REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!

[link to m.youtube.com]

I think pinhead was TRYING to say that since neutrons do not bond with electrons or protons in the absence of a complete atoms with neutrons present, neutrons are not attracted by protons or electrons. It would seem on the surface to be logical that they would, but the force between a neutron and proton or an electron is not strong enough to effect a capture.
A proton -neutron combination does exist! But only for nanoseconds before electrons free in the environment are captured... On the very simplest of levels, this conclusion that protons and neutrons and electrons and neutrons do not have an attractive force between them is completely irrational.

WE KNOW that neutral electrically charged objects ARE attracted by positively or negatively charged ones. This is a given, a fact. is asinine and unperceptive.

Neutrons don't bond with free electrons or protons because they only way they exist in nature is in rapid motion, and when they do it is only for such a brief period tat it is undetected.

it takes a slowing down of the neutron to effect a capture, and this can only occur when the neutron passes through matter. Since we KNOW neutrons do not just penetrate through an infinite distance through matter, they MUST be attracted to it!

Set in rapid motion they can dislodge other neutrons in the nucleus of atoms, but no matter how fast or numerous they are they are traveling, eventually they are absorbed. If this were not so the atom bomb would have cause the fission of all matter with neutrons on earth
GIVE IT UP!

here is a simple thought experiment that will prove my point. Can you isolate neutrons which are not in motion and just have a constainer full of them sitting around the lab? WhY NOT?

You your own deductive reasoning processes, quit listening to tales about fairy dust and Easter bunnies, because that's what quantum physics has become

shameless bump

here's mud in your eye!

Forget about dark matter and dark energy THEORY. What about LIGHT? It's no mystery that massive bodies bend light. Never known of photons having a charge or being described as a nuetron although a nuetron star will bend light in a hell of a big way. But i'm pretty sure that mass is bound by atomic energy, therefor mass is directly proportional to energy, hence the greater the energy the greater the gravity. I do live near a few nuclear power plants and I'm constantly bombarded by nuetrinos, maybe thats why i'm so confused

Which by the way disproves the notion that light as no mass. Anything tat can transmit kinetic across distance MUST have mass, and being deflected by gravity only further re enforces this fact

here is my theory of light /After over 7 years NO attempt to disqualify it as been made, not a single one!:

_______________________________________________________
Electro-Mechanical Theory of Electromagnetic Radiation

It is accepted as fact that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in thier motion is significant, because thier velocities around the nucleus are substantial. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus . So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emmited in the form of a massless particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a massless particle, but one that possesses and can transmit energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kenetic energy had been described as mass in motion. represented by the simple formula:

Velocity equals the square root of 2 times kenetic energy over mass.

Excuse me if I dont write these formulas as its impossible to do so in this forum. The photon defys this well proven formula by possesing energy, and apparently no mass.

According to this" hypothysis", the photon does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or fully defined in a logical fashion. The definition of a photon itself is dependant on another dubious theory, and this new theory doesnt rely on any such theory for its conclusions..


What Is Electromagnetic radiation?


In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as massless particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level.

::This energy is radiated moving in waveforms of various frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possesing the higher energy levels.::

Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted part is NOT theory, but proven ,undisputed fact . The precedeing paragraph, however, is unproven, though anecdotal evidence does tend to support the belief.
What is electromagnetic energy (cont.)

The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory , and later you will see why. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given amplitude of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter).
In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of waveforms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependant mainly on amplitude .

Electromagnetic energy is thought of as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light.Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves. Visable light itself is of course a low energy electromagnetic wave that our eyes have receptors to sense.
Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon.


Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits

Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a partical moving in a waveform, just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelyhood,as shall later be explained.

Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit)


Energy levels Explained

When a particle is going around in a circle, the speed of the particle is related to the force applied outward, and therefor the force holding it in place. It is neccesary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing.
This force is the energy contained withen electromagnetic energy.
Note that this does not conflict with Bohrs model of the atom.
The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle,in this case an electron.
This force is the "electrical force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be desceibed as an electro-mechanical model.


The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps.

Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital(integer)

energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts


1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules
This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt.
This includes the electical and kinetic energy of the electron.Higher energy states have larger values of Y.



What particle is oscillating in an electromagnetic emmision?

