I'm sorry. You just redefining a terms and presenting what you think are paradoxes but aren't. You're not presenting a cogent theory.
ScottTheSculptor wrote:
The whole confusion is that you are always looking at part of matter.
Mass is a volume of energy.
What does that even mean? Inverse length is a unit of energy if that helps. Maybe you can start woo-ing from that.
ScottTheSculptor wrote:
The 1D atom has to go completely through its path before any volume can be detected.
How is a "volume" detected? I already explained to you how we can't have atoms of different types (eg the elements) without a 3D atom. Maybe you can try explaining that. There are numerous ways that mass can be "detected" (measured is a better word) TOF, Quadrupol ion traps, FT-ICR that all depend on the interaction of charged bodies in 3D magnetic fields.
ScottTheSculptor wrote:
This is "Uncertainty". You can't measure the location of the atom on the path at the same time that you measure the results of the whole path moving.
Which uncertainty? The current models predict specific pairs of uncertainties, which have all been demonstrated. Can yours?
ScottTheSculptor wrote:
An AFM is deflected by the whole collection of chaotic paths - not just one 1D atom.
An AFM is deflected because it hits matter. For most AFM work, classical mechanics works quite well. It's just a point tapping on a surface to feel out it's contours. Again, you're not introducing anything that isn't already explained quite well.
ScottTheSculptor wrote:
Photon are massless yet affect matter.
Photons actually do have a mass equivalent to the their energy via E=Mc^2. And yes, they effect matter, so what? They're packets of energy. Imparting energy on matter effects it. Current models explain this quite well.
ScottTheSculptor wrote:
If a photon is travelling at the speed of light its clock stops. Light has no time.
Explain that without this model. Within this model only matter has what we define as "time".
That's not your model. That's Einstein's model. Your model doesn't show me anything that can explain it. IT's a bunch of non sequiturs.
I'm sorry, but I don't think your trying to disproves something you don't understand. That's pretty hard to do. I suggest you go study up on some physics. Maybe work up to the Feynman lectures. They're online now. Then, if you have new insights, you'll be able to point to the flaws you find in the current theories, and explain how they make incorrect predictions, or fail to explain obvious phenomena.
02 Nov 2015, 6:12 pm
