| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Aladar" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2006 12:50:15 PM |
| Object: |
***** in physics |
On ***** in Physics
By Aladar Stolmar
"As conscious being, we exist only in response to other things, and
we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them" Harry G.
Frankfurt On *****
"***** is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to
talk without knowing what he is talking about" [page 66] and since
the physics subject matter includes everything, the much smaller and
much larger than ourselves reality as well, there always will be
unknown. Nobody will ever really know what he is talking about
regarding the galaxies or the nuclear structures; therefore the Physics
always will have some *****. The question only how much ***** is
in the physics and which teachings of the Physics or Natural Philosophy
are questionable, not real reflections of reality, just bullshits.
The groundbreaking work of Harry G. Frankfurt made me realize that my
own earlier characterization of today's physics as a pile of
non-sense or lies is mistaken. It is just ***** short of lie, not
necessarily deliberate misrepresentation. This realization calmed my
anger and now with cold head I can make a case for a long overdue
tabula rasa. Let's return to Natural Philosophy as Isaac Newton
defined it - or go all the way back to Lucretius to describe the
nature of things, because what we are taken in by is *****!
The more sensational it is the more likely that it is just *****. I
will try to contribute to the theoretical understanding of ***** by
describing the development of such commonly spread ***** like Big
Bang origin and expansion of Universe - yes, both bullshits - and I
will try to point out the role of secrecy in the development of
*****.
It is quite understandable that in the course of development of first
nuclear weapons the dominating role of the developer nation had to be
preserved by keeping the scientific knowledge secret. When some
non-participant physicist got on right track, they had to be deceived.
So the Hydrogen bomb, Hydrogen fusion was offered. Unfortunately one
picked it up so successfully that within weeks the - ***** -
nucleosynthesis was introduced fueling the stars and generating all the
nuclei. There is a problem still: one can not tell the truth about the
fact that two Hydrogen nuclei - protons - never fuse without being
pressured to reveal the truth about the thermonuclear weapons. The
bullshits spread as science: solar - stellar energetic process,
nucleosynthesis. The real winner in my eyes is the Big Bang
nucleosynthesis: at this point one just have to make an inventory and
whatever is wrong with the fusion based nucleo-synthesis is simply
fixed by adding at the creation! Let's call it primordial - just
for a bigger pile of *****!
Before I'm carried away I shall give a list of ***** analyzed
here:
1 Big bang creation of Universe
2 Expanding Universe
3 Black holes
4 Stellar nucleosynthesis based on proton-proton fusion
5 Composite atom - nuclei composed of protons and neutrons
6 Dark matter dark energy (Why are you torturing me?!)
7 Quarks and gluons
8 Magnetars
9 Strings, brains etc.
10 Iron core of Earth
And just to represent a contrast to the false *****, here is one
bonus, most likely true: Global warming...
I selected these key points from Harry G. Frankfurt: "***** is a
greater enemy of the truth then lies are" - [page 61] "It is just
this lack of concern with truth - this indifference to how things
really are - that I regard as of the essence of *****" [pages
33-34]
I read somewhere a statement sounding like:
- One thing we know for sure that the Universe was smaller and hotter
in the past... - and it still upsets me. The truth is that Edwin Hubble
was an honest scientist. He discovered that there are other galaxies
besides our Milky Way by comparing the sizes of holes burned in the
photographic plates by light from Cepheid variables. He compared this
technique with another research tool, the than new spectroscopy - and
found a correlation between the sizes of holes - at the time he used
it as a measure of distance - and the shifting of spectral lines -
which was used to measure relative to us velocities of the stars. He
reported his finding that the redshift of spectral lines increased with
the decrease of sizes of the holes burned in the photographic plates as
he dealt with these two techniques: the apparent recession velocity of
the galaxies increases proportionally to their distances from us.