We have established thus far that an electron in a specific electron energy level possesses a certain energy and wavelength dependant on what energy level it occupies. The further from the nucleus the electron orbits, the less the energy it contains and the longer the wavelength of its motion. Please note at this time that this same relationship is noted in electromagnetic emmisions, and is not theoretical in any way.

According to the quantum theory, the energy is released as a photon .The photon is used to explain the fact that when an emmision occurs, no mass is lost by the atom that emitted it.



How Electromagnetic Energy is "created" and what it is.

We have already theorized and basically proven that electrons revolve or orbit around the nucleous of an atom, vibrating in varying frequencies according to their wavelengths, and thus thier energy is dependant on thier distance from the nucleus.

-Now make a mental image of the following experiment:-

Take a device which vibrates a certain frequency and tie it to the end of a string, turn it on, and spin it in a circle over your head. Let this vibrator represnt an electron of a certain frequency/energy level,and the string represent the bond that holds the electron in its orbit around the nucleus, that is the magnetic bond between the negative charge of the electron and the overall positive charge of the nucleus. Note that this is a flawed model for several reasons, but it will suffice to prove the point in question.

It is easy to understand why this bond must be at least as strong as the centripital force acting upon the vibrator and causing it to be thrown outward in a straight from the center of rotation, so in the case of the electron some force exist to keep it in it�s orbit,and this force is magnetic in nature in the case of the atom we are trying to model. Now imagine, for whatever reason, this bond is broken, in the case of our experiment the string holding the vibrator breaks and the centipital force throws the vibrator outward. Is the vibrator still vibrating? At what frequency? In what trajectory does it travel?
The already proven centripital acceleration of electrons is the mechanism by which the electron is energetically expelled from the atom in a straight line .This is the mechanical component of the theory. When the bond is broken the magnetic component which held the electron in place is released along with the electron.This is why electromagnetic waves have electrical and magnetic interaction as their observable manifestation.


Why Electromagnetic energy has no "charge".

One of the apparent disqualifiers to this theory is "If electromagnetic energy is composed of electrons, why does it have no charge?"
The fact is, it does. This is evidenced in the photo-electric effect, which up to this point has been inadequately explained without using photons in the hypothesis or conclusion. The fact is, observations prove light induces a negative charge in certain atomic stuctures.
As for the "photon", Lets call it what it is, an electron oscilating passively in a oscilating magnetic field ,an oscilation that represents precisely its predicted frequency and energy level determinable by the electron energy level it originates from .

Where does "Unifying the Photon
with other quanta" fit into your understanding of our universe?

It doesn't
The explanation for how a photon is created and emitted is witless. I do not believe anything which contradicts logic or established laws of physics , there would ave to be incontrovertible proof to re write basic laws such as conservation of mass and energy and the kinetic energy formula.

The 'photon' is fairy dust

I am in full agreement with this:
"Therefore gravity is 10^22 times stronger at the quantum level than we have been told. If we combine this with my newly recalibrated E/M field (which also resists acceleration), then we have plenty of force available to explain fission energies, without recourse to the strong force at all."

That is because 'gravity' at the 'quantum' level is NOT gravity at all, but electromagnetism

Sounds about right!

E=MC^2..

C = Square root (E/M)

The E/M is a ratio. That for the Speed of light to stay or be a true constant then both E and M have to always remain constants themselves. Or the algebra falls apart.

Neither E nor M can ever change, not even for less than an atto second.. in fact never..

The Magic Formula itself is a lie.

The result is that the Speed of Light is NOT A CONSTANT.. it is only arbitrarily nailed to the wall.

This stuff is so interesting below, seem as if the minds of men are finally awaking from a deep sleep:

"If we compose the nucleus with the right protons and neutrons in the right positions, we can create a nucleus with no inner charge. In other words, charge is channeled through the nucleus by baryon spin, and so does not cause a repulsion between protons.
This is how nuclei are really formed, and I will soon show that all known nuclei fit this form. There is no charge field within the nucleus, and can be no charge field within the nucleus. It would have prevented any formation to begin with, whether we have a strong force or not. With the current model of charge, no protons could ever have gotten close enough to turn on the strong force."

If all of this is so I wish they had called a photon a photron.

