An atomistic theory of matter

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Translation: The author is attempting to define analogues to Lorentz–Heaviside units.

If two point charges, each at 1 unit of electric charge have separation of 1 unit of distance, then he wants \(\frac{1}{4 \pi}\) units of force.
So if he is using CGS systems, then 1 Atomsz unit of electric charge is \(\sqrt{4 pi} \, \textrm{statCoulombs} = \sqrt{4 pi} \, \textrm{franklin} = \frac{1}{2997924580 \sqrt{4 \pi}} \, \textrm{C}\).
And if he is using SI units of force and distance, then 1 Atomsz unit of electric charge is \(\frac{1000}{299792458}\sqrt{\frac{10}{4 \pi}} \, \textrm{C}\).

As for gravity, he would like to use units of mass of about 34531 kg if he were using the SI system for force and distances, but the SI system already has a unit of mass, so he needs a conversion factor \(g = \sqrt{4 \pi G} \approx 2.89596 \times 10^{-5} \, \textrm{kg}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \textrm{m}^{\frac{3}{2}} \cdot \textrm{s}^{-1}\).
In CGS, this is about \(9.158 \times 10^{-4} \, \textrm{g}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \textrm{cm}^{\frac{3}{2}} \cdot \textrm{s}^{-1}\).

Atomsz's model predicts the effective gravitational mass of \(_1^1 \textrm{H}\) differs from its inertial mass by a little over 0.1%. Since G is experimentally determined, only differences in this ratio can be detected. So an essential missing part of Atomsz's hypothesis is quantitative prediction of how the ratio can be determined for every isotope or a future quantitative measurement of the fall rate of positronium (impossible with ground-state positronium due its short lifetime and the weakness of terrestrial gravity, but people try) or anti-hydrogen (experiments pending at CERN with latest results only good at the 7500% level, so yeah, not yet in) or neutrons (which has been done since 1975, but the experiments are tricky and only recently have gotten their errors down to the 1% level).

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2787.html
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS6510/1367-2630_14_5_055010.pdf

But if inertial mass and gravitational mass of atoms are very nearly proportional, it would be extremely hard to find this difference via comparison of inertial balance scales and gravitational scales.



A much better idea is to detect differences in proportionality. That is, if the ratio differs between two elements, a changing gravity field would cause a differential torque on a bi-elemental object. That's the subject of the Eötvös experiment and those that followed like this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003491664902593

This 1964 experiment pretty much disallows the Atomsz model of gravity because electrons/positrons mass more than 0.05% of that of a proton so differences are expected to appear at this level of precision. It's also completely unexplained how the mass loss of a bound system can be derived without assuming relativistic mechanics and the strong nuclear force of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The way we know the orbiting clocks run faster, is there is a permanent change in the time of the moving clock which differs from the standard clock on the earth. The reference clock may say 1 AM and other of orbiting clock may say 1AM plus 1second. The clock which "gained " time does not zero out this difference, when it reaches the earth. However, if there is any perceived or calculated size/distance change due to relativity; distance contraction, this size change will zero itself out so both clocks become the same size. There is a remnant of time change that remains, but there is no remnant of any distance/size change that remains. Whether the clock runs faster or slower the same applies for time and distance.

Instead of using an hour glass and sand, to avoid zero gravity confusion, let us use a battery. The battery has to power the time mechanism. If the second hand of the space clock moved forward one-second, compared to the standard clock on earth, and remains there, then energy conservation says it took slightly more energy. The remnant of time that shows up as one-second faster, also implies different battery energy, even though the distance/size is not impacted.

The red shift of the universe implies photon clocks running faster therefore energy is being used up; energy conservation. This occurs with distance/size not impacted when references meet. The red shift; implies loss of energy value, would be driven by the time remnant and not by any permanent change of distance. The observed red shift is not exactly a doppler or distance shift, but more like a relativistic time remnant shift; energy change.

I did get the clock backwards but distance/size always zeros out ether way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How is this the case. If the Earth clock can be considered to be in an inertial reference frame, forgetting gravity for now, and the orbiting clock had to accelerate to get into orbit, wouldn't the orbiting clock slow during the accelereation, and thus run behind the Earth clock?

 

Sure, if you disregard gravity.

 

My scientific prognoses: The 21th Century will be the century of the Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOMSZ) based on the four stable particles e, p, P and E, against all resistance and censorship by the academic physicists. The ATOMSZ remove the physically colossal illogicalness in physical science which the scientific revolution (STR + GRT+ QT) at the beginning of the 20th century leave over up to now. The nowadays accepted but presumably invalid energetic physics will be removed and replaced by the physically correct atomistic theory of matter.


