An atomistic theory of matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Atomsz, Sep 2, 2015.

  1. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    More hollow pronouncements based on nothing, only this time your statement is bolded! Wow, you 'pulled out all the stops this time'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    And, of course, four stable particles with two kinds of elementary Maxwell charges and two continuous fundamental fields are needed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    You can look, but most probable you cannot read and understand the sentences. Congratulation, you are a famous scientist.

    origin
    It keeps getting funnier...., Male, from Upstate NY

    Valued Senior Member
    Isn't Sam Frams disco where he left his harp? Jun 30, 2015
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450

    No, I can read and understand your posts just fine. I am not a famous scientist, I am not a scientist at all.


    How come you didn't include the picture of the rocket?
    Yeah that is a reference to punchline to a joke; "I left my harp in Sam Crabs disco".

    Was there some sort of point to your post?
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Atomsz:

    That's wrong.

    For example, consider the photoelectric effect. That provides good evidence for photons.

    What does your theory say light is? And what evidence do you have for your theory of light?

    Wrong again.

    There are, in fact, literally billions of bits of evidence for the creation of particles. For example, you might like to investigate what goes on at the Large Hadron Collider. On a more mundane level, you might like to investigate how the smoke detector in your house works, or why there is a solar wind.

    You're the one who says he has a revolutionary new theory that requires known physics to be thrown in the bin. It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that you are right and a century of physics is wrong.

    You have not been censored.

    As rpenner has pointed out, you are mistaken about that. Aluminium bodies and lead bodies fall with the same acceleration.

    It's not my fault if you have bad experimental data or a faulty interpretation of results.

    I'm guessing this is not the first forum of this kind where you have posted your unsupported claims.

    Most likely, you get the same reaction from physicists and educated people everywhere you go.

    Your theory is useless. It is unsupported. It makes no predictions. It is apparently untestable. It is not physics.

    Goodbye.
     
  9. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    You can find the answers to almost all your questions in www.atomsz.com with all the predictions and experimental verifications.

    The energy is not conserved because closed systems don't exist. The firstly correct derived equation of motions of the fields and of the particles doesn’t need the energy conservation.

    In the photoelectric effect only the MAXIMAL energy of the electrons is proportional to h. The electrons do not "eating" photons with the energy E = h∙ν.

    In your physics is nothing experimentally verified.

    There are no physical evidence for particle annihilation and generation.

    The Atomic Theory of Matter is most probable the ultimate physical truth.


    Goodbye.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  10. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Bye again.
     
  11. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    From your profile: Kristoffer Stop proselytizing

    I never leave physics.
     
  12. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    That was my reply to a now permanently banned member who wouldn't stop proselytizing.

    You can claim to know more about physics than everyone else, but there's one tiny problem: you don't, and it's painfully obvious.

    I hope you enjoy your upcoming ban, I will.
     
  13. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    You mean, the censorship as banned member?

    The main cause of problems are solutions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  14. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    You haven't been censored, everyone can still read your shit if they want to.

    The ban I hope you'll get issued is for continuing to spam your damn site after you've been told to cut it out.
     
  15. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
  16. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Reported.
     
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    1) Answers which are wrong are the less-useful types of answers. You lack the ability to analyze your own experiment to compare theory to experiment so you have not been able to correctly describe the behavior of one event, let alone a wide class of related phenomena.

    2) Your claim to be able to answer almost all my questions shows a lack of imagination of what questions I might ask, a lack of education of what questions a physicist would want to ask and a lack of reading comprehension of what questions have already been asked. You have failed to account for all the predictions of the theories you attempt to displace and therefore have not adequately show your ideas to replace all of physics with something better.
    3) Your experimental verification failed. The Al sample did not reach the predicted zone. Worse, the observed secular accelerations were not readily distinguishable from the null result and if you ignore the indications that the Al target got momentum changes near the beginning of the fall and when it struck the tube, crudest fit to a curve of constant acceleration has the wrong sign and wrong magnitude to match your hypothesis. An intellectually honest person would address this problem by retracting books and papers that incorrectly suggested the experiment confirmed the hypothesis.
    4) Your experiment does not explore new physics but you failed to reconcile why your results differ so much from those that came before you. Instead you invested your ego in conspiracy theories.
    5) You have ignored the direction of the site owner to make only useful and specific self-referential links.

    For these reasons, your work is irrelevant to a discussion of physics and you are widely considered to be out of touch with simple facets of human society.
     
  18. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The Atomistic Theory of Matter is also a quantum field theory but with quantized sources of the field. If you want to make correct quantum mechanics use this new quantum field theory.

    rpenner, for gravity look at this lecture (and perhaps first learn German)



    The gravity does not caused by space-time deformation.

    The nowadays accepted standard physics could not solve the problem of gravity!

    The four elementary particles e, p, P and E have two kinds of elementary Maxwell-charges. The one kind of elementary charges cause the electromagnetism, and the other kind of elementary charges cause the gravity. Both continuous field propagate with c. There is no need for other interaction between particles as these two continuous fundamental fields. The number of elementary particles are conserved, the energy is not conserved.

    rpenner
    Fully Wired

    Valued Senior Member

    On vacation -- Today I visited my nephew's college.

    To rpenner: Get to know mathematics in pre-conference training. Sharpen your
    skills in workshops and developer kitchens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  19. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The Lagrange formalism can be used also for non-closed and non-conservative physical systems and the Hamilton principle leads to the equation of motions of the fields and of the particles. The energy conservation is not needed and it is a wrong principle. The quantization of the enegy is a bad convention.
    The particle numbers conservation gives the isopretic variation principle with Lagrange multipliers. These Lagrange multipliers appear only in the equation of motion of particles. The fields as interactions are continuous objects and are NOT quantized.

    James R
    Just this guy, you know?
    from The Land of Oz
    needs more sleep or more coffee

    ... and he needs more theoretical know-how!

    Any futher questions?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  20. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    I've got a question.

    Why are you still here?
     
  21. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    A very intelligent question!

    Kristoffer
    Giant Hyrax
    Male, 36, from Denmark
    Ah, that explains it. Just shocked to see a guy from Utah having a sense of humour.

    With Niels Bohr I don't have any kind of humour!
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  22. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Atomsz posts are getting weirder and I didn't think that was possible.
     
  23. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The transition from classical physics to modern and correct quantum physics was difficult because

    - the gravity was experimentally not sufficiently correct investigated,

    - in the classical physics the precise inertial conditions of the position and of the velocity were assumed,

    - in the Maxwell equation one does not differentiated between the continuous field Aν (x) and the probability charge and current density (x),

    - and the conservation of energy was assumed as fundamental principle.

    No theories were developed for particle number conservation and for open physical systems in order to include also the interacting fields which propagate with c.

    The physical revolution at the beginning of the 20th Century has lead only to bad conventions (energy quantization, energy-mass-equivalence relation). Not more!
     

Share This Page