The true nature of matter

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Dougiefresh, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Dougiefresh Registered Member

    So many scientists - from so many countries - and so many backgrounds - have worked so diligently - for so long - to reveal the true nature of matter.

    I admire this pursuit and I respect the persistence they've shown in their efforts to achieve that goal. I just don't feel all warm and fuzzy inside about this latest announcement.

    Think about it:

    Six thousand or so top scientists are given a 10 billion dollar particle accelerator to play with - for as long as it takes - to find THE particle (the Higgs boson) that would finally validate the Standard Theory once and for all.

    After colliding protons head on - at close to the speed of light - over 1,000,000,000,000 times, it doesn't seem that remarkable to me that they have finally found a "chunk" of proton that has the exact physical characteristics they were looking for.

    I find this to be far more remarkable:

    One man - working alone and using no tools aside from his mind and a pencil - has (for the last 60 years) been quietly developing a very convincing theory describing the structure and behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. Although this theory may never be able to be proven experimentally, it is worthy of attention because it seems to resolve many of the mysteries that have baffled physicists for centuries.

    If it interests you, there is a website describing some elements of Jurjen van der Wal's theory, which can be easily be found by searching "pyramid physics".

    Perhaps scientists have been concentrating so hard on efforts to validate the Standard Theory that they have been neglecting to consider other possible theories.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Looks deeply unconvincing to me. For a start, he seems to chuck away the entire electronic structure of the atom, which is what explains the sequence of the periodic table. If he's going to do that, he needs to provide alternative explanations for most of chemistry and atomic spectroscopy, before he even gets onto particle physics.

    And what can be the logic behind the statement:

    "IF there are forces at work within an atom, and

    IF there is symmetry to be found in these forces, and

    IF Newton was right…..

    We should expect to find that straight-line forces are present within the heart of the atom’s structure. Furthermore, these forces would be found in pairs."

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    The guy spent 60 years on this? I sure hope he didn't average more than about 5 seconds a day. What a bunch of hand waving crap.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Let me guess.
    He uses no advanced mathematics.
    Because he doesn't know any.

    Added later:
    Found this at

    Next he notes that the Periodic Table’s series of element quantities show a quadratic relationship:

    Period 1 has 2, or 2(1×1) elements

    Period 2 has 8, or 2(2×2) elements

    Period 3 has 8, or 2(2×2) elements

    Period 4 has 18, or 2(3×3) elements

    Period 5 has 18, or 2(3×3) elements

    Period 6 has 32, or 2(4×4) elements

    Period 7 has 32, or 2(4×4) elements (potentially)

    This suggests that atomic particles actually may consist of square structures and straight lines! It may be time to re-consider physicists’ common portrayal of atomic particles as spheres or curved blobs, or those wiggly rings of the string theory.

    Can he be seriously suggesting that elements are "Square", ie, two dimensional?
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Fortunately being right about nature is mostly hard cold facts.

    Denigrating science won't get you anywhere with anyone here except the cranks.

    Science is a work in progress. So what?

    Who says so? That almost sounds like a Creationist interpretation.

    I have a feeling the experiment designers were thinking almost the same thing.

    You seem easy to impress.
    This is anybody doing homework.

    After 60 years he seems to be stuck. This is one important reason most scientists don't live in a bubble.

    That can't be done in isolation. It requires access to substantial resources.

    If it's not mainstream, there's likely something wrong with it.

    No, I'll pass on giving a free hit to a likely hoaxster or fringe BS artist. If he's got anything scientific to say, feel free to summarize it here.

    You have very naive perception of what scientists do for a living. And isn't your pyramid guy a scientist -- either way, you just dissed him.
  9. river

    Aqueous Id replied

    LoL ....
  10. river

    Where is cosmic plasmas in this discussion ?

    No-where and it should be
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    "Perhaps scientists have been concentrating so hard on efforts to validate the Standard Theory that they have been neglecting to consider other possible theories."

    This supposes you have the scientific background to be taken seriously. If you followed the scientific path leading to the standard model you wouldn't be making such ill informed comments.
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    If the mainstream science was worthy of your LoL you'd be posting using smoke signals.
  13. river

    Mainstream science is just that mainstream it does not advance science
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Long before the possibility of finding the Higgs boson was even feasible, the Standard Model was already one of the two most well-verified theories in all of science. Finding a Higgs-like boson and possibly verifying the Higgs mechanism some time in the future is only icing on the cake. We have already demonstrated that any valid theories will have to have most of the features of the Standard Model, just to account for known phenomena.

    That you think the SM needs to be "finally" validated only demonstrates you are unaware of its previous and remarkable successes.
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Sure it does. How do theories like the components of the Standard Model become mainstream? Science isn't a democracy where you can be as stupid as dirt and still have a vote. The scientific literature is a growing volume of knowledge given to all mankind.
  16. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    why re-invent the wheel all the time? you completely miss the point of the term "mainstream science".
  17. arauca Banned Banned


    Freund yesterday they welcomed you, today the pack of wolves tore you down , but keep smiling
  18. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    If we end up running out of oil sometime soon, then we will have to re-invent the wheel, and I don't think it is going to be that easy. How could you possibly make tires without rubber, that comes from oil? I am still stumped on that one. The future is going to be a really bumpy ride.
  19. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    i thought rubber came from rubber trees?
  20. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    No it doesn't, it is actually imperative that we re-invent the wheel as soon as possible. We won't be able take make tires the same way forever.
  21. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    There is both natural and synthetic rubber. And yes we may have to find new alternatives for petroleum. That is not called re-inventing the wheel.
  22. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Luckily it wasn't a wall of text written over many years. Like *ahem* Miles Mathis.

    How judgmental. tsk tsk. You assume that advanced math is always required and absence of it means stupidity.

    You're probably right but we shouldn't judge people on this basis.

    Something similar was actually proposed by G.N. Lewis in 1916.

    Since then we have used orbitals to account for the n-squared rule:

    \(\sum\limits_{r=1}^n 2r-1 = n^{2}\)
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2013
  23. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    I actually gave it a shot.

    Mr. "van der Wal" claims that nucleons are actually lines of force arranged into some origami geometrical pattern. These structures conform themselves to some grid-like matrix.

    He then botches up Newton's 3rd law to describe gravity involving a vacuum cleaner mechanism as he calls it.

    All in all, extremely vague and never once referring to real world experimental observations.

    The only cool thing he did was a bunch of cyclical arrows on the edges of a cube

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page