Re: The Complete Disproof of Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics

From: Dr. Photon (brendan.roycroft_at_nmrc.ie)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: 14 Feb 2005 14:03:53 -0800

"Jeff" <JLeeCforRP@aol.com> wrote in message news:<1108321467.725044.44300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
> BR,
>
> Thanks for your reply. My philosophy is: "If there is direct, absolute
> proof that an idea does work, then keep on pushing it until others
> understand that it is right."

The levels of H are known theoretically and experimentally to about 11
significant digits. If your model disagrees after 5 significant
digits, then it is measurably wrong. This is not just "nit-picking",
it means your model is beaten by QM which can get *all* the decimal
places.

I could be kind and say that your model as it stands is a first
approximation, and just needs some further tweaking, but you seem to
think it is exact. Please write down the first few H levels to 12
significant digits, and we can check if they are correct.

> As far as "the conservation of energy" is
> conserned, that problem only arises if you look at the universe as
> being characteristic of a "static" inertial reference background as
> current QM does.

I would have thought conservation of energy was a problem no matter
how you look at it. However, I did think of a possible "out" from my
fatal complaint #1, but I wanted to hear your answer. My answer would
have been that the lambda you quote is some sort of "relativistic"
wavelength, and so may not need to match with the free-space version.
But what are you comparing with what??? The "pilot waves" you quote
N[1]:lambda=9.12e-8 m etc, have *not* been observed. I bet that to get
these "observed" value you have just calculated from lambda=hc/E,
which as we have said, actually *disagrees* with your model. Where
have you got these values from??? As these wavelengths have never been
observed, it is not a proof of your model, and to say they agree with
QM calculations is beside the point, surely! More to the point is the
emission wavelength, Eqn12. I bet this *disagrees* with *observation*
(give me twelve decimal places, please!), as your sqrt() factors do
not cancel out.

Analysing eqn12:
Compare energy difference from free space to N[1], free space to N[2],
and then check if this corresponds to N[2] to N[1]. It doesn't. I get

E1 - E2 = E1.sqrt(1-Vo1^2/c^2) - E2.sqrt(1-Vo2^2/c^2)

This is where your conservaton of energy breaks down - you could make
a free energy machine by passing electrons between free space and two
orbitals and back again. The difference is only in the 5th decimal
place, but do it a billion times a second in a kg of material, and you
could get quite a power station!!!

> With "Reality Physics" there is no potential energy,
> only continual kinetic energy constantly forming the particle since the
> inetial refernce background within which the particle exists, and the
> particle itself, are "active" entities, not the "static" entities, as
> currently misassumed throughout current Theoretical Physics academia
> today.

What about the following:
Airplane flying high in sky = high potential, high kinetic energy
Airplane stalled high in sky = high potential, low kinetic energy
Airplane just about to crash into ground = low potential, high kinetic
energy
Airplane crashed into ground = low potential, low kinetic energy

How do you explain potential energy in this case? Potential is clearly
decoupled from kinetic energy in the classical case. Do all the atoms
spin slower in a lower gravitational field, giving you the
gravitational time dilation? What makes them slow down, why do they
slow down? Do you say that all the atoms emit photons as they descend
in a gravitational field? If there is no potential energy then why
should there be any difference between "high" and "low" - what makes
this difference?

Would you say that a gravitationally free falling electron emits
photons as it descends, due to its internal spin lowering? What is the
difference between gravitational mass and electric charge? If fields
are not allowed (as fields imply potential energy), then how do they
operate?

>[snip]
> This now allows us, for the first time in the history of Physics, to
> show how the concept of "Time Dilation", as discovered by uncle Albert
> more than a century ago, is used to structure the atom, now
> interconnecting Time Dilation to atomic structure. (Be sure not to tell
> anybody though, as they will never believe you.)
>

I gave you a reference on time dilation in atoms, it has been measured
and makes a very small but observable difference. Most of the effect
is from the Coulomb field. What do you say charge is again? If the
electron internal spin slows down, then does the charge reduce also?
If you say yes, then you will badly contradict experiment.

[snip]
> So the bottom line is: Yes, QM can use the Schrodinger equation of QM
> to correctly describe these observed photon wavelengths emitted by an
> electron as it jumps orbits in the atom, but QM can NOT use the de
> Broglie Equation (relating a moving particle's wavelength to its
> momentum) to do it. However, as illustrated on my website, with Reality
> Physics, you CAN use this "corrected" de Broglie Equation to exactly
> calculate these observed wavelengths, obviously meaning that Reality
> Physics directly agrees with observed physical reality, since you CAN
> now use the de Broglie Equation (relating a moving particle's
> wavelength to its momentum) to correctly describe these observed
> emitted phton wavelengths, whereas with current QM you can't.

Schrodinger not only corrects de Broglie (by accounting for potential
energy), not only gets the H levels correct (to within a relativistic
correction), but also gets the orbital shapes. Dirac equation gets
everything.

You have said nothing on the experimental measurement of orbital
shapes I posted. They are measured. If you say orbitals are all
spherical then you are wrong. It's as simple as that.

The Bohr model got the energy levels to the same accuracy you have (to
within a relativistic correction, and the splittings), but it did not
last. There is as much evidence (in fact the *same* evidence) for the
Bohr model as for yours. Yet the Bohr model was dropped. This was
nothing to do with the de Broglie equation not working, there were
many physical effects the Bohr model did not account for. If you want
to know more on this, I suggest you do a small internet research
project, listing all the things that were wrong with the Bohr model. I
expect you should easily get 5, maybe up to ten things wrong. Do a
wider search than just the hyperphysics site, which only treats this
briefly. Fully understand why these things counted as wrong. Then list
all the things that were right with the Bohr model (and there are
some, but not many, I can think of two). Now compare these points to
your model, and see if you have done any better.

I bet you haven't.

If you claim to have done better then please post the list of Bohr
faults, and write next to them how your model gets the right answer. I
bet you can't. Prove me wrong.

BR

p.s. I'm happy to write a few more exchanges, but if you don't answer
the questions point by point it will get very boring from my side.
Repeating the same premise does not count as an answer, I'm afraid.
I'm not sure you attempted any of Bjoern's questions.

>
> Thanks again for your replys, and for your philosophical observation.
>
> all the best,
>
> Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: FOAK Windmill Boat/Cart
    ... and demonstrated that it does work, a short session with google ... OTOH something of which one experimental design was built and is now ... windmill boats and Jacque Cousteu's windmill ship web site ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Setterfields c-decay and the frequency of light
    ... I think there are serious problems with the way Setterfield presents ... What I am less certain about is the light physics ... The energy of a photon is given as follows: ... decayed, the frequency changed while the wavelength remained the same, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FOAK: Buying a Dell PC for the kids
    ... Dell do AMD, In fact I am trying to recover a fucked Samsung Hd at the ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: de Broglie wave paradox?
    ... >> m being the mass of the electron, ... the wavelength of the energy that carries a particle, ... a photon (not associated to a particle) moves at ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Two-slit experiment
    ... We are talking size in meters here, not energy. ... MBR emitting atom as an example see below. ... As a wave the size will clearly depend on any boxes it gets ... Er, yes, but such an object has a very short wavelength so is inherently ...
    (sci.physics.research)