An atomistic theory of matter

In the mainstream physics is a similarity between the hydrogen atom and positronium also known, but whereas in the mainstream the Planck’s constant h quantizes the energy, in the ATOMSz h does not quantizes anything; h is a Lagrange multiplication such as h0 = h/387.7.

The ATOMSz as TOA does neither need the energy quantization procedere, nor the equality of gravitational and inertial masses (the weak equivalence principle).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

origin, you are either old or you having the feeling of "being satisfied", mindenesetre gagya vagy (the Hungarian expression for “having nothing in mind; in head”).

That 's all!

You have to learn only the simple expression "gagya vagyok". Ask a hungarian people how to spell it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are having a feeling of "delusion of grandeur". That is where you delude your self into thinking that you are the smartest or best in the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

origin, your mainstream is pseudo-science and you have a feeling of "delusion of grandeur"! (Yourself is one word.)

 

Nuh-uh....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since English is obviously not your first language, do you really want to go down this stupid path?

 

The mainsteam physics is nothing more than conventionalism, therefore is only a pseudo-science.

 

False.

 

Conventionalism has nothing to do with fundamental physical principle of Nature; the mainstream has nothing to do with scientifically description of Nature.

Wikipedia: “Conventionalism is the philosophical attitude that fundamental principles of a certain kind are grounded on (explicit or implicit) agreements in society, rather than on external reality.[citation needed] Although this attitude is commonly held with respect to the rules of grammar, its application to the propositions of ethics, law, science, mathematics, and logic is more controversial.[citation need]."

In physics a paradigm shift is needed; a shift to the atomistic theory of matter.

 

The so called scientific revolution in physics at the beginning of the 20th Century founded a conventionalism; was not really a revolution of the physical science.

 

The modern physics (the mainstream of physics) stand since years in stalemate.

At universities, research institutes and at online platforms the conventionalism can be hold only with brutal censorship.

 

Will someone please hand out a warning for Atomsz' continued disregard for actual scientific studies, presented to him, that proves him wrong?

 

Or even disregarding when others point out where his own pseudo-scientific results did not support his hypothesis.

 

Wouldn't it be beautiful if people who wanted a scientific discussion, or even wanted to learn some of the intricacies of a certain field, didn't have to sift through 3-4 pages of unsupported bullshit, 3-4 pages of refutations, and a helluva lot of revenge/attack posts (I'm guilty of attack posting, I'm sure)?

 

My letter of protest to the Nobel Prize Committee because neutrino oscillations can physically not occure. The neutrino cannot transform in each other, the masses donot take place on oscillations.

Dear Professor Anne L’Huillier, 08.10.2015

I don’t agree with the award of Nobel Prize in Physics 2015.

See my comment:

The mainstream physics is only conventionalism, and not a physically founded natural science. Karl Popper was a dedicated opponent of all forms of skepticism, conventionalism. (“In later years Popper came under philosophical criticism for his prescriptive approach to science and his emphasis on the logic of falsification. This was superseded in the eyes of many by the socio-historical approach taken by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), who — in arguing for the incommensurability of rival scientific paradigms — reintroduced the idea that change in science is essentially dialectical and is dependent upon the establishment of consensus within communities of researchers.” Wikipedia) Kuhn was arguing: paradigm shift in science is called scientific revolution.

At the end of 19th Century a scientific decision was initiated between energetic (Ostwald, Mach) and atomistic physics (Ludwig Boltzmann). Unfortunately since the beginning of the 20th Century only the energetic part has been discussed and developed. The ground was, only for the energy conservation are mathematical theories developed (variation principles, eigenvalue problems, etc.). For particle number conservation did not have existed any theoretical backgrounds. Opposite of the energetic concept the physical “reality” is another: Closed physical systems do not exist and the electromagnetic interaction is a non-conservative interaction. Nevertheless, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, etc. claimed on the energetic concept and declared the black body radiation with the quantization of action (M. Planck, 1900) and the emission of light through atoms by the energy quantization (A. Einstein, N. Bohr). There have arisen the physical pictures of jumping electrons between exited states and the quantum electrodynamics contained infinite integrals which have to be renormalized; a physically untenable situation. At the introduction of quantum mechanics, a famous Hungarian physics teacher-professor has said to the student: shut up and calculate; you will be accustoming of the formalism. He said “I did also not understand what QM is”. I intend: this quantization procedure is physically not founded; it is only a convention; a bad convention with disastrous consequences.