From this honest report two major bullshits were secreted almost
instantly: the Universe expands with the galaxies flying apart with
proportional to their distances to us velocities, and - hence -
some time ago they all had to be together, therefore a Big Bang
happened in the beginning, what 'created the Universe'.
The alternative - simple - explanation that the photons lose their
energy proportionally to the distance they travel - favored by Edwin
Hubble himself(!) - was - still is - being fought with furry.
Thanks to Frankfurt's work now I understand why? Even mentioning the
alternative reveals the fact that who talks about this phenomenon does
not know what the photons are and therefore he is in an unavoidable
situation, has to *****! As long as we learn what the photons are
and if they really lose their energy while progressing through the
empty space or not - the necessity of ***** stays!
These two major bullshits in Physics also demonstrate the first cited
statement of Frankfurt: "***** is a greater enemy of the truth
then lies are". There is evidence that the research which would
resolve this question wheather the photon looses its energy during
progression through empty space - or it is permanent, omnipresent,
unchangeable as resulting from the Big Bang, Expanding Universe
theories (bullshits) is being blocked by the bullshiters. Considerable
funds are spent on the multiple Big Bangs and mushrooming universes but
nothing on the so-called tired light, not much even on pure photon
investigation.
The smearing of these bullshits on Hubble is such a disgrace that I
cannot pass by without trying to clear his name and honor him as the
greatest astronomer of all times!
Somehow it is common: the bullshiters need an honest scientist to point
to as the initial secretor of their favored *****.
Let's look at the Black Holes. It was blamed on Schwarzchild -
until his original papers were published in English on the internet. In
these he specifically stated that the collapse of large mass below a
critical volume must be accomplished with an energy-mass loss,
therefore such animals (called later black holes) should not exist.
I don't want to know who secreted this *****. It is a typical
representation of "this lack of connection to a concern with
truth". As we see, the concern at the real honest scientists still
existed - Hubble, Schwarzchild - but later some aspiring shameless
epigones twisted their findings into *****.
We still have no idea what is this substantial quality of things what
we call mass - expressing the inertial and gravitational properties
of things - and is there a limit what maximum mass density can exist.
Again, like at the photons, if we assume that any large - infinite
- density is possible (like infinite unchanged life of photons for
the big bang), then we get a strange animal, black hole. However, these
just point to the lack of understanding of mass and photons - and of
philosophical term, determination of infinity. We shall understand the
infinity as the assigning any quality to an object disregard of their
real presence, and by assigning the quantity of infinity we deny the
very quality assigned, allowing so the comparison, description of
groups, which has entirely different members, and still being somewhat
truthful.
Indeed there is a very significant knowledge of what mass what space
occupies! And surprisingly it points to a constant: the nuclear mass
density. If combine this density with the Einstein described space-time
deformation by the presence of mass - using the quantity of
gravitational potential -, then we arrive to an interesting graph,
showing surprising predictions about the possible mass radius
connection, already verified by supernovae and resulting neutron star
observations! And this graph peaks at around six solar masses, with a
clear indication of gamma-ray burst energy outputs and resulting
neutron star mass and radius expectations. You can see this and many
other evaluations at stolmarphysics.com
Supermassive black holes reside in the center of each galaxy -
announces this ***** the government body, dedicated to further our
knowledge, NASA ... Well, the improved observation techniques provide
the evidence: there is a very large number (remaining at our subject
matter I shall say: a *****-load) of neutron stars buzz around the
galactic center of the Milky Way! Also, an understanding of the works
of gravitational interactions between closely packed neutron stars (and
I'm not asking too much, hence the idol, Albert Einstein pointed out
the effect of gravitational field on everything) predicts the formation
of very large systems of neutron stars. It shows all the observed
characteristics, and shows no need for the nonsense of black holes.
I've been barked at an international conference when I asked about
the distinctive characteristics, which would allow us to find out is
there a super-massive black hole or there is a large system of neutron
stars? The bullshiters decided ages ago that there must be a black
hole, there is no place for such questions!
