File: light != particle.png (1.14 MB, 1919x1079)

1.14 MB PNG

>>17039286
light is not a particle.

I always have a good laugh when someone without a physics degree tries to do physics.

>>17039291
>instant weak appeal to authority.

>>17039286
kek, quantum mechanics is so humiliated at being wrong, they had to sneak in absolute acceleration

>>17039287
Depends on what you define as a particle, it's just a quanta of electromagnetic radiation moving in a wave-like pattern

>>17039352
no, they are not interchangeable views.
>particles don't self interfere
>particles would be fully occluded
>particles are discrete
>particles are finite
>particles don't radiate
>particles lack phase
and on and on and on.
as soon as you try to shoehorn quantized measurement events, you dispose of every meaningful quality.

>>17039292
Appeals to expertise are not fallacious.

>>17039367
yes it is. anon replied within 19 minutes to a ~5 hour detailed explanation of the flaws in particle theory, and he had absolutely nothing to say in response to those points. he is simply attempting to shut it down.

>>17039286
>superposition is experimentally falsified
that's gonna be a laugh, summarize in your own words how.

>>17039356
>particles don't self interfere
Aharonov–Bohm effect isn't real if you close your eyes I guess

>>17039369
An expert is well qualified to shutdown a nonexpert. No reason to waste 5 hours watching such nonsense. Credentials exist to communicate to others that your credentialed opinions are worth listening to.

File: notagain.png (231 KB, 474x568)

231 KB PNG

>>17039286
>WE NEED BETTER THEORIES THIS ISNT LOGICAL
So propose a better theory
>NO, THEY MUST DO THE PROPOSAL!

>>17039287
>Replaces quantized light with e-quantized absorption.
Wow. Noble Prise please.

>>17039291
And of course there is no math, and no experiments.

>>17039369
>>17039286
>5 hour detailed explanation of the flaws in particle theory
Yeah, no thanks. If you find it so convincing then put some effort into your thread and summaries it.

>>17039369
The fact the first two lines are used as the basis for the rest of his arguments invalidates it all within about 20 seconds. It demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the subject.

>>17039291
I always have a laugh when someone with a physics degree regurgitates rote memorization and thinks its physics.

>>17039291
Just shows that physics is fake as fuck.

>>17039369
>watch a hobo piss and shit himself in public for 5 seconds, screaming nonsense
>people leave
>(You): LET HIM COOK BROS

>>17039451
Slapping you with a book (any book) is rebuttal enough

>>17039286
OP here: judging from the replies ITT, the board has become pure trash. oh well.

>>17039399
you misunderstood the statement. that points at wave theory, not particle theory Lindner is far more rigorous than any of you were able to confront.

>>17039458
>quantum physics

>>17039458
And?

>>17039513
You what you sow. And you put zero fucking effort into this thread. Spamming a bunch of droning youtube links is not a serious attempt to engage.

>you misunderstood the statement. that points at wave theory, not particle theory
But which particle theory? Particles in QM have wavelike properties. And so they do interfere with themselves. Classical point like particles do not. Maybe you could apply some rigour to your own strawman statements?

File: Screenshot 2026-08-20 221443.png (542 KB, 1153x646)

542 KB PNG

>>GOOD REFUTATION OF QM
>Looks inside
>QM has no aether. But it has fields, which I am treating as an aether. Contradiction.
>QED

There is no actual contradiction. This is not even rigorous at the level pf philosophy, much less physics.
There is a reason philosophy chuds didn't solve physics before emprical science, and it's because you cannot derive the entire fucking world from your hunches and assumptions.
This crackpot, certainly cannot.

>>17039513
>that points at wave theory, not particle theory
complete and utter gibberish. There is no such thing as a "wave theory" or a "particle theory" in standard QM. There are different FORMALISMS and different INTERPRETATIONS. The formalisms do not care about the interpretation.

Also, by all means, explain how superposition, and the double slit experiment are "physically falsified", which I assume is taken to mean "experimentally falsified", which would in fact be revolutionary.

