Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Laser Jock
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doodler
I'd like to add one. When challenging an accepted concept with an alternate point of view, be sure you fully understand the concept you are trying to challenge. Sometimes, defending an ATM idea is as much effectively demonstrating why existing ideas are wrong as much as showing yourself to be right.
|
Related to this we could add:
Be sure that you understand meanings of the words you use. There are many experts on this board, and if you try to bluff your way by using fancy technical buzz words, someone can and will call you on it.
Edit to add because I hit submit instead of preview:
Cyrek1 gives a great example of what I mean in this post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrek1
[snip] The photon is composed of a 'negative virtual charged particle field congregate' [/snip]
|
 |
This is an example of how difficult it can be to communicate an ATM concept. There is nothing wrong in the ATM world with proposing the existence of virtual electrons, or the conversion of a pile of photons into a real electron. (In fact I think it is fundamental) Three mainstream physicists were recently awarded a Nobel prize for explaining how an electron’s charge could be subdivided – Thus explaining observed Hall effect energy states without compromising this axiom. If an electron can be subdivided, it can also be heterodyned.
The purpose of introducing alternative physics is that the existing structure cannot explain all that we observe. Mainstream physics are horribly vague when it comes to explaining even the most common of natural phenomena – Lightening. But if we allow wave functions to separate charges in clouds, the mechanism is relatively simple and straightforward. Virtual electrons and positrons? Of coarse! Unfortunately, that also throws Ben Franklin’s theory on the pile of discards…