The main arguments for ATOMSZ are that the fundamental hypotheses of UFF and the quantization of the energy and the fields with the Planck’s constant h are invalid physical hypotheses:


- The inertial mass and the gravitational mass of composed particles /bodies are different.

- The Planck’s constant h plays a role of a Lagrange multiplier and does not quantize anything.


A new hypothesis replaces the both invalid hypotheses; the gravity is caused by elementary gravitational charges and the stable particles e, p, P and E carry TWO elementary charges which cause the interaction between them.

 

Oh, and he's back.

I guess it was too good to last.

 

You are not acting like a scientist. You may not even be able to define what a scientist is.

If positrons are stable and eternal, then what happens when you mix them with electrons? Conventional science not only says that they annihilate, but such annihilations tell us useful things about symmetry of the laws of physics and details about material science: http://www.positronannihilation.net/index_files/Positron Lifetime Spectroscopy.pdf
So your vision of the 21th Century adopting your theories of particle physics can only possibly succeed if you exploit the correspondence principle and mathematically derive those experiments seen as consistent with conventional physics as predictions of your theory as well. The very semiconductor structures used to build the computer you read this on are modeled by quantum physics, not classical physics. Global Positioning systems are regularly used every day with specially adjusted clocks because consistent with General Relativity, all clocks in orbit tick faster than clocks on the ground, while a clock moving at orbital speed on the ground ticks slower than a stationary clock on the ground. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Further, you have not been censored — no one in science is trying to halt your self-publishing channels — professional physicists whose time is valuable simply have not given you a platform on which to publish your delusions of grandeur. You don't seem to have the first idea on how to convince someone that your ideas on science are superior to those used everyday in more ways than you seem capable of listing. Thus the failure is in your capability — since the idea you name for yourself is also a product of your capability, that will discourage anyone from standing by your side to lift stones until you acknowledge that 1) your expression of your idea is many decades behind the times in experimental science and 2) you should lift the first few stones by exploiting the correspondence principle and explain why the quark model of hadrons is so-successful in terms of your own more precise model of hadron mass, lifetime and behavior.

You can't criticize a postulate as being "illogical" — postulates can only be unintuitive, not illogical. And physical postulates have no need to conform to human intuition when uneducated human intuition is based on evolution of dynamical modeling necessary to crawl slowly about the skin of one single planet. Human intuition leads to Aristotlean physics and cartoon physics, not science.
From the postulates of STR + QT logically comes quantum field theory, which has been tested against reality at the part-per-trillion level. Even if you are jealous of its success, you gain no points by pooh-poohing its postulates because its successes in modeling the behavior of reality is what give it authority, not its postulates. To replace it, it does not suffice to lecture against its postulates — it is necessary to model the behavior of reality better.

An empty and baseless claim from an outsider to science is going to be ignored by scientists because their time is valuable.

You can't argue for a proposition by arguing against another proposition. Some who claims to rail against conventional science because of its alleged lack of logic should stay silent rather than place a large false dilemma at the heart of his argument.

The evidence for universality of free fall is confirmed to better than one part in a billion and the concept was not an invention of modern science but dates back to Galileo and Newton. Your model predicts over 1 million times more violation of universality of free fall than is measured in experiments. Your one experimental trial did not demonstrate differential acceleration and you have never quantitatively shown otherwise.

A red-hot object proves you wrong.

Planck's law can be derived from assuming the energy of a gas of photons is in thermodynamical equilibrium with the walls of a container and that photons are quantized packet of energy, \(E = h \nu\) which is not a classical law of electrodynamics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law#Derivation From this follows the Stefan–Boltzmann empirical law.