>>17039564
> There are different FORMALISMS and different INTERPRETATIONS.
yes, that is EXACTLY the problem. It's a mathematical system. He explains in his lecture which you didn't watch.

>my theory because my theory because my theory because my theory checkmate!

>>17039573
How about you actually form your own counter argument? Rather than just parroting "it's in the video, so he must be correct".

>>17039588
>YOU HAFTA REPEAT EVERY WORD OF THE 5 HOUR LECTURE IN TEXT FORM!

wrong. look, anon, there's always gonna be two kinds of people in these threads:

those who are interested enough in dispelling the retarded myths the fell for, to look into it -- and those who desperately cling to their fallacies.

for the first group, I provided enough
for the second group, there is nothing sufficient

guess which one you are.

>>17039286
the Einsteinist cope ITT is over 9000

>>17039287
Alpha particles exhibit all the same wave like properties that photons do. Yet we know experimentally they are literally composed of protons and neutrons.
Either particles don't exist at all or this argument you're presenting is retarded.

No points for guessing which one it is.

>>17039593
>Either particles don't exist at all
read
reread
mull over
contemplate
conceptualize

>>17039590
>YOU HAFTA REPEAT EVERY WORD OF THE 5 HOUR LECTURE IN TEXT FORM!
You do when you are pointing to a giant video in lieu of an actual rational argument.
It as as useful as me poiinting to any QM text boox and saying "You're wrong, look it dummy."
If you cannot explain the counterargument then you clearly don't understand it.

You chose to post it. You are regurgitating his claims. But you won't defend them.

>>17039573
>He explains in his lecture which you didn't watch.
yawn, I am [math] sure [/math] he does. You also didn't answer what I asked.
>, explain how superposition, and the double slit experiment are "physically falsified", which I assume is taken to mean "experimentally falsified"
I am sure it does not take a 5 hour video to explain such a bold claim. I know you people don't read papers but there is such a thing as an "abstract" to them, and an "introduction".

>>17039484
I dare you to try it you little bitch. I double dog dare you.

>>17039592
Threadly reminder that defining a reference frame for no reason and calling it the "aether" is not interesting or useful

tl;dw
>Light is not a particle, but it does transfer energy is quantized packets (i.e. what a particle is)
>Light requires fields and I don't like them so I will call them ether
>No, I will not suggest a different system

>>17039726
it's clear by your reductio absurdum that you didn't.
if you didn't watch it, why are you commenting on it?
be honest: what sacred cow of yours did he step on?

>>17039712
>for no reason
he gave the reason in the lecture, in depth and numerous times.

>>17039771
There is no reason. Your aether "theory" is equivalent to SR, you're just defining an arbitrary reference frame for no reason. It's like defining the integers, and saying
>by the way, we're going to define a special "aether integer", it's number 69
and then just continuing as normal. Completely pointless.

>>17039774
just admit you didn't watch it and therefore shouldn't be commenting on it.
everyone who did watch knows he gave the reason.

>>17039776
I did watch about 30 seconds and I briefly perused his website. He's a retard, lol. Kinda like you although at least he has a medical degree. See you next thread...

>>17039367
Getting a piece of paper from a jew in a suit is not equivilent to expertise, fucktard. It is very feasible to learn physics outside of some kike university

>>17039779
which dogma are you fearfully clinging to which you're afraid might minimize your prior efforts in the face of his alternate explanation?

>>17039780
Sure, if you're not a delusional retard. Nobody who actually learned physics to an undergraduate standard would be interested in this larping slop however. None of this has anything to do with physics. It's mental illness.

>>17039782
you're really seething

>>17039783
You're really larping. YWNBAP

>>17039785
which dogma are you fearfully clinging to to seethe this hard?

>>17039786
Hmmm I guess the existing theories of physics, since they are very nice and work well. You should try studying them a little more before wasting your time with nonsense. If you can show me a handwritten special relativity calculation or problem you've done yourself (with timestamp), I promise I'll actually watch the first 30 mins of your video, and finish it if it's not as retarded as it looks.