The spreading, repeating the ***** must have some economic
incentives behind, as driving force. Indeed there are! One have to
pledge allegiance to the big bang to get funding from NASA or defend
vehemently the "standard model" to get on tenure tract. This buzz
world of standard model was introduced to cover-up the insufficient
knowledge - necessity of ***** - and to be able to spread
rumors: 'He (She) has no respect for standard model, must be an
idiot!' - about just about anyone who shows some interest in the
truth.
I already lamented about the stellar energetic process, Hydrogen
(proton-proton) fusion based nucleosynthesis *****. I really should
not tell the truth about it. When we all grow-up and stop killing each
other than we will be able to talk about it freely. For now let just
say that an equilibrium state on a very large - cosmic - scale
could be resulted from a decay-based energetic process. When a series
of supermassive nuclei is considered from the known chemical elements
up to all the way to the neutron stars with a maximum mass of about six
solar masses. Indeed the evidence of neutron stars, supernovae,
gamma-ray bursts all follows from this true reflection. In the core of
the Earth, in the Sun, the supermassive nuclei decay into the chemical
elements we know as they float-up near the surface.
Do I know what I'm talking about or this is just another *****?!
You just have to believe me I'm really concerned with the truths!
Correction! I'm so concerned with the truths that I ask everyone not
to believe me! Try to find a contradicting fact, please!
I hope this illustrates the difficulties arising from secrecy or in
general with physics. Without revealing the details allowing anyone to
create dangerous weapons I have to ask you to believe me. But I could
be a bullshitter, or even a liar who wants to deceive you! And may be I
just want to make you a bullshitter.
May be we just have to live with the ***** instead of Natural
Philosophy until we all grow-up. The spreading of nuclear weapons and
the ever-increasing danger of self-destruction may prevent us to tell
the truth. Ever.
There is another alternative. One coherent representation, which
results in a true reflection. But how we know that it really connected
to the reality? May be we have to go all the way back and redefine all
of our worlds used to reflect the reality. We reflect the reality
existing. The very existence is a reflection of void and things; the
things have properties, distinct from nothing. Should we include in a
property-less, pure existing first beginning? As Lucretius called these
no-things, elementary units of existence? Which fly with infinite
velocity, has infinitely small extent in space, they are always and
everywhere, omnipresent - and omnipotent? Constructing everything of
their collisions?
The smallest elements of everything are collision events between the
first beginnings? The unit of mass is a collision event always present
in a given thing? The time fundamental property could be the fact that
the collision events change, replaced by new collisions? The measure of
time is the comparison of phases when a selected relative collision
arrangement is returned? The space denotes the fact that the things are
constructed of collision events? Since the first beginnings may change
their directions in the collisions - some plasticity must exist in
order to account for the observed causality - two prior connected
collisions define a trajectory of a first beginning. And two such first
beginnings constitute a collision event therefore the next collision
events could be defined in a system of collisions - leading to a
self-reconstruction, self-preservation. This very mechanism is also an
explanation of the three dimensions of space, observed.
Regular collision systems are the electrons, neutrons, nuclei of atoms
starting with Hydrogen and extending all the way to the neutron stars.
The difference of photons from such massive systems only the fact that
the elements of photons not always present in the system?
Could a special geometry of collision system effect a part of itself to
eliminate a collision event or a whole electron and start a new life
with the unwinding of DNA?
Could our thoughts be new creations of collision events?
Am I bullshitting or telling the truth? I'm not sure. I know that by
going back to the basics and redefining the fundamental concepts of
space, time and mass I must have gotten closer to the truth. Did I miss
something?
Will you accept this as Physics or will you stay with the ***** as
sold to you? Even if you know that it is most likely *****? The
indifference of general public comes in play: - It's over my head!
- I don't care! - What's in it for me?!