GLP "scientists." lol

I wouldn't trust Michio to know how to make me a sammitch.
He can't shoot into the air without missing.

You'd be surprised how few venues there are for opposing theories. If you present theories like I do to a mainstream science forum, you are banned.

A scientist is simply one who studies science.........all of the true innovators had to go against the current and be beat over the head

Agreed, but then he is their man and the math cannot lie

Good! I think I will use it. You mind?
[it is your idea]

I know how mainstream science treats unorthodox theories.

I also know BS when I smell it.

It's all yours . i can"'t disagree with anything you've argued. Well maybe you could give Al a little credit i'd think he did advance technology a we bit and i don't think he considered himself a god. Carry On.

My son...I'll be more than happy to answer your questions.

To those of you who are unfamiliar with Anonymous Astrophysicist, allow me to introduce you to him;

He is a wanna-be scientist who spends an inordinate amount of time on this forum pretending to be a physicist. His strategy is generally to talk just above the heads of the average reader, roping them in to believing he knows what he's talking about. Until he eventually butts heads with the people on the forum who *actually* know what they're talking about, at which point he usually descends into racist remarks and blind accusations of shillery and conspiracy.

Here is a brief look at his (quite simple) psyche profile;

- He is Indian, extremely nationalistic and anti-semetic. He despises Einstein and is obsessed with debunking him, because his distorted ego can't handle the fact that a Jew has gotten all this credit that he believes HE should be getting.

- the reason he believes he is not getting the recognition he deserves, is due to a grand, sweeping, global conspiracy to keep him down.

- he shows multiple red-flags for full blown paranoid schizophrenia, including the belief that anyone who disagrees with him here is a part of the conspiracy to silence him; the belief that he has supernatural powers and the forces of the Universe actively smite his enemies.

- he has no actual scientific credentials, which is once again due to (of course) the grand conspiracy to keep him down, and if you press him on the subject, he'll usually eventually blurt out something about how the Jew controlled scientific community just couldn't handle admitting that an Indian is superior to them.

Which is basically the underlying subtext of every thread he has ever created.

*sigh*

Back to first grade electrostatics

[link to www.sciencemadesimple.com]


Ummmmmmmm no not even close.

In order for neutrons to end up as part of a nucleus there needs to be fusion.

If you can get a neutron to combine with an atom you have become the first person to actually achieve alchemy.


Free neutrons don't last very long.

I think pinhead was TRYING to say that since neutrons do not bond with electrons or protons in the absence of a complete atoms with neutrons present, neutrons are not attracted by protons or electrons. It would seem on the surface to be logical that they would, but the force between a neutron and proton or an electron is not strong enough to effect a capture.
A proton -neutron combination does exist! But only for nanoseconds before electrons free in the environment are captured... On the very simplest of levels, this conclusion that protons and neutrons and electrons and neutrons do not have an attractive force between them is completely irrational.

WE KNOW that neutral electrically charged objects ARE attracted by positively or negatively charged ones. This is a given, a fact. is asinine and unperceptive.

Neutrons don't bond with free electrons or protons because they only way they exist in nature is in rapid motion, and when they do it is only for such a brief period tat it is undetected.

it takes a slowing down of the neutron to effect a capture, and this can only occur when the neutron passes through matter. Since we KNOW neutrons do not just penetrate through an infinite distance through matter, they MUST be attracted to it!

Set in rapid motion they can dislodge other neutrons in the nucleus of atoms, but no matter how fast or numerous they are they are traveling, eventually they are absorbed. If this were not so the atom bomb would have cause the fission of all matter with neutrons on earth
GIVE IT UP!


*sigh*

Back to first grade electrostatics

[link to www.sciencemadesimple.com]


Ummmmmmmm no not even close.

In order for neutrons to end up as part of a nucleus there needs to be fusion or fission.

If you can get a neutron to combine with an atom without being freed by one or the other you have become the first person to actually achieve alchemy.


Free neutrons don't last very long.

Corrected it

The mainstream theory is not only unorthodox, it stinks. Maybe that"s what you smell?

That's what I said, pinhead. Free neutrons don't last long because they are absorbed into the nucleus of atoms. A large number of elements have a variable neutron count, in fact any atom can absorb neutrons. Wat the hell do you think 'heavy water' is?



Go back to first grade