>>17039788
answer the question.

>>17039789
I did. I guess you won't be taking my offer?

>>17039782
I don't know fuckall about the guy this thread is about, I just know that it is feasible to have just as great an understanding of physics (or math for that matter) as a phd without ever going to university.
Maybe the guy this thread is about is a retard, I have no idea, but his lack of a degree should not be used as the basis for claiming he is a retard

>>17039793
I said an "undergraduate standard", not an "undergraduate degree". Do you not understand what that means?

>>17039791
you didn't. and no, i won't be expending any more effort on you unless/until you watch the video i already posted and can come up with a valid complaint without resorting to ad hominem, reductio absurdum, appeals to your sacred cows, etc.

>>17039796
The thing is, there are lots of larping retards pretending to do physics. So a little gatekeeping is necessary. That's why I ask you to show me a physics calculation you've actually done of at least undergraduate SR or QM level. Can you do that?

>>17039794
This argument started with >>17039291 who very explicitly said degree. If you are not him then you are not the one I have a problem with.

>>17039800
Yeah I'm not. He's right though, it's a good filter if you can't even show any proof you study physics. You're just some larping faggot who watches shit on youtube and runs his mouth. Go and do some SR/QM calculations instead of wasting your time.

>>17039801
>nooo you hafta believe my system before I'll tolerate any disbelief!1!!

>>17039802
Show me a calculation you've done then.

>>17039801
A piece of paper from a jew does not dictate a physicist's capability

>>17039513
Its extremely rare to get any intelligent insights on /sci/.
Any anusfuck can express an opinion here, and they usually do so if its a fact. If logically corrected they will then embark on a God sanctioned crusade of incoherent screeching, thus derailing any further discussion under a deluge of written diarrhea as thick as the South Caspian Basin
The other option is go to more stringently moderated sites where thinking outside the box is actively discouraged by legions of lawn mower mechanics who express their rote memorization as undeniable truths with a fervor that would embarrass even the most hysterical evangelical religious fanatic.
For progressive deep thinkers who want to explore alternatives within a rational and informed environment there is no where to go.

>>17039805
What does?

>>17039809
A handful of things such as natural intelligence, commitment/effort/time invested in physics, etc >:D

>>17039818
How would you demonstrate such things to an anonymous stranger on 4chan?

>>17039821
Chances are I wouldn't

>>17039823
Chances are you can't. If you were really actively doing physics and had some knowledge of it, you could take a picture right now of some notes or problems you wrote down and show it to me.

>>17039808
i'm seeing that now. just saw an extremely insightful thread get deleted. a truly rare gem.

>>17039808
>>17039826
So sad :((((
you guys are always the victims :(((((

>>17039829
do you really have that many chins?

>>17039830
no im just so sad that /sci/ is persecuting you and preventing your physics breakthroughs :(((

>>17039831
turns out they weren't oppressing me.
i just posted it to the wrong board.

>>17039838
That's good to hear. I hope that /pol/ or /x/ is more accepting of your genius.

>>17039839
>last refuge of a bankrupt mind

>>17039808
>where thinking outside the box is actively discouraged
>gets laughed off stage everywhere
>truly, nobody understands my genius

>>17039774
>by the way, we're going to define a special "aether integer", it's number 0
>NOO YOU CAN'T DEFINE AN ARBITRARY REFERENCE FRAME FOR THE INTEGERS FOR NO REASON AHHH HELP ME EINSTEIN

>>17039286
Okay riddle me this:
Let there be a detector screen with atoms/molecules that need to absorb light with the energy E to light up/generate a detection event. Your dude agrees that the absorption is quantized so the detector can only absorb light with the energy E.
Now we create an EM wave with the total energy E.
But the detector still detects something. That means that the entire energy of the wave suddenly collapsed to a single point in an instant and got absobed by a single detector atom.
Classical waves don't and can't do that.

>>17039781
>which dogma are you fearfully clinging to
You mean like his completely unjustified assumption that light must have a medium, the aether?
Or that spacetime is mumbo-jumbo, but if you call it the aether then it's okay?