That little side-tract I had to take before introducing the ***** of
composite atom. It came from experiments of nucleus destruction: When
bombarded, the nuclei of atoms may release - besides the most common
photons - electrons, alpha-particles or nuclei of Helium 4 and
neutrons or sometimes even protons or Hydrogen 1 nuclei. Indeed all the
observations of nuclei indicate that there is a homogenous nucleus
inside of every atom, but one needed to secret this ***** about the
nuclei being composed of neutrons and protons - just because the
***** was unavoidable! It led to major problems, the necessity of a
pile of bullshits like negative binding energy, quarks and gluons
nonsense, still it lives on for over a century now!
Since the quantum mechanics went far from representing the reality -
concern about truth - it opened the flood gates before such nonsense
as dark matter and dark energy.
The dark matter was introduced to account for the galactic velocity
distributions. If we assume that the good old Newtonian gravitational
constant is universal and constant everywhere - contradicting in turn
to the very principle discovered by Albert Einstein that the mass
present deforms the space in its surroundings -, then there is a need
to add substantial amount of gravitating mass to the galaxies to model
the velocity distribution. Once that leap was made - anything goes!
The nonsense of non-baryonic dark matter was floated and followed
closely by dark energy. Indeed the observed velocity distribution could
be achieved by modifying the gravitational constant, as expected from
the Einstein discovered effect of mass present.
Once a nonsense is introduced by bullshitters it is very hard to get
rid of it. Even Newton had a hard time to fight the epicycle
*****...
The problem becomes almost un-solvable when the ***** is introduced
as a mathematical solution.
The dark matter dark energy points to a mathematical blunder of
Einstein himself and the introduction of gluon and quarks provided a
disguise for the pure mathematical representation, claiming that these
are the "real" carriers of quantum numbers...
Once the mathematical exercise showed some results in describing the
real observed responses the concern over the validity of claims related
to the elements of mathematical representation was suppressed. Hence
the name Standard Model was introduced and is being worshipped by
bullshitters.
Recently there is a fight between the experimentalists at Brookhaven
National Laboratory and the theoretical physicists. The results of
heavy ion collision experiments do not support the Standard Model -
but the theoretical physicists always can add another parameter (Higgs
boson expectation) and fudge their equations!
As we see, math is an excellent tool for bullshitters. Dark matter,
dark energy, magnetars, quarks and gluons, strings (super) and brains
all introduced and supported by elegant - ***** - math.
Before we get too depressed seeing the sea of false reflections of
***** physics threatening to drown us lets cheer-up on the bonus
***** of global warming!
When the observed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration became
clearly effected by human activity (burning of fossil fuel to produce
electricity) some felt the need to drum-up support for preventive
measures by introducing a doomsday scenario of runaway greenhouse
effect and global warming. This is a ***** because one was talking
without really knowing what he was talking about simply because the
Planet Earth is so complex that its responses could not be predicted.
Yes, the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's
atmosphere is real, the recent increase is caused by the burning of
earlier sequestered carbon containing fossil fuels like natural gas,
oil and coal. The concerned scientists could avoid the ***** by
reporting only the facts and not going into fortune telling!
Why is this urge in physics to *****?
It is simply unavoidable...
.
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
07 Jan 2006 12:02:56 PM |
|
|
"Aladar" <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote ...
The [...] made me realize that my
own earlier characterization of today's physics as a pile of
non-sense or lies is mistaken.
Please keep that in mind the next time you have convinced yourself that your
current level of knowledge may not be similarly mistaken.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aladar" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
09 Jan 2006 09:28:32 AM |
|
|
If you have read my little post you should know that I'm never
convinced.
On the contrary, I want to return to the real science, where
questioning of everything is allowed, no discourse is silenced.
The ***** is *****, even it is true, so the level of knowledge is
a very subjective matter. Who knows what the real knowledge is? Do you?
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
(Sorry for the long time without updates, but still good...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
09 Jan 2006 10:33:50 AM |
|
|
In article <1136820512.512975.89570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
If you have read my little post you should know that I'm never
convinced.