The other pillars of mainstream, the relativity theories, are not better: Einstein has 1905 gave with the “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” a catastrophic wrong theoretical derivation of the special relativity theory (SRT). In 1916, based on the weak equivalence principle, he founded the general relativity theory (GRT); a theory of gravity as deformation of space-time. Einstein did not really deal with the correct physical meaning of masses; for him were only the inertial masses existent. Apart from that, the E =mc2 relation is not a consequence of SRT; it is a separate statement: a bad physical claim. The energy-mass-equivalence relation is only a convention; a physically bad convention: the pair creation and annihilation are physically non-occurred processes; the stable particle pairs bound each other. The weak equivalence principle, the equality of the gravitational and the inertial mass, is based on the 400 year old hypothesis of Galileo and was seemingly first confirmed by Isaac Newton. But the UFF-hypothesis has never been investigated with sufficiently accuracy with different matter. In this sense, the UFF is only an experimentally not verified phenomenological claim. While all the observations of gravity processes contradict the UFF hypothesis, see the lecture , the mainstream adheres to the statement of UFF; this is a further example on conventionalism. Furthermore, the realization of measurements of the violation of UFF in the range of 10-3 is prohibited by the gravitational physicists. This is just the same as the rejections of publications of experimental results that disprove the UFF assumption.

The mainstream physics try hiding their conventionalism and are controlling and rejecting the deviational meanings with a strong censorship (theory monism).

The ATOMSz, published on the website www.atomsz.com, is an opposite theory to the mainstream. It uses the atomistic imagination of matter with the physical evidence of elementary gravitational charges of the stable particles e, p, P and E. The theory set up a new mathematical principle, the isopretic variation principle, for the particle number conservation. The atomistic theory of matter founds on new intuitively, consistently and mathematically correct Fundamental Physical Principles and not on the physically invalid energetic concept. The atomistic physics requires a paradigm shift, a scientific revolution, but its publications are strongly prohibited by the conventionalism of the mainstream. On the other side, the physical journals overflow by scientific-full-of-phantasy publications; you can publish the deepest unphysical assumptions, such as the quark and string theories, the Big Bang, the Dark Matter and ghost particles, etc., which do not openly contradict to the conventions. The mainstream does not have any idea what matter/mass is. Furthermore, the conventionalism says to you what you have to measure, but no physical theory has been experimental verified yet. Such a physic is not physics. Such a physic is not natural sciences; it is only scientific conventions with mathematical pseudo-proves. I am not afraid of denier judgment of the mainstream physicists. I know that they are members of a misrouted community; they could not solve the central problems of Nature. During the so called scientific revolution at the beginning of the 20th Century only a new scientific conventionalism has been introduced. Not more.

Actual news: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/science/nobel-prize-physics-takaaki-kajita-arthur-b-mcdonald.html? Takaaki Kajita and Arthur McDonald win Nobel Prize in Physics 2015, for work on neutrinos. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday for discovering that the ghostly, elusive subatomic particles known as neutrinos have mass. The Nobel Prize Committee and these researchers don’t know what the neutrinos and what masses are.
They don’t aware that the fundamental neutrinos are composed of (e,p)-pairs and respectively of (P,E)-pairs. A third kind of neutrino is composed of (P,e,p,E). The gravitational masses of all neutrinos are zero. The first two neutrinos have in the ground states also zero inertial masses. The mass of the composite particles are me =0,511 MeV/c2 and mP= 936 MeV/c2. In the same time, the measured inertial masses of the neutrinos are in the range of 1-2 eV/c2 or greater. The three kinds of neutrinos are differently composed and they cannot transform in each other; they cannot transform via the quantum mechanically founded neutrino oscillations.

Best Regard

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The neutrino oszillations do not occure in Nature. The wave-particle dualizm does not be a physical process. The waves are phenomena of continuous fields and the particles have electric charges and masses; two different masses: the gravitational mass and the inertial mass. The gravitational masses of particles never change, this kind of mass is conserved.

 

In your opinion, and which the Nobel committee, mainstream science nor anyone else gives a f%^$ about.
In other words what you have been saying over 22 odd pages and the web page you have created, has all been a gigantic waste of your time and cyber space.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You don't agree with the Nobel Prize in Physics given in 1902, 1917, 1918, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015.

In addition, you stand opposed to the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry given in 1914, 1922, 1936, 1944, 1966, 1971, 1981, and 1998.

And the remainder you don't understand because you don't understand the relation between science, humans and reality.

 

The definition of stable elementary particles: They have non-zero elementary electric and non-zero elementary gravitational charges. Further, as well the gravitational masses as the rest masses of stable particles are non-zero and these two masses are equal. There exist an universally valid relation between the elementary gravitational charges and the elementary masses.

For composite particles the electric and the gravitational charge can also be zero and the gravitational mass is generally different from the rest mass.

The relation E = m c^2 is not valid.