Amazing, these relativists are contradicting each other again.

If vacuum is not empty but full with permeabilistic and
permitivistic dielectricum, how come that an electron preserves
its charge no matter how long it goes?

Where is this electron getings its charge from in vacuum?

On Jun 19, 11:04*am, Bruckner wrote:
Amazing, these relativists

Troll alert.

On Jun 19, 8:18 pm, dlzc wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:04 am, Bruckner wrote:

Amazing, these relativists

Troll alert.

exactly,

an excuse for not being able to answer

On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, Bruckner wrote:
Amazing, these relativists are contradicting each other again.

If vacuum is not empty but full with permeabilistic and
permitivistic dielectricum, how come that an electron preserves
its charge no matter how long it goes?

Where is this electron getings its charge from in vacuum?

This sounds like the same question concerning the Fermi sea of
electrons in Dirac's relativistic quantum theory. The answer is
Pauli's exclusion principle. Two electrons can't occupied the same
state. If there was scattering between the electron and an electron in
the Fermi sea, electrons in the Fermi sea would be scattered into
identical states. Electrons are Fermions. They can't do that.
However, the Fermi sea does have a dielectric permittivity.
Although electrons can't scatter, the states themselves can be changed
by the presence of an electron.
The problem is not relativity, however. The real question is to the
origin of Pauli's exclusion principle. Pauli's exclusion principle has
to do more with multiparticle quantum mechanics and exchange symmetry.
That has very little to do with SR.
If you don't like it, your problem is with quantum mechanics not
relativity. The ground states of the vacuum even exist in
nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. A nonrelativistic quantum
oscillator has nonzero ground state energy. A lot of this discussion
concerning permittivity can be just as well stated for the
nonrelativistic Schroedingers equation as for relativity.

"Bruckner" wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 8:18 pm, dlzc wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:04 am, Bruckner wrote:

Amazing, these relativists

Troll alert.

exactly,

an excuse for not being able to answer

OK, so answer

Why should an electron lose its charge?

On Jun 19, 11:04 am, Bruckner wrote:
Amazing, these relativists are contradicting each other again.

If vacuum is not empty but full with permeabilistic and
permitivistic dielectricum, how come that an electron preserves
its charge no matter how long it goes?

Where is this electron getings its charge from in vacuum?



Australian troll back at work with a new nick.

On Jun 19, 4:52*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, Bruckner wrote:

Amazing, these relativists are contradicting each other again.

If vacuum is not empty but full with permeabilistic and
permitivistic dielectricum, how come that an electron preserves
its charge no matter how long it goes?

Where is this electron getings its charge from in vacuum?

* * This sounds like the same question concerning the Fermi sea of
electrons in Dirac's relativistic quantum theory. The answer is
Pauli's exclusion principle. Two electrons can't occupied the same
state. If there was scattering between the electron and an electron in
the Fermi sea, electrons in the Fermi sea would be scattered into
identical states. Electrons are Fermions. They can't do that.
* * However, the Fermi sea does have a dielectric permittivity.
Although electrons can't scatter, the states themselves can be changed
by the presence of an electron.
* *The problem is not relativity, however. The real question is to the
origin of Pauli's exclusion principle. Pauli's exclusion principle has
to do more with multiparticle quantum mechanics and exchange symmetry.
That has very little to do with SR.
* *If you don't like it, your problem is with quantum mechanics not
relativity. The ground states of the vacuum even exist in
nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. A nonrelativistic quantum
oscillator has nonzero ground state energy. A lot of this discussion
concerning permittivity can be just as well stated for the
nonrelativistic Schroedingers equation as for relativity.

xxein: Yeah. That's what we need. More disconnected old theories.

On Jun 19, 11:33 pm, xxein wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:52 pm, Darwin123 wrote:



On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, Bruckner wrote:

A lot of this discussion
concerning permittivity can be just as well stated for the
nonrelativistic Schroedingers equation as for relativity.

xxein: Yeah. That's what we need. More disconnected old theories.

The troll said "Amazing, those relativists..." Therefore, I assume
he was trying to draw an emotional response in defense of relativity.
However, he was really complaining about quantum mechanics. I got
confused.
The theory that he was debunking has both quantum mechanics and
relativity. They overlap but do not contradict each other. The feature
he couldn't accept is a consequence of quantum mechanics, not
relativity. The theory of permitivistic dielectricum could contradict
itself without indicating a problem in relativity. Perhaps he wants to
complain about quantum mechanics, or otherwise indicate he knows the
difference.
I like feeding trolls because they make good straw men. He
doesn't have the background to answer. If he answers at all, he will
be making personal comments rather than addressing the science. The
answers some of the other people will be interesting. They will use
him as a springboard for discussing science.

Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:33 pm, xxein wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:52 pm, Darwin123 wrote:



On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, Bruckner wrote:

A lot of this discussion
concerning permittivity can be just as well stated for the
nonrelativistic Schroedingers equation as for relativity.

xxein: Yeah. That's what we need. More disconnected old theories.

The troll said "Amazing, those relativists..." Therefore, I assume¨t

No, he not troll. Why calling him names?

A troll would do your ugly mother in she ass in front of
you and pay nothing. He did not done all that.as you suggest.


he was trying to draw an emotional response in defense of relativity.
However, he was really complaining about quantum mechanics. I got
confused.

No, not confused. You are plain stupid

The theory that he was debunking has both quantum mechanics and

Are you ****ing insane?