Originally posted by HELLBOY

Because 137 is the inverse of the fine structure constant.

It is so, because it is related to the probability that an electron will emit or absorb a photon.

You take the square of the charge of the electron, then divide it by the speed of light by the Planck’s constant and you get what? The crux of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum theory (Planck’s constant).

You combine the quantities that make up Alpha and see what happens! If you know anything about QM, you’ll be left scratching your head.

You're confused. Planks constant like I said, is related to the fine structure constant. It is not the inverse of the fine structure constant. Planks constant is a part of the fine structure constant, but not the opposite. Which is what you claimed.

And it's not an inverse. An inverse is like going from step 2 to step 1 instead of step 1 to step 2 . The classic inverse is F(X)=Y becoming F-1(Y)=X.

Originally posted by Sea of red

You're confused. Planks constant like I said, is related to the fine structure constant. It is not the inverse of the fine structure constant. Planks constant is a part of the fine structure constant, but not the opposite. Which is what you claimed.

And it's not an inverse. An inverse is like going from step 2 to step 1 instead of step 1 to step 2 . The classic inverse is F(X)=Y becoming F-1(Y)=X.

Ummm, no… You are flat out wrong, friend.

You apparently forgot to note the P-Adic expansion, which is both the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant of electromagnetism AND (with the standard model) the number of the chiral energy particles…

After THIS, we have the extended “T” duality (coupling constant/U high Planck energy) giving the number of particles N=1.

You cannot make the statement any simpler than that.

And of course, it is the inverse of the FSC,! That is the starting point. Where would you imagine it otherwise?

Oh, and ps, it's not "Planks" - it's "Planck's".

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Ummm, no… You are flat out wrong, friend.

You apparently forgot to note the P-Adic expansion, which is both the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant of electromagnetism AND (with the standard model) the number of the chiral energy particles…

After THIS, we have the extended “T” duality (coupling constant/U high Planck energy) giving the number of particles N=1.

You cannot make the statement any simpler than that.

And of course, it is the inverse of the FSC,! That is the starting point. Where would you imagine it otherwise?

Oh, and ps, it's not "Planks" - it's "Planck's".

Uh...no, you're wrong.

I don't how many times I must repeat this but here I go again. The fine structure constant is made up of the speed light, electric constant, magnetic constant, and Planck's constant. Planck's constant is not an inverse of the FSC. It is part of it, but it's not an inverse. You sure you took high school precalculus?

Planck's Constant (or, better put, "The inverse of the Fine Structure Constant), i.e.

That would be better put? Are you for real?

Dude, all I'm saying is your wording gives people a false impression of Plancks constant, and what it is. Just be more more careful with your words that's all.

Originally posted by Sea of red

Uh...no, you're wrong.

I don't how many times I must repeat this but here I go again. The fine structure constant is made up of the speed light, electric constant, magnetic constant, and Planck's constant. Planck's constant is not an inverse of the FSC. It is part of it, but it's not an inverse. You sure you took high school precalculus?


That would be better put? Are you for real?

Dude, all I'm saying is your wording gives people a false impression of Plancks constant, and what it is. Just be more more careful with your words that's all.

Weird,

I don't really know how you're thinking about this - Perhaps there has been an inflection missed or something...

Alpha is - from the bold start, and must be, in order for it to even get off the ground - the inverse of the FSC... Now, if you are viewing "inverse" as "converse" or "opposite" then I can better understand your thinking, as that's not at all what inverse implies.

However, and more important...

When you first responded, I thought you were a Christian! And, by GOD, those cats are always trying to rile me up around here...

I just fired off my response thinking in the back of my head, something along the lines of what Yosemite Sam would have said after he discovers that the Saloon Girl he was flirting with was actually Bugs Bunny in drag.

So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are content with your understanding of the FSC... But any Christian out there... Warning! I'll hafta open up a can o' T-Rex on ya.

Originally posted by element771

Question

If I would like to remain anonymous, how hard would it be for you to google the article that I PM you with my name taken off of it?

