Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum modelling superconduction 2

You obviously value your time less than I do.

We must agree to disagree. You think you theory is valid. Have fun with it.

For the record--this means I don't believe your counter-arguments are valid. Go ahead and have your last word and let's let this thread die.

At present they are equally valid provided one accepts the Copenhagen interpretation; in the same sense that Ptolemy's model of the soalr system is equally valid to that of Copernicus, provided one accepts that the earth is stationary. So why pick on this minor issue? There is no experiment at present that can unequovically decide between the two except that the energy-time interpretation can be used for quantitative calculations as I have done in my manuscript (it is also used in QED in a related mannet). Similarly the sun-centred solar system can be more easily used for quantitative calculations. One never knows; maybe Ptolemy has been correct all the time?? But unlikely.

JB wrote:
"I have oulined my reasoning on this aspect to JAG above by comparing resistance in a normal conductor to to resistance in a conductor with no scattering."

I've read that but I don't see that it does what you suggest. Your argument supports the premise that the Bohr interpretation is incorrect. Something I personally agree with. But your leap on the other side of the equation to "therefore it must equal what I say it does" does not follow. Let me give you a simple illustration.

It has been proposed that there might be a macroscopic dimension that does not intersect with time. For the moment assume it exists. It explains tunneling and it explains the old "spooky action at a distance."

Is there any experimental evidence pointing to this extra dimension? Not a shred. It is just an alternative to Bohr that "might" be correct. How is that different from what you have proposed?

I'm going to agree with JAG here. This thread has run its course.

My last piece of advice, JB, is one I've already given ... you need to get a coauthor. And there is much of substance that person can provide if you let them.

If science is a matter of faith to you instad of reason; so be it. I note that you are not able to counter the argument that the charge-carriers of a superconducting current cannot have kinetic energy even though they must move with a speed v in order to transport a current. If they do need kinetic energy to move from one contact to the other, this energy must dissipate, and therefore one will not be able to have zero resistance. If this thread irritates you, probably because it is going against your dogmatic "faith" then do not read it; but please do not try and intimidate me to give up my freedom of speech. If it has to die, I will definitely not allow it to do so just because you are not able to argue logically on science.

Nonetheless, I thank you again for your input. It did help me to hone my arguments and to convince me that my science is correct[ i.e. you were not able to really give a compelling argument against my model. Remember energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. For superconduction to occur the charge-carriers must always be in the lowest energy state and that is a state without kinetic energy.

You are wrong again. I have experimental evidence in the form of a macro-wave comprising electrons that form between a diamond's surface and an anode. It is a single holistic wave within which time does not exist, similar to a laser beam except that it is now a staionary wave through which electrons can be teleported. We have photographs of this phase as a pitch-black cylinder. So watch this space.

Your statement: "I've read that but I don't see that it does what you suggest." has two possible interpretations: 1. that you really have valid reasons to reject it (which, however, you are for some reason not willing to share with us), or 2. that you are not able to follow the physics and are just petulant. From what you have posted on this BB I have to conclude that it is the latter.

You are welcome to believe that this thread has run its course and to stop contributing to it. But I do note that you, just like JAG, are trying to intimidate me not to make any more postings. Do you believe in freedom of speech? It does not seem so. It will be a relief if people who are scientifically more adept than you and JAG would be willing to go into discussion with me. So I hope you both stick to your decision that you are not capable to add value to this thread. The problem is, however, with you, not with me.

Of course I disagree totally with your last sentence.What you are basically saying is that I will not get new ideas published unless I suck up to a person established in the field of superconduction. This is immoral and corrupt to say the least. No wonder physics is in a quaqmire.

JB wrote:
"But I do note that you, just like JAG, are trying to intimidate me not to make any more postings."

You are wholly incorrect in your assessment.

Rather I am of the opinion that you are not interested in being helped.

Feel free to disagree. You've disagreed with every other bit of guidance you have received too.

What guidance? You could have fooled me!

Get a friend of yours to read these threads. Especially the posts where recommendations were made as to how to work with publishers, getting a coauthor, etc.

Perhaps not. They likely wouldn't remain your friend for long.

Seems the problem here is that you didn't see them as guidance. Perhaps you should stop using a microscope and start using a telescope.

Either way I will henceforth ignore anything in this thread. Here's your chance to get in the last word. By all means take it.

My friends have read it. They are just as shocked as I am about your advice. Science is about science not about "attitude". As I have already pointed out, Newton is known to have had the worst attitude ever. If the scientsists at that time thought like you do, then we would not have had classical mechanics. So please look past "attitude" and judge science objectively (or do you grade your students on attitude and not ability; or pass a student provided he gives somebody else the credit?). There is no reason why I should suck up to a "co-author" or to an editor who is clearly an idiot. In the interest of science it should be pointed out when an editor is incompetent; as it has been in the case of Superconductor Science and Technology. One should not be an editor if you do not have the knowledge, ability and dedication to science required for the job.