His dogmatism is the basis for most of his arguments. He cannot imagine it any differently, so it must be true.
He is not revolutionizing physics, or refuting QM. He is literally just exchanging the words used to describe these models, without chaining the substance (the physical equations).
He hasn't refuted QM, he's just working on his own interpretation.

>>17039780
>is very feasible to learn physics outside of some kike university
Then why can't any of you schizos do it?

>>17039917
>He is not revolutionizing physics, [...] He is literally just exchanging the words used to describe these models, without chaining the substance (the physical equations).
That's by definition what spacetime is, since Lorentz aether with length contraction came first.

>>17039286
The idea of wave particle duality is a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "particle"

Isn't this just the old jargon thigng, where people think words mean the same thing they do in their daily life?

"wave" doesn't mean a literal wave, it means "thing capable of being described using the equations that govern an oscillator"
"particle" doesn't mean a literal particulate, but something that can be described using a variety of different ways, which mostly boil down to "not a wave" as defined above.

Why is it always quantum mechanics btw?

>>17039952
>Why is it always quantum mechanics btw?
it's not. black holes had a phase. this is also physicists fault btw. they should have gatekept it more.

>>17039946
>That's by definition what spacetime is, since Lorentz aether with length contraction came first.
No it's not. Special relativity and a Lorentz aether are different descriptions of the same transform. They are equivalent, but the descriptions are completely mutually exclusive. You cannot blend one with the other, it makes no sense.
It's a ridiculous argument to say that one was first and so it must be correct.

>>17039952
>Why is it always quantum mechanics btw?
Because it's difficult to understand. Particularly for retired engineers who understand the wonders of Newtonian physics, but little modern physics. And assume the whole world must be simple like that. And it's judenphysik, so certain schollars hate it.

>>17039894
Nobody? Come on this is your chance to fix physics

>>17040013
>different descriptions of the same transform
So... exchanging words, without exchanging the substance (the physical equations), in your own words.

>It's a ridiculous argument to say that one was first and so it must be correct.
Correct, which is why your initial objection is ridiculous.

>>17040020
>So... exchanging words, without exchanging the substance (the physical equations), in your own words.
Correct. But they are mutually exclusive. Also in special relativity in particular one could derive the Lorentz contractions from the postualtes. The substance behind the description. And SR could be generalized to get GR.

>Correct, which is why your initial objection is ridiculous.
What objection?

>>17040016
Brave of you to think that's their goal.

>>17040028
This only shows that they don't understand the reason why people came up with wave-particle duality in the first place

>>17040026
>Also in special relativity in particular one could derive the Lorentz contractions from the postualtes
Completely bogus statement, given that the Lorentz contraction is sufficient to derive all of special relativity as well.

>And SR could be generalized to get GR.
Lorentz aether can be generalized to include gravity, too, and it's a good argument for a medium, actually, since even Einstein conceeded that within GR, within his own philosophical framework, space without a sort of aether is "unthinkable". What, now you'll tell me that doing something first means it must be correct after all?

>What objection?
>>He is not revolutionizing physics, or refuting QM. He is literally just exchanging the words used to describe these models, without chaining the substance (the physical equations).
>>He hasn't refuted QM, he's just working on his own interpretation.
You either have to admit that SR is exactly the same type of activity, and thus if SR was a meaningful step ahead in the history of physics, so has the potential whatever this guy is doing (or those like him), or that SR was an unjustified step in the progress of physics, and so he is right in trying to rectify its course.


All the ontological problems with QM ultimately stem from trying to square it with SR's philosophical framing of the Lorentz transform and causality linked to observation of light signals, by the way.

>>17040029
Of course they don't understand. If they understood they wouldn't be saying such retarded things with the ego the size of Australia. It's not like physicists woke up one day and decided to make up this completely unintuitive model of quantum mechanics. The problem is that is fucking worked, a little too well. When incontrovertible evidence exists that light is a wave, and incontrovertible evidence exists that light is a particle, one has to accept both. That's how science works. 120 years ago these dips may have a point to cling to a model, but that excuse is invalid today.