On the contrary, I want to return to the real science, where
questioning of everything is allowed, no discourse is silenced.
What makes you think the questioning has stopped?
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aladar" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
10 Jan 2006 10:25:07 AM |
|
|
My personal experience. In Budapest 2 years ago when I asked the
question that why we have to call the central object of a galaxy a
black hole when we have only observations telling us that it is a large
mass compact object somebody started to yell at me that this issue is
resolved years ago and this is a black hole.
And it happened on a scientific conference.
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
10 Jan 2006 02:21:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1136910307.014483.264210@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Aladar <alistolmar@3dresearch.com> wrote:
My personal experience. In Budapest 2 years ago when I asked the
question that why we have to call the central object of a galaxy a
black hole when we have only observations telling us that it is a large
mass compact object somebody started to yell at me that this issue is
resolved years ago and this is a black hole.
And it happened on a scientific conference.
So the scientific community consists of a single hot-headed person that
yelled at you?
Do scientists still question their theories? Well, what do you think they
do all day? What do you think their jobs are? Let me check some articles
I have laying around.
Klein, "Schroedinger inviolate: neutron optical searches for violations of
quantum mechanics", Physica B 151, 44 (1988).
Filber, Gaehler, Golub, "Test of the time dependent Schroedinger equation
with very slow neutrons", Physica B 151, 135 (1988).
Green, et. al., "Test of special relativity by a determination of the
Lorentz limiting velocity: Does E=mc^2?", Phys Rev D 44, R2216 (1991).
What better way to question the validity of a theory than to design a test
for it to pass? These people were looking specifically for a breakdown of
quantum mechanics or relativity. In the third, there's a question written
into the very title of the article.
Qian-shen Wang, et. al., "Precise measurement of gravity variations during
a total solar eclipse", Phys Rev D 62, 041101(R), (2000).
They were, basically, looking for a breakdown of the superposition
principle, and reported an anomaly of (7.0+-2.7)e-8 m/s^2 in about as
mainstream a physics journal as you can find. Even the law of
conservation of momentum has been scrutinized recently:
Cornille, "Review of the application of Newton's third law in physics",
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 25, 161 (1999).
Theoretical investigations, new approaches to basic physics, etc.:
Biswas, "Special Relativistic Newtonian Gravity", Foundations of Physics
24, 513 (1994).
Andrews, "A Wave System Theory of Quantum Mechanics", Physica B 151, 351
(1988).
Kholmetskii, "Covariant Ether Theories and Special Relativity", Physica
Scripta 67, 381 (2003).
They've even questioned the linkage of cause and effect!
Keister and Polyzou, "Causality in dense matter" 54, 2023 (1996).
scholar.google.com
"alternative to quantum mechanics", 60 hits
"alternative to special relativity", 15 hits
"alternative to general relativity", 70 hits
"aether theory", 114 hits
The scientific community is just that-- a community. It is many people
with a common interest but many different opinions. One person might be
convinced that general relativity is God's Own Truth while another
explores alternatives to the theory. One is satisfied with Big Bang
cosmology while another tries to resurrect the steady state. One might
think that every effect must have a cause while another questions even
that basic notion. It's the diversity of opinion that makes progress
happen.
I don't know about that black hole at the center of the Milky Way thing.
But if you look, I would be surprised if you don't find articles in
mainstream journals questioning its black hole-ness. One person yelling
at you at a conference means nothing.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aladar" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
17 Jan 2006 11:54:54 AM |
|
|
As "I selected these key points from Harry G. Frankfurt: "***** is a
greater enemy of the truth then lies are" - [page 61] "It is just
this lack of concern with truth - this indifference to how things
really are - that I regard as of the essence of *****" [pages
33-34]". My very typical experience could be also contrasted with
numerous positive ones as well. Thank you for your list!