Now that you mention it, that does sound rather easy. Hadn't thought of that. Thought most journals required a subscription to see em though?


Kinda funny,

Hellboy and SoR are having an argument about a constant.

They both think the other is wrong.

With time, they will be able to completely work out who is right or not.

I love science.

Originally posted by Jaecp

With time, they will be able to completely work out who is right or not.

Platonic Harmony.jpg

Time ?

The does not understand why his name/credentials are any isssue. If wanted such, he would publish such. They are published, but not at Theologyweb -- not will they ever be.

Theologyweb is a neat ppace to diiscuss theology and opinions plus have some spamming fun. if you want contempory theories on physics, try http://arxiv.org/

Or ask shunyadragon, the expert

Originally posted by shadowmaster

The shadowmaster does not understand why his name/credentials are any isssue. If wanted such, he would publish such. They are published, but not at Theologyweb -- not will they ever be.

Theologyweb is a neat ppace to diiscuss theology and opinions plus have some spamming fun. if you want contemporary theories on physics, try http://arxiv.org/

I am aware of this site and use it. The understanding of my position should be obvious. There is a diversity of views of physicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians, and the testimony of one relatively anonymous source is not reliable.. Sources like the one you cited are my sources, because they do not reflect the views of one person.

The source you cited is excellent, but it is cumbersome to use and references large amounts (in fact huge amounts) of mostly highly technical articles. Now that you brought it up I may sort through some of it for something interesting to use here in the future.

Regardless of your reasons, your are to certain extent an anonymous source, which only has value if you cite sources like above.

Or ask shunyadragon, the expert

The sarcasm meter just pegged beyond the last of all possible universes. I never claimed to be an expert. In all my posts I am referencing and citing the cosmologists, and not claiming my own authority.

The point was not that you don't have creditably, but that others say you are this big expert without saying why except that they say your in the field or whatever.

Originally posted by Jaecp

The point was not that you don't have creditably, but that others say you are this big expert without saying why except that they say your in the field or whatever.

True_Professionals.gif

There are no experts here, only professional posers.

HH.

Originally posted by Jaecp

The point was not that you don't have creditably, but that others say you are this big expert without saying why except that they say your in the field or whatever.

The simply expresses his professional opinions.
Others may judge solely by the presentation, not by credentials or so-called peer-reviewed articles.

(Peer review means that others of like mind agreed with publication somewhere. They are usually university folks who must publish or perish. Real research is generally classiified and not available publically. )

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I am aware of this site and use it. The understanding of my position should be obvious. There is a diversity of views of physicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians, and the testimony of one relatively anonymous source is not reliable.. Sources like the one you cited are my sources, because they do not reflect the views of one person.

The source you cited is excellent, but it is cumbersome to use and references large amounts (in fact huge amounts) of mostly highly technical articles. Now that you brought it up I may sort through some of it for something interesting to use here in the future.

Good. Then try being more balanced in your presentations.

Regardless of your reasons, your are to certain extent an anonymous source, which only has value if you cite sources like above.

So only posts with cited sources are to be considered in your estimation. The will remember that for your future posts.

The sarcasm meter just pegged beyond the last of all possible universes. I never claimed to be an expert. In all my posts I am referencing and citing the cosmologists, and not claiming my own authority.

In "all your posts"? Guess what meter just pegged.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

It seems a bit odd to start a post over someone's qualifications.

Don't flatter yourself. The post was primarily started to stop hijacking the other thread which was spelled out in the initial post.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

But remember, nearly every journal is published online,

Without academic credentials or paying a decent chuck of change , how many of those are accessible to the layman?

Originally posted by Jaecp

Now that you mention it, that does sound rather easy. Hadn't thought of that. Thought most journals required a subscription to see em though?

Not the abstract which has the authors name and affiliations.

Originally posted by element771

Not the abstract which has the authors name and affiliations.

Cornell ( http://arxiv.org/ )allows the entire article to be viewed and downloaded.