>>17039955
>they should have gatekept it more.
I think they did best they can, it's not their fault undergrads and academic failures were allowed on television (because nobody else would waste their time on them, except people like hawking, and guess on what whose list that one was).

>>17040030
>Completely bogus statement, given that the Lorentz contraction is sufficient to derive all of special relativity as well.
But not the interpretation. Lorentz derived his contractions as a symmetry of Maxwell's equations, not as a physical theory. The interpretation of the Lorentz aether came later.

>Lorentz aether can be generalized to include gravity
So why didn't they get there years ahead of GR? What postulates are needed to go from a Lorentz aether to GR?

>Lorentz aether can be generalized to include gravity, too, and it's a good argument for a medium, actually, since even Einstein conceeded that within GR, within his own philosophical framework, space without a sort of aether is "unthinkable". What, now you'll tell me that doing something first means it must be correct after all?
>>He hasn't refuted QM, he's just working on his own interpretation.
>You either have to admit that SR is exactly the same type of activity
Did I claim SR "refuted" a Lorentz aether? No. Did Einstein? No. Because it makes no sense to sense to say something is refuted, when they are equivalent.
You have tried to shift the point here by talking about a "meaningful step", but that is not what you and he are claiming. Don't try to shift the goalposts.

>>17040030
seriously, what the actual fuck is your problem? you've been getting btfo about this lorentz aether bs for months. you continuously concede special relativity answers things lorentzian aether cannot. yet you continue to propagate this horseshit. why? it sounds like you only concede things in the moment to gain social clout in the hopes people buy into your lies while not believing the ground you cede. meanwhile you expect people to take you seriously on the veracity of this falsified bullshit? genuinely, what's your fucking axe to grind here? did you flunk out of your physics degree or something?

>>17040014
>modern
Modernist, more like.

>>17040029
>the reason why people came up with wave-particle duality in the first place
because it makes the model better at predicting things?

>>17040041
>Modernist
is this some desperate attempt and dragging some culture war crap into this?

>>17040044
yes

>>17040045
It means "pertaining to the first half of the 20th century" here

>>17040047
I am aware, it is just bizarre to use it applied to physics, it's /his/ terminology and modern physics is established jargon. Most people trying to drag soft science terminology into physics are cranks like OP otherwise I wouldn't react the way I do.

>>17040048
Was it the assfucking your grandfather gave you that messed up your head or were you just born stupid?

>>17040049
is it the autism that compels you to misuse language or the impotent contrarianism that makes you want to be special?

Aether horseshit hasn't been viable for over a century now, why tf would anyone lose their time spreading this dogshit?

File: b0abb571aa964935ad1998877(...).png (3.99 MB, 1926x2312)

3.99 MB PNG

Hurr philosophy hurr lorentzian aether did I win the thread now?

>>17039917
>the equations are the substance
you mathicists truly disgust me.
you can't see what you're doing, even after you're told over, and over again.
you're permanently indoctrinated, ruined.

>>17039952
see: >>17039356

>>17040013
Einstein claims "no universal rest frame"
Lindner's logical conclusions refute that.

>>17040029
WRONG AGAIN.
He explains how the single slit is simply a narrow grouping of self-interference, and he proves it experimentally, while showing the particle conclusion actually contradicted the experimental data available at the time.

>>17040032
>with the ego the size of Australia
Jesus, fuck. look at the thread. Look at yourself. Now go back and look at the OP, and look at the video.

The ego here is overwhelmingly from the QM true believer ideologues. He simply presents his logic, without arrogance.

>>17040069
Explain >>17039894

>>17040044
>muh model muh model
you're obsessed with your backpropagated models, but have little concern for reality. that's Lindner's point !

>>17040074
When will I be able to read the paper with his revolutionary theory?

>>17040053
>>17040072
>>17039894
>That means that the entire energy of the wave suddenly collapsed
No it doesn't. It just means there's a detection threshold.