\( c = \nu \lambda \\ B_{\nu} ( \nu, T) = \frac{2 h \nu^3}{c^2} \frac{1}{e^{\frac{h \nu}{k_B T}} - 1} \\ B_{\lambda} = - \frac{d \nu}{d \lambda} \cdot B_{\nu} ( \frac{c}{\lambda}, T) = \frac{c}{\lambda^2} \cdot \frac{2 h c}{\lambda^3} \frac{1}{e^{\frac{h c}{\lambda k_B T}} - 1} = \frac{2 h c^2}{\lambda^5} \frac{1}{e^{\frac{h c}{\lambda k_B T}} - 1} \\ \frac{\partial B_{\nu}}{\partial \nu} = 0 \; \Rightarrow \; e^{\frac{h \nu_{max}}{k_B T}} = \frac{3 k_B T}{3 k_B T - h \nu_{max}} \; \Rightarrow \; \nu_{max}(T) \approx \frac{79 k_B T}{28 h} \\ \frac{\partial B_{\lambda}}{\partial \lambda} = 0 \; \Rightarrow \; e^{\frac{h c}{\lambda_{max} k_B T}} = \frac{5 \lambda_{max} k_B T \lambda }{5 \lambda_{max} k_B T - h c} \; \Rightarrow \; \lambda_{max}(T) \approx \frac{86 h c}{427 k_B T} \\ \int_0^{2 \pi}\, d\phi \; \int_0^{\pi} \cos \theta \, d \theta \; \int_0^{\infty} B_{\nu} \, d \nu \; = \; \pi \frac{2 k_B^4 T^4}{h^3 c^2} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{x^3}{e^x -1} dx \; = \; \frac{2 \pi^5 k_B^4 T^4}{15 h^3 c^2} \)

This hypothesis doesn't explain why the \(_2^4\textrm{He}\) nucleus is positively charged and bound so it doesn't explain where sunshine comes from or why the core of the sun shines in neutrinos which can be imaged.

 

"Conventional science not only says that they annihilate, but such annihilations tell us useful things about symmetry of the laws of physics…" Excuse me, I laugh myself to death!

"The evidence for universality of free fall is confirmed to better than one part in a billion.." Confirmed???? With which experiment?

"Planck's law can be derived from assuming the energy of a gas of photons is in thermodynamical equilibrium with the walls of a container and that photons are quantized packet of energy.. " But photons do not exist in our Universe!!!

"This hypothesis doesn't explain why the 42He nucleus is positively charged and bound so it doesn't explain where sunshine comes from or why the core of the sun shines in neutrinos which can be imaged." The 4He nucleus is twofold positively (electric) charged because it contains 4 protons (P) and two electrons (e), the number of the contained (e,p)-neutrinos are not known.

 

Explain why you think that.

 

I see that you are unable to rise above mockery when presented with 70-year-old physical results which have stood the test of time and repetition. As an outsider to physics, you have rendered yourself willfully ignorant of physics and do not appreciate the usefulness of symmetry to physical theories.

You have been informed of this repeatedly and have not meaningfully responded.

Results better than 1 part in 100,000:
Eötvös, R. v., Pekár, V. and Fekete, E., “Beitrage zum Gesetze der Proportionalität von Trägheit und Gravität”, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 68, 11–66 (1922).

Results better than 1 part in a billion:
Braginsky, V. B. and Panov, V. I., “Verification of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass”, Sov. Phys. JETP, 34, 463–466 (1972).
Fischbach, E., Gillies, G. T., Krause, D. E., Schwan, J. G. and Talmadge, C. L., “Non-Newtonian gravity and new weak forces: An index of measurements and theory”, Metrologia, 29, 213–260 (1992) [review paper]
Su, Y., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Harris, M., Smith, G. L. and Swanson, H. E., “New tests of the universality of free fall”, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 3614–3636 (1994).
Baeßler, S., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Schmidt, U. and Swanson, H. E., “Improved Test of the Equivalence Principle for Gravitational Self-Energy”, Phys. Rev.Lett., 83, 3585–3588 (1999).
Adelberger, E. G., “New tests of Einstein’s equivalence principle and Newton’s inverse-square law”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 2397–2405 (2001).

The behavior of the universe appears to disagree with your claim. Notably, the photoelectric effect, single photon interferometry, black body radiation effects, and the graininess of both digital and silver halide photographs corresponding to Poisson noise all strong support the notion that photons are how light works in our Universe. To deny it makes you appear like the ignorant party and not the teacher of physics that you imagine yourself to be.

In 1918, Walter H. Schottky studied noise in vacuum tube circuits causes by the fact that individual electrons had to carry the current. Similarly, individual photons cause noise when the product of time and area of a sensor times the average power is not very large when compared to the amount of energy carried by an individual photon.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrotrauschen
http://people.csail.mit.edu/hasinoff/pubs/hasinoff-photon-2012-preprint.pdf

I'm not claiming that the helium-4 nucleus is not positively charged. I'm claiming that the protons have identical properties and the Coulomb force between protons is much higher than the gravitational force between hydrogen atoms at the same distance, so your claim does not explain why the helium-4 nucleus + two orbiting electrons is energetically preferred to 4 hydrogen atoms. Also, the inertial mass of neutrinos \(\nu_e, \nu_{\mu}\) has been measured to be much less than the mass of e + p and their properties are not consistent with them being bound systems.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/listings/rpp2014-list-neutrino-prop.pdf

 

I explain why the quantization of photons E =h f is a wrong relation.

