06 Jan 20
@sonhouse saidActually JJ Thomson called the electron a corpuscle when he discovered it and it was later called an electron according to wikipedia.
@Metal-Brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics
This one links. It shows proposals in 1877 about discreteness of particle energies but not till well after 1900 was that given serious thought.
Wikipedia has been known to be wrong though.
06 Jan 20
@Metal-Brain
If you knew that al along why did you bring it up? It really doesn't matter what JJ thought about it when he discovered them.
06 Jan 20
@sonhouse saidI didn't, but my source is wikipedia which is not known for reliability.
@Metal-Brain
If you knew that al along why did you bring it up? It really doesn't matter what JJ thought about it when he discovered them.
07 Jan 20
@sonhouse saidBecause you and everybody else here post wikipedia and some of you even defend wikipedia's accuracy even though it is not accurate much of the time. If you question it's accuracy say so, you always make me do that despite you knowing fully well wiki contains false info.
@Metal-Brain
If you know it to be unreliable why did you post it?
Is a corpuscle a particle? I think it is, but for all I know the definition evolved over time and it never started out that way.
07 Jan 20
@metal-brain saidThe pages on Physics are generally quite good. If the page is well copy edited then it's fine. If the copy editing is poor then it's liable to be the work of one person and the quality of the information depends on him or her.
Because you and everybody else here post wikipedia and some of you even defend wikipedia's accuracy even though it is not accurate much of the time. If you question it's accuracy say so, you always make me do that despite you knowing fully well wiki contains false info.
Is a corpuscle a particle? I think it is, but for all I know the definition evolved over time and it never started out that way.
Yes, it's a generic word for particle, see [1] which is a disambiguation page on Wikipedia. I had a lecturer at university who used the term "corpuscle" for particles in classical theories and "particle" for the objects in quantum theories to avoid confusion. Newton used the term "corpuscle" in his theory of light, the particle is now called a photon. So JJ Thomson was reporting the existence of a negatively charged corpuscle. An Irishman called George Johnstone Stoney invented the word "electron" to name it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscle
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Johnstone_Stoney
@sonhouse saidIf he posts it because he delusionally thinks it supports his warped nonsense opinions then its reliable enough else its just simply unreliable because anything edited by scientists and the experts that don't first consult him on his expert opinions from his superior intellect before editing always is unreliable. I mean, what do all those experts and Nobel Prize winning scientists that devoted their lives to studying and researching it know about science that Metal-Brain doesn't?
@Metal-Brain
If you know it to be unreliable why did you post it?
07 Jan 20
1 edit
Notice how many on here post nonsense about how prominent scientists know better than me, yet one of the world's most prominent physicist's opinion is disregarded because he shares my opinion.
Brian Greene is right and the morons who say he is wrong are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. They think they are smarter than one of the world's most respected physicists.
Extraordinary claims require proof of that claim. Notice when I ask them to prove their backwards assertion that gravity causes time dilation they fail every single time. Time dilation causes gravity and Einstein's theory of GR and Brian Greene agrees with me.
The only way to prove me wrong is to prove Einstein and Brian Greene wrong. It is not surprising they have failed miserably every single time.
@metal-brain saidI'm not watching an hour long video for the sake of finding out what Brian Greene actually said. There are two possibilities, either he is using the term loosely to get across the idea to a lay audience, or you've misunderstood what he's saying. If you want to give the time in the video where he says it I'll take a look, but I'm simply not going to use up an hour of my time watching a guide to general relativity for non-physicists for the sake of unraveling this endless discussion, which seems to be some sort of proxy for the global warming argument anyway.
Notice how many on here post nonsense about how prominent scientists know better than me, yet one of the world's most prominent physicist's opinion is disregarded because he shares my opinion.
Brian Greene is right and the morons who say he is wrong are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. They think they are smarter than one of the world's most respected physicis ...[text shortened]... Einstein and Brian Greene wrong. It is not surprising they have failed miserably every single time.
07 Jan 20
@deepthought saidYou have watched it and now you are pretending you didn't. We have been over this all before. You knew quotes from Greene in Light Falls that I never posted on here. It was obvious that you have already seen it and you are being dishonest.
I'm not watching an hour long video for the sake of finding out what Brian Greene actually said. There are two possibilities, either he is using the term loosely to get across the idea to a lay audience, or you've misunderstood what he's saying. If you want to give the time in the video where he says it I'll take a look, but I'm simply not going to use up an hour of my ...[text shortened]... his endless discussion, which seems to be some sort of proxy for the global warming argument anyway.
Do you realize you are contradicting sonhouse and humy since they claim Brian Greene is wrong? Your claim that Greene is using terms loosely is poppycock. There is also nothing to misunderstand.
You are in denial. The reason you are in denial is because you see this linked to global warming for some stupid reason. Since this has absolutely nothing to do with that I conclude you are afraid that if I prove you wrong about anything it weakens your faith in the AGW bias you have. That is your issue, not mine.
Why would gravity cause time dilation? There is not a single Einstein quote saying that is the case. Do you know why? Because it is a myth!!!!!!!!!!
@metal-brain saidThis is raving paranoia.
You have watched it and now you are pretending you didn't. We have been over this all before. You knew quotes from Greene in Light Falls that I never posted on here. It was obvious that you have already seen it and you are being dishonest.
Do you realize you are contradicting sonhouse and humy since they claim Brian Greene is wrong? Your claim that Greene is using term ...[text shortened]... not a single Einstein quote saying that is the case. Do you know why? Because it is a myth!!!!!!!!!!
07 Jan 20
@deepthought saidThat is your psychological projection!
This is raving paranoia.
Who was paranoid enough to think this was somehow linked to global warming? You know fully well it is you that is being paranoid. Now I know why. The more I prove you wrong about physics the more you doubt AGW.
That uncomfortable feeling is your cognitive dissonance.
@deepthought saidYes, it certainly is.
This is raving paranoia.
As I just explained to him in other thread, he seems to have this weird paranoid dilution that we agree with each other here about everything just to spite him here when in reality we generally agree with each other on most (not all) things here because we just look at what the science says and thus generally the only way we can come to disagree is if one of us misinterprets what the science says which can and sometimes does happen but not very often which is why we generally agree with each other on most (not all) things here.
07 Jan 20
@humy saidYou don't agree on Brian Greene. You clearly do NOT agree with each other about everything, but you are clearly pretending to.
Yes, it certainly is.
As I just explained to him in other thread, he seems to have this weird paranoid dilution that we agree with each other here about everything just to spite him here when in reality we generally agree with each other on most (not all) things here because we just look at what the science says and thus generally the only way we can come to disagree is if one ...[text shortened]... en but not very often which is why we generally agree with each other on most (not all) things here.
Why? Spite? We all know that is why. The ego bruised do that a lot.