>>17040040
>you've been getting btfo about this lorentz aether bs for months. you continuously concede special relativity answers things lorentzian aether cannot
I don't know who you're talking about, but SR can't answer anything Lorentz aether cannot, by the very fact that it's equivalent to it, so if he does say that, he's wrong.

The schizos need to realize the following: Every physics idea you come up with on the spot has already been experimentally tested by physicists 100 years ago. You're not smart and your ideas are not smart

>>17040075
>cop out response
you won't even listen to the video, don't bullshit me and pretend you'd read a paper upending your entire belief system.

>>17040074
but physics as a whole is a model
to treat it as a fundamental description of reality betrays a failing understanding of the philosophy of science as a whole.

>>17040076
As expected you don't understand it. The total energy in the wave is the detection threshold energy. If a detection event happens the energy distribution has to instantly collapse to a point

>>17040077
He doesn't say they are equivalent. he says that SR is incapable of explaining what we see in reality.

>>17040081
so you agree with Lindner.

>>17040067
>Einstein claims "no universal rest frame"
In special relativity. You haven't refuted shit by assuming a different model.

>>17040078
The heliocentric model proposed by Aristarchus had been experimentally tested and found lacking by his contemporaries. The first heliocentric models were less accurate than epicycles. Why cling to a philosophy of science that wouldn't even get you through the Copernican revolution?

>>17040083
Well yeah, since it's the theory responsible for half of the EPR paradox. If we drop it and go to Lorentz aether then QM is nothing more than the effect of Brownian motion. People call it a misconception only because it would contradict SR philosophically.

>>17040082
>The total energy in the wave is the detection threshold energy.
Nonsense. You're confusing cause with effect because you live in a world of equations where you can flip around the equals sign all you want.
In reality, no, the state does not equal the detector.
>If a detection event happens the energy distribution has to instantly collapse to a point
You mean "if the energy exceeds the detection threshold, the charge grounds out"
Which is a completely different, and much more sane, view of actual PHYSICS as opposed to the purely purposeless mathematical model dogma.
Lindner expressly shows what I have always noticed with frustration in QM: That the entire model is iteratively "backward-propagated" which is just a nice way to say it's repeatedly rationalized ex-post-facto.

You're making a machine to match the numbers, rather than deriving the numbers for an accurate explanation. Yes, the situation DOES venture into philosophy, and that's largely the point.

Well OP. I sat down and read his work. Surprise, surprise, there is no substance to his arguments.

https://henrylindner.net/Writings/PhysEssSpacePhysics2.pdf

You will find his musings on quantisation of light. And you will see, there are no derivations. So he doesn't actually show his hypothesis works. His dismissal of the Compton effect is a particularly weak argument. I'm skipping the totally irreverent points.

>since x-ray scattering did not follow classical Thomson or Rayleigh scattering rules, x-radiation must be composed of particles. However, consider that:

>2. Any physical model, whether of wave absorption/emission or particle collision/rebound, must yield the same calculated results at various angles as vectorial energy-motion must be conserved in any physical system.

What he fails to understand is that in the quantum picture energy and momentum are always come together in a fixed ratio. If you have classical waves without quantisation, that is not the case. Conservation of energy is not the same for scattering off one photon, vs interacting with a whole spectrum of waves.
This is why you cannot do physics without equations. He has failed to grasp the key point because he is disinterested in the maths. This is very basic undergrad shit, and he completely missed the plot.

3. This is no “collision between billiard balls”. We now know that both the bound and the freed electrons absorb an e-quant of x-radiation and then emit another e-quant. This is represented in the Feynman diagram for Compton scattering:

He previously started that in atoms and metals electrons had quantised absorption. But here he is invoking it to explain interactions with free electrons. But he cannot actually define how or why this works.

>>17040077
if it's equivalent, show me how you get GR from the lorentz aether

>>17040089
>he refutes my undergrad indoctrination therefore he must be wrong
weakest argument in the entire thread.

>quantised absorption.
literally "detection threshold"

>>17040088
>nonsense babbling
Study physics. You're not even on the level where you can understand why you're wrong

>>17040090
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 is an example.

