity which becomes large at the nuclear scale. This is not in accord with nuclear scattering experiments at all, or any of the known properties of ...

Mathis's thesis is total crap! The bonding in small molecules (H2, H2O, CH4, H2CO etc )is understood completely in terms of non relativistic quantum mechanics and this gives us high precision, quantitative predictions of molecular geometry, bonding energies, heats of formation and spectra in exact a...

There is a lovely little book by Feynman "The character of physical law" based on some lectures he gave to the general public in which he describes energy and energy conservation. Check it out, you may enjoy it!