An atomistic theory of matter

I didn't say very much because 1) I had a principled interest in being correct and useful, 2) I omitted reliance on actual details of physics but restricted myself to summarizing what separates physics from metaphysical philosophical speculation and crackpottery.

Proof isn't even a concept in physics. Physicists need to be good with dealing with uncertainty. But while we may never be certain that we are right, we can be certain when we are wrong. In this case, you are wrong and my posts have addressed many specific things which demonstrate that you are wrong and generally why your approach to physics is wrong.

No. You need a theory to summarize all available and relevant evidence. To attempt to find evidence that supports a statement is called cherry picking. To ignore good evidence that contradicts your position is intellectual dishonesty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He should pay attention to your comments.

Apparently this nonsense falls into the discussion appropriate category. Pretty much everything that isn't personally offensive to cranks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

9Be has 4 electrons, 4 protons, 5 neutrons and an isotopic mass of 9.0121822(4) u. Not true! The neutrons in the nuclei could be the so called stable neutrons N0 = (P,e) or instable neutons N = (P,e,p,e). 9Be is consisting of 9 protons Mp +9 electrons and Mp positrons. The number of positrons Mp is unknown. The mass

mi(9Be) = 9.0121822(4) u

is the inertial mass of 9,4Be. The gravitational mass is mg(9Be) =9 (mP -me) = 9 1.006727885 = 9.060550965. the two masses are clearly different, the relative mass defekt is Delta(9Be) = + 0.534%. And the relative mass defect is differnet of 56Fe is Delta(56Fe) = + 0.784 %. Because the relativ mass defects are different for isotopes the UFF-hypothesis IS INVALID.

The Standard Modell of Particle Physics (STPP) is an invalid theory because it does not take care to the gravitational masses of particles!!

Furthermore, the STPP is an invalid theory because it was not able to derive the equation of motion of Fields AND Particles. /From its basics there is inpossible to derive./

The STPP is a conglomerate of two invalid basis theories, the special relativity theory (SRT) and the quantum theorie (QT). Moreover, the SRT and QT are based on two different, and non-conform ideas!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL.

 

The SMPP's validity is out of question. The QT hindered to use the equation of motion of the electromagnetic and gravitational field up to the smallest space-time distances. In the nuclei the Planck's constant does not play any role. For the nuclei is an other Lagrange muliplier resposible, the h0=h/387.7 .

Instead of four stable elementary particles, the results of SMPP is amore than chaotic list of "particles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

 

You are certain wrong with SMPP and with SMAP (astrophysics) generally. The Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOM) avoids the uncertainity of both SM's.

The ATOM has found the most important physical evidences.

 

And what experimental evidence suggests that your idea is better than what science currently uses?

 

I don't "need" a theory to summarize all available and relevant evidence, I have a theory!

 

For instante, the violation of the UFF-Hypothesis is such an experimental evidence. The accepted science currently uses the UFF-hypothesis.

 

You don't have Fundamental Principles!!!!

 

You contradict yourself.

 

I believe, you can not understand what you are reading. And/or you have some logical problems in your head.
If you did not understand something, you can ask for explanation. Logically excluded statements are not very helpful.

I don't want to answer your contributions in the future.

 

You're a crank and a troll.

 

It is not an approximation, it is a wrong statement.

 

I think, you did not have reading my theory in [link removed]

The violation of the UFF-hypothesis is a central point in the theoretical derivation AS WELL AS in the experimental confirmation.

See which is unfortunately in German. The original works of Planck, Einstein and Heisenberg were also in German.

 

So what, exactly, is this "UFF-hypothesis"?

 

Newton's law of gravity has to be corrected in

a(body) = -a0 mg(body)/mi(body) = - a0 (1 + Delta(body)).

The acceleration in gravity a(body) depends on the body composition of diverse isotopes. The UFF-hypothesis does not hold.

 

The gravitational acceleration is composition dependent. The accepted physics did not take notice of the composition dependent acceleration, therefore, the accepted physics is wrong physics.

 

Yet the \(_4^9 \textrm{Be}\) isotope is a stable isotope with absolutely no evidence of the defining difference between stable and unstable neutrons. On the other hand \(_4^{10} \textrm{Be}\) is unstable and this particular isotope's decay pattern \( { _4^{10} \textrm{Be} } \; \to \; e^{-} \; + \; { _5^{10} \textrm{B} }\; + \; \bar{\nu}_e\) is clearly similar to that of free neutrons \( { _0^1 n } \; \to \; e^{-} \; + \; { _1^1 p }\; + \; \bar{\nu}_e\), but it's half-life is 70 billion times longer, which contradicts the assumption that neutrons are absolutely classified into stable and unstable categories.

You've offered no evidence that any of \(_4^9 \textrm{Be}\)'s five neutrons might be unstable and no explanation why it appears that at least one of the six neutrons of \(_4^{10} \textrm{Be}\) decays despite the rate being nearly 11 orders of magnitude slower than the model predicts. Details matter.

So pick a number and make a case for that number. But you also have to explain why you've put electrons and positrons within a few femtometers of each other when postronium is a bound state of positron and electron with a characteristic radius of tens of thousands times large and a lifetime over a billion times shorter than free neutrons.

Citation required. That is the mass cited on Wikipedia, and page 736 of http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2003/pdf/7506x0683.pdf which is a small improvement on the figure of 9.0122 from F. Everling, L. A. König, J. M. E. Mattauch, A. H. Wapstra. Nucl. Phys. 18, 529–569 (1960). It's inconsistent with the history of the measurements of this mononuclidic element to assume that the mass was not made by molar titrimetry or other quantitative chemical analysis followed by determination weight with an accurate mass balance. Thus the claim that 9.0122 is an inertial mass and not a gravitational mass is an extraordinary claim which you cannot make in the absence of documentation.

Incorrect. It only discusses one type of mass. And General Relativity uses exactly that definition of mass. So its a much more rigid theoretical relations than your theory where you claim that some number of positrons accounts for the extra massiveness of \(_4^9 \textrm{Be}\) but that number you can't even guess at.

Just one man's baseless opinion from the country responsible for the largest percentage of the budget of CERN.

Anyone can claim that -- but where is the evidence so that others will believe. I provided my evidence that gravitational acceleration is is not more composition dependent than at most a few parts per 10 trillion, but you say the difference is 50 billion parts per 10 trillion without evidence!

 

Without evidence, he's objecting to universality of free-fall. — That concept of gravitation common to Galileo, Newton and Einstein. That concept tested in my link that he has ignored.

Only a fool thinks he's the only sane man on Earth. This poster thinks he is the only sane man in 350 years.