>>17040077
>THE MATH IS EQUIVALENT!!!
you just showed exactly why QM is such an insidious mind virus that has utterly hogtied humanity.

>>17040093
>noooo you have to believe that I believe before i'll believe i'm wrong!!!!
it's literally a religion.

>>17039824
Sure but I am not a physicist, my only point is that someone can become a very capable physicist without going to school, I didn't claim I personally am a physicist. But hypothetically if I was I wouldnt post notes of what I was actively working on because I wouldnt want someone to steal my theory and soon to be breakthrough

>>17040096
No anon, you're just retarded

>>17040092
The speed of your reply tells me you didn't even read it. Your nonsense summary of my critism confirms it.

You bitch and whine that people didn't take him seriously. I have. And you blindly and ignorantly reject my engagement.

File: qm bible.jpg (97 KB, 667x1000)

97 KB JPG

>>17040098
quote me which chapter and verse proves it.

>>17040102
Are you implying that believing in the bible is bad?

>>17040099
i did read your response.

File: enki et ninmah ao-7036.png (2.23 MB, 1334x1079)

2.23 MB PNG

>>17040103
i fucking knew it.

and by the way:

>>17040105
You're going to hell

>>17040094
>https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035
>We use here the existence of pilot wave theory as an argument for compatibility of classical realism with observation.
sorry, chud. that's been falsified.

>>17040106
>noooo you can't just read the source material and notice the plagiarism!

>>17040107
Being incompatible with fairy tales is a feature.

>>17040104
And so you have no counter argument? No intelegent response?
Great. I win. Lindner refuted

>>17040112
i already showed how you appealed to your own indoctrination and how you misconstrued quantised absorption as particle behavior by dancing around your semantic "particle" doublespeak trick.
see: >>17039356

>>17040113
>appealed to your own indoctrination
Refercing education is not an appeal to authority. What a cheap excuse for an argument.
Are you literally incapable of thinking about all the other shit I said?
Apparently not.

>>17040089
>3. This is no “collision between billiard balls”. We now know that both the bound and the
freed electrons absorb an e-quant of x-radiation and then emit another e-quant.

Lel. So electrons in atoms emit quantised light. So do atoms in metals. And so do free electrons. So where exactly is the non-quantisied light coming from?
Changing the word from photons to e-quanta is just empty sophistry.
He says it is different, they spread out and combine, like diffraction. He is reinventing the EM fields.

>>17040116
>you refuted my belief system so you must be wrong
>Are you literally incapable
if you lead with dogma, i will devote significantly less effort to you.

your entire argument is about math, not mechanics. Lindner's criticisms are that mechanics must come first, but you Qultists have found what you believe is the perfect way around it:
Step 1: make your math /almost/ equal observations
Step 2: invent endless insane interpretations
Step 3: reject everyone who points out that's retarded
Step 4: misinterpret your own experiments
Step 5: demand their math
Step 6: claim their math doesn't match your misinterpretations
Step 7: appeal to arrogance, authority, education, dogma, expertise, what-have-you
Step 8: claim that's not what you just did

Energy-momentum coupling belongs to the electron’s internal wave-structure.

File: 1690096878135698.jpg (106 KB, 1242x1258)

106 KB JPG

>being unable to make quantitative predictons is a feature!
>me being unable to do highschool level maths means I am a free thinker who abolished indoctrinaiton
the reality is that these cranks all fail to challenge the theories they shit on within the frameworks they are utilized. They confuse them being too retarded, too inept and mentally weak with rigorous theories (perhaps math as a whole) being rigged against them. That is why they always lash out when something requiring any formal training in anything is asked of them. That is also why they always consider academia as a grand conspiracy; they can't philosophize their way out of failing basic arithmetic and algebra. So they come here, angry and bitter that nobody recognizes them.

>>17040122
>maths
planck’s constant describes the electron's internal wave-structure

>>17040123
>picking out a single word
and immediately they go off to ramble some more.

>>17040125
you lost.