I rather think you're right, Brain Man. I do however find this feedback useful to sketch out a future course of action.Brain Man wrote:...Internet forums like this are only good for experiments in groupishness..and to get some rough peer review. If their feedback were to be taken completely seriously (not that there isnt good feedback to be had) you would end up in big trouble...
I don't think that. Why do you clutch at such straw men? You think I've never heard of a cross-section? Go look up low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation.lpetrich wrote:Proton-antiproton annihilation: Farsight seems to think that they do not produce charged pions or more than 2 particles, at least not in significant quantities.
There are no free quarks. Full stop. And mesons have very short lifetimes.lpetrich wrote:Quarks outside of baryons: Farsight seems to think that all baryons are somehow excited states of protons, or protons + extra particles, and he seems to think that quarks are only parts of protons. However, there's lots of evidence that mesons are composed of quark-antiquark systems.
You're doing it again. Go look up beta decay.lpetrich wrote:Beta decay: Farsight ignores the full range of reactions, hoping to imply that a neutron is an excited state of a proton, or even that a neutron somehow contains a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Here are the reactions observed; which one happens depends on what is energetically favorable.
n -> p + e- + nu*
p -> n + e+ + nu
p + e- -> n + nu (electron capture)
That wasn't me.lpetrich wrote:Slams: Farsight make Dirac claim that a neutron is made of cheese seems like a gratuitous insult.
Hands up, that was me.lpetrich wrote:Likewise for Hawking claiming that ordinary matter is made of black holes, or Curie claiming that ordinary matter is made of radioactivity. Also, Witten's “Er, string, sir?” implies that he's not very confident that string theory is a viable possibility.
LOL. You have no patience for scientific evidence. You warble on about another time dimension and you've never read Time Explained.lpetrich wrote:At least Farsight got Gell-Mann's position right. That's as much as I had patience for.
OK guys, what magazine do you think this article is aimed at?