More hollow pronouncements based on nothing, only this time your statement is bolded! Wow, you 'pulled out all the stops this time'.
An atomistic theory of matter
- Thread starter Atomsz
- Start date
You can look, but most probable you cannot read and understand the sentences. Congratulation, you are a famous scientist.More hollow pronouncements based on nothing, only this time your statement is bolded! Wow, you 'pulled out all the stops this time'.
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:
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?
Atomsz:
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?
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.
It's not my fault if you have bad experimental data or a faulty interpretation of results.
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.
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.
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:
Bye again.
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.
You mean, the censorship as banned member?
The main cause of problems are solutions.
Last edited:
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.
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.
And everyone can read www.atomsz.com again ban and censorship!
Reported.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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:
I've got a question.
Why are you still here?
Why are you still here?
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:
Atomsz posts are getting weirder and I didn't think that was possible.
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 jν (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!
- 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 jν (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!