There is no problem if we all understand that the science is a living,
evolving thing, nothing is writen on the stone. I see - mostly in the
so called science of astrophysics - a very strong tendency to silence
the persons who: 1 does not pledge alligion to big bang *****
2 who questions the existence of black holes *****
and 3 who questions the proton proton fusion based nucleosynthesis
nonsense (worst than just *****).
My little piece On ***** in Physics is a humble attemp to revitalise
the scientific process. Your response already made it worthwile...
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
PS Indeed E does not equal to mc2! there is a loss!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
07 Jan 2006 09:52:03 AM |
|
|
Hi Aladar
I agree with you on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9
Partly on issu 7
André Michaud
http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
08 Jan 2006 10:51:55 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Andre Michaud typed:
agree with you on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9
Partly on issu 7
What about the core issues 5, 7, and 10? Which part of the core (7)
don't you understand? :>)
Osher
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
09 Jan 2006 11:53:35 AM |
|
|
OsherD a écrit :
From Osher Doctorow
Andre Michaud typed:
agree with you on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9
Partly on issu 7
What about the core issues 5, 7, and 10? Which part of the core (7)
don't you understand? :>)
For 5, my reference is high energy scattering in accelerators.
There is conclusive evidence that quarks up and down can be
scattered against, which have proved to be the only scatterable
components of protons and neutrons. There is only two possible
conbinations of three of these particles combining both types,
they are perfectly coherent with the existence of both protons
and neutrons.
For 7, same answer. What can be scattered against is sufficient
proof of existence for me. Gluons are a mathematical metaphor
for the still not understood force that maintains ups and downs in
triads, all other quarks seem not to be possible to scatter
against, meaning that they are theoretical concepts required
for the QCD theory to make some sense.
By the way, why do you assume that disagreement with something
implies not understanding ?
For 10, iron core simply seems to be the best common sense
conclusion that can be reached.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aladar" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
10 Jan 2006 10:04:24 AM |
|
|
Dear Andre,
If you think about my model where almost 50 thousand of elements -
collision events - construct a proton or neutron in a regular
collision progression pattern then you can understand that there must
be a large number of sub-structures which could be named anything like
flavours or up/down.
The issue is that we assign an entity defined, when these are just
characteristics of a structure (this is why so many and more and more
found!)
The danger of assigning neutrons, protons and quarks to a system as
constructing elements is that we will miss anything what would not fit
to that assigned construction! I want to leave it open to be able to
detect the variety of structural configurations possible.
THat is the reason why I'm fighting so vehemently agains freezing into
some substructures the soft and living collision progression.
About reaching "common sense conclusions": don't do that. Leave it
open, and with the Earth core: do you realize how many problems are
caused by the assumption that there is an Iron core? When you freeze
this understanding by teaching it as true scientific fact you deny the
future generations to look for deeper understanding. Same with
composite atoms and big bang idiotic notion.
Happy to hear from you again!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
10 Jan 2006 03:24:30 PM |
|
|
Aladar a écrit :
Dear Andre,
If you think about my model where almost 50 thousand of elements -
collision events - construct a proton or neutron in a regular
collision progression pattern then you can understand that there must
be a large number of sub-structures which could be named anything like
flavours or up/down.
The issue is that we assign an entity defined, when these are just
characteristics of a structure (this is why so many and more and more
found!)
The danger of assigning neutrons, protons and quarks to a system as
constructing elements is that we will miss anything what would not fit
to that assigned construction! I want to leave it open to be able to
detect the variety of structural configurations possible.
THat is the reason why I'm fighting so vehemently agains freezing into
some substructures the soft and living collision progression.
I understand your viewpoint. However, for my part, I concluded that
at some point towards the particle and even subparticle level there
had to be a physically verifiable proof of existence of the particles.
Proof by physical scattering is for me sufficient proof of existence.
The highest energy scattering achieved has not succeeded in splitting
either electron, positron, quark up and quark down, with more than
enough energy to do it, if it had been at all possible. I am satisfied
that these are the ultimate elementary massive stable particles. With
them, from my perspective, all existing stable matter can be
constructed.