The energy is a “good quantity” for a closed physical system with conservative interactions. In this case the “energy is conserved”.

But closed physical systems do NOT exist in Nature and the electromagnetic interaction is a non-conservative interaction. At the electromagnetic radiation we cannot go out of energy conservation.

Furthermore, all microscopic objects are much smaller than the wave lights of their own radiations. A corpuscular process (photon emission) cannot occur at the “light emission” of microscopic objects (according Hamiltons Eikonal theorem).

 

"You have been informed of this repeatedly and have not meaningfully responded.

Results better than 1 part in 100,000:
Eötvös, R. v., Pekár, V. and Fekete, E., “Beitrage zum Gesetze der Proportionalität von Trägheit und Gravität”, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 68, 11–66 (1922).

Results better than 1 part in a billion:
Braginsky, V. B. and Panov, V. I., “Verification of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass”, Sov. Phys. JETP, 34, 463–466 (1972).
Fischbach, E., Gillies, G. T., Krause, D. E., Schwan, J. G. and Talmadge, C. L., “Non-Newtonian gravity and new weak forces: An index of measurements and theory”, Metrologia, 29, 213–260 (1992) [review paper]
Su, Y., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Harris, M., Smith, G. L. and Swanson, H. E., “New tests of the universality of free fall”, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 3614–3636 (1994).
Baeßler, S., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Schmidt, U. and Swanson, H. E., “Improved Test of the Equivalence Principle for Gravitational Self-Energy”, Phys. Rev.Lett., 83, 3585–3588 (1999).
Adelberger, E. G., “New tests of Einstein’s equivalence principle and Newton’s inverse-square law”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 2397–2405 (2001)."

All these authors have not correct results.

Compare the measurement of Gy. I. Szász, 21.06.2004, of the UFF Violation with LI/C/Pb compared to Al. The violation is in the order of pro mille!

 

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/listings/rpp2014-list-neutrino-prop.pdf

The (e,p)-neutrinos as well as the (P,E)-neutinos are the energetic lowest bound state of (e,p) and (P,E) with gravitational mass zero AND inertial mass zero!

The (e,p)-neutrino is 0.703 x 10^-13 cm large and the (P,E)-neutrino is 3.83 x 10^-17 cm large! Both neurinos are composed of "mass carrying particles".

 

The positron does not annihilate the electron and the elton does not annihilate the proton; they can only build bound states.

Also the famous relation E = mc^2 is an incorrect relation!

 

You have not criticized their methodology or experimental results. You have not attempted to replicate their procedures. You simply deny the facts that make you look like a hapless amateur — that makes you look like a hapless, narcissistic, intellectually dishonest amateur.

By now we have all seen your You Tube video, and we have all verified that most of the relative motion appears to be rectilinear, constant velocity motion within our ability to see. Thus you experimental results confirm universality of free fall within the limits of your experimental design. The nice people at the vacuum drop tower already criticized the poor experimental design of this single run and I have addressed it as recently as:

Indeed, it appears that you don't even know how to calculate acceleration in your 11-year old video. There is no quantative analysis performed by you in any document you referenced, so it is an outrageous claim to say anything has been shown at the part per mille level.

Yet you relied on that relation when accounting for isotopic mass.

 

All these "would be's if they could be's" and there irrefutable and unarguable nonsense and certainty they would like us to think they hold in that nonsense/
Like most of our other alternative hypothesis pushers, I believe in part it is just a ploy to get the scientifically minded enraged and angst......Similar to what MR is perpetrating and the god and others have tried and perpetrate in the past.

I'm telling you all now, in no uncertain terms, that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe and all that that we see.
It is beyond doubt the only scientifically validated theory for how our universe came to be.
Like the atomz I welcome any and all challenges to my facts and my conclusions.
Of course I am wrong, but like atomz and our other ego inflated alternate nuts, if I tell myself often enough that this spaghetti, and rave and rant about it here as the new cosmology, it would fit in exactly with the nonsense you are spewing here, and which others have also spewed in the past.

 

Back on page #184 I wrote this:

 

While the Lagrange multiplier (LM) h (the Planck’s constant) describes the atomic shells, a second LM h0 = h/ 387.7 (Szász’s constant) describes the nuclei and the neutrinos.

Not one physical law has been proven until now. The laws of Nature are non-deterministic but causal and the Universe is consisting of four stabile particles with two elementary charges. Ockham’s razor cut the QT, SRT, GRT and the quark theory away. The string theories are superfluous.