| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 04:46:48 AM |
| Object: |
Enhanced Standard Model? |
http://www.commonsensescience.org/
Has anyone studied the above and read the scientific papers
written by numerous scientists and presented to conferences?
Their main arguments revolve around the hypotheses that that only
the electron and proton exist, the rest being just debris of
collider experiments. Also that only electrostatic and
electromagnetic fields hold the atom together, meaning the strong
nuclear force is created from them, etc. I haven't read the
papers presented that's why looking for feedback, objections,
clarifications, etc. The following are some quotes from the site
(there are many illustrations so check out the url).
"There are only four stable charged particles that are not a
compound of other particles. These are the electron, proton,
positron and antiproton. A single model, the spinning charged
ring, accounts for the observed properties of all four elementary
particles. In this model, the structure and shape of the particle
are the same, including the ratio of ring diameter to the ring
thickness diameter; the size of the ring and its charge each take
on two values. In atomic nuclei, a "neutron" is a paired electron
a nd proton. " .....
"The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (1992)
defines an elementary particle as "A particle that is not a
compound of other particles." By this definition, there are about
500 particles that have been "discovered" in collider
experiments. Except for the electron, proton, positron, and
antiproton, the "particles" are unstable and exist only for short
times. The evidence for such "particles" is the burst of light,
the heat given off, or a short track left from a collision
between an electron or proton and its corresponding antiparticle
(positrons and antiprotons).
Evidently, these short term, transient events are observations of
the debris of a violent collision. There seems to be no limit to
the number of "particles" that can be discovered as the velocity
of the collision is increased. So, quarks were invented and
pronounced to be the components of neutrons and protons, making
quarks the new elementary particles instead of neutrons and
protons. This was just as well, since it was known from the
Robson experiment (1951) that a neutron outside the atomic
nucleus disintegrates into one electron and one proton. The
electron, however, is still considered an elementary particle
(although suggestions have been made that it is composed of
subquarks).
Despite sensational claims of finding all six types of quarks
predicted by modern theory, a quark has never been directly
observed, and its existence is known only by inference and
correspondence of its expected properties with the light, heat
and path ge nerated by a violent collision. It is logically
inconsistent, of course, for the electron to be an elementary
particle that has no quarks when it is the decay product of a
neutron that is supposed to be composed of three quarks"
.......
In the CSS model of the nucleus, a geometrical packing scheme for
electrons and protons describes the shells of the nucleus. A
common feature of a shell is the "triplet" structure consisting
of an electron and a small proton on either side of the electron
(as illustrated by the nucleus of Oxygen).
The CSS model accurately predicts the nuclear "magic numbers" and
explains the physical origin of nuclear spins and the liquid drop
features of nuclides.
The CSS model correctly predicts the spin (angular momentum) in
hundreds of nuclides, whether stable or unstable. Quantum nuclear
shell models cannot do this with so few assumptions.
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Enhanced Standard Model? |
10 Jan 2005 08:35:29 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Common+Sense+Science%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Enhanced Standard Model? |
10 Jan 2005 10:58:30 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/
Has anyone studied the above and read the scientific papers
written by numerous scientists and presented to conferences?
Their main arguments revolve around the hypotheses that that only
the electron and proton exist, the rest being just debris of
collider experiments.
[snip crap]
Standard Model. Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