This is my opinion.
About reaching "common sense conclusions": don't do that. Leave it
open,
All my conclusions are still open for revision. But I must say that
the set has become very stable.
and with the Earth core: do you realize how many problems are
caused by the assumption that there is an Iron core? When you freeze
this understanding by teaching it as true scientific fact you deny the
future generations to look for deeper understanding. Same with
composite atoms and big bang idiotic notion.
I don't think anyone is forced to believe any teaching. At some point,
each of us makes his own choices. I am convinced that it will be the
same in the future.
Happy to hear from you again!
Same here. I seem to recall that we discussed tired light many years
ago. I agree for very specific reasons.
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aladar" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
09 Jan 2006 09:20:19 AM |
|
|
Really the issue of the there are no protons and neutrons present
inside of any nucleus - except the single proton nucleus of Hydrogen 1
- is the key to sweep out the ***** from the science.
Without that core issue we have no understanding of reality.
(No cheers this time...)
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
09 Jan 2006 10:39:36 AM |
|
|
Aladar wrote:
Really the issue of the there are no protons and neutrons present
inside of any nucleus - except the single proton nucleus of Hydrogen 1
- is the key to sweep out the ***** from the science.
Without that core issue we have no understanding of reality.
(No cheers this time...)
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
Care to elaborate about Helium?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aladar" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
10 Jan 2006 10:18:31 AM |
|
|
If you would pay any attention to my posts earlier you should know it
by now.
The electric features on the surface of a nucleus of any atom could be
represented like nailing structures formed by the collision progression
pattern penetrating inside of the nucleus. At the proton I found that
27 such structures must be present in a semi-simmetrical pattern,
reflecting a similar pattern of an electron (from the number of
collisions, calculated from the restmass of nuclei).
The structure of Helium 4 is the complete coverage of the proton's
surface with another shell. At the mean time the 27 fixture patterns
form only 51 fixtures with a major difference: while the proton has 1-1
protruding element at each of the fixtures the Helium 4 nucleus missing
1-1 elements from a regular pattern! This is why the next shells parts
hardly could be forced on this surface - and this is why the alpha
radiation is so common! The very core of seven shells - the Helium-4
nucleus - can slip out from inside the larger nuclei.
(It could be too hard for you Sam, but some brighter readers may be
able to digest...)
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
10 Jan 2006 12:42:47 PM |
|
|
Aladar wrote:
If you would pay any attention to my posts earlier you should know it
by now.
The electric features on the surface of a nucleus of any atom could be
represented like nailing structures formed by the collision progression
pattern penetrating inside of the nucleus. At the proton I found that
27 such structures must be present in a semi-simmetrical pattern,
reflecting a similar pattern of an electron (from the number of
collisions, calculated from the restmass of nuclei).
The structure of Helium 4 is the complete coverage of the proton's
surface with another shell. At the mean time the 27 fixture patterns
form only 51 fixtures with a major difference: while the proton has 1-1
protruding element at each of the fixtures the Helium 4 nucleus missing
1-1 elements from a regular pattern! This is why the next shells parts
hardly could be forced on this surface - and this is why the alpha
radiation is so common! The very core of seven shells - the Helium-4
nucleus - can slip out from inside the larger nuclei.
(It could be too hard for you Sam, but some brighter readers may be
able to digest...)
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
I think (my personal opinion, of course), Aladar, that you have completely
lost any sense of reality, no longer able to couple empirical data with
the models of QED, QCD, QFT, nor SR and GTR for that matter. My advice is
to retire to the country side and paint flowers. Actually I thought you
had heeded my advice, as you took a long break from posting your nonsense
here.
Regards,
-Sam
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: ***** in physics |
08 Jan 2006 10:03:27 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
What about the core issues of 7 and 10? :>)
Osher
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
