An atomistic theory of matter

Not only do you not know any physics you apparently have no reading comprehension (that I can forgive since English is clearly not your rfirst language).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ha-ha what a goofy thing to say.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I say supply some evidence to back up that claim.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The atomistic theory of matter is the real physical science and not what you mean to understand under science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really, English is not my rfirst language. But I have understand physics with all its comprehensions!

 

Between your silly ideas, your apparent inability to use LaTex and your poor English his is going to be very difficult.

 

That's super, there is a very nice area called the fringe section where you can explain it to us all.

 

You think, only the English speaker have got intelligence from God?

 

O.K., can you explain your understanding of physics in German or Hungarian, at last the Fundemental Principes of Physics?
But I am no such, you can explain the Fundemantal Principles first in English.

Than, I will wonder about your fringe section!

 

Claus Lämmerzahl

https://indico.cern.ch/event/287488...nts/534965/737612/Laemmerzahl_Foundations.pdf

do not know what the fundamental principles are!

 

I don't think anybody got intelligence from God. A persons ethnicity has nothing to do with intelligence. I have no idea of your intelligence either, it is clear however that you do not have knowledge in physics.

 

What are the Fundamental Principles of Physics, was the question.

 

I ask, what are the FP of the commonly accepted and used physics?

 

"Despite their formal identity, the physical core of gravitation and electrostatic interaction is seen to be quite different." But this is not true, see [link removed].

Both interactions, the gravitation and the electromagnetism, are generated by elementary charges, they propagate with c and they are non-conservativ interactions. This is one of the fundament of the Atomistic Theory of Matter and contradict the commonly accepted and used physics.

Belongs the difference of gravity and electricity to the FP of commonly used physics, yes or no?

 

The central term "mass" in the commonly used physics is not sufficienty cleared up. One knows, that the mass generally determine the motion of bodies and in Newtons gravitational theory (only) the gravitational mass play a role. In the theories of the 20. century the gravitational mass does not play any role. In the GRT the gravity is a deformation of space-time. Belongs this to the foundation of commonly used physics, yes or no?

 

Atomsz claim: Mars and Uranus aren't governed by the sample proportionality of Kepler's 3rd law.

Checking:
\(\frac{R_{\textrm{Mars}}^3}{T_{\textrm{Mars}}^2} = \frac{ \left(1.523679 \, \textrm{AU}\right)^3 }{\left(1.8808 \, \textrm{a} \right)^2} = 0.999988 \pm 0.000005 \, \textrm{AU}^{3} \cdot \textrm{a}^{-2} \\ \frac{R_{\textrm{Uranus}}^3}{T_{\textrm{Uranus}}^2} = \frac{ \left(19.189253 \, \textrm{AU}\right)^3 }{\left(84.016846 \, \textrm{a} \right)^2} = 1.00101701 \pm 0.00000008 \, \textrm{AU}^{3} \cdot \textrm{a}^{-2} \)

It's true, although not to the degree suggested by the Atomsz graph (which lacks any error bars!).

Why is Uranus apparently orbiting a gravity well about \(\frac{1}{972}\) as large as that orbited by Mars? Jupiter masses about 1/1047 of the sun and Saturn masses about 1/3498. Mystery solved. (all numbers from Wikipedia) Kepler's law is an approximate law of nature. Newton's universal gravitation is a better approximation. Einstein's General Relativity is a better approximation yet.

Further there is no evidence at all of that gravity has different force based on elemental composition. This has been widely tested. If \(a_1\) and \(a_2\) are the accelerations on two bodies of different composition, then \(\eta = 2 \frac{ | a_1 - a_2 |}{a_1 + a_2} \) has been found to be closer to zero than \(2 \times 10^{-13}\).



http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ (See section 2.1.1 )

 

In the particle physics only the inertial mass play a role, the gravity is non build in. Because the particle physicists do not know what explain the inertial masses of the particles, they are forced to use the Higgs-mechanism. Belogs the Higgs-mechanism to the foundation of the commonly used physics, yes or no?

 

You speak about knowledge in physics! But the physical community does not know how to understand such central term as "mass". At first such central problems have to be cleared up. The knowledge of the community about "mass" is insufficient.

 

The Atomistic Theory of Matter clear up the terms "gravitational mass" and "inertial mass" and they are generally different.

 

"Why do we have an elementary charge e in physics but no elementary mass?"

We have two elementary masses, the rest mass of electron me and the rest mass of proton mP. And with these two elementary masses we can explain all the other masses. Of course, the gravity is not universal mass attraction! The gravitation is caused by elementary gravitational charges.

 

Claus Lämmerzahl asks at the end of his lecture What are the Fundamental Principles (FP)?

https://indico.cern.ch/event/287488...nts/534965/737612/Laemmerzahl_Foundations.pdf

He does not know.

However the FP are fixed in the Atomistic Theory of Matter www.atomsz.com as

Fundamental Principles in Physics 31.08.2015


Fundamental Principles are

- neither the position, nor the velocity of particles is ever known precisely,

- the matter is consisting of four kinds of stable particles,

- the gravitation is generated through elementary gravitational charges, similar to the generation of the electromagnetism through elementary electric charges,

- the stable particles carry two elementary charges: the elementary electric and the elementary gravitational charges,

- both fields generated through the charges as interaction between particles propagate with the constant velocity c.

The Fundamental Principles are self consistent, complete and are in compliance with all experimental observations on Nature.

The Atomistic Theory of Matter is the consequence.

The laws of nature are non-deterministic, however causal.

A paradigm shift is necessary for laws established in physics.

Nature does nothing in vain.