Re: Photons orr special relativity


kdthrge@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]


Well I knew that there would be a derived explanation that you guys had
come up with instead of admitting theoretical failure. The only problem
with this is that I have 25 yrs experience in construction what I still
do everyday. At my website is a study that I completed in 1997. I have
reviewed it many times with the special expertise I posesss from my
profession. It proves you to be directly wrong. At this time no one in
your profession has tried to disprove this study. You simply ignore it
because it does not fit with your unprovable theory, although it is
very easy to replicate. It proves to me you have no objective interest
in what is obviously the truth.

Hah. Where to start.

You have 25 years in construction, which frankly doesn't mean a damn
thing in physics. There is not a damn thing in construction that
prepares you to take a shot at understanding physics.

The reason nobody has "tried to disprove" your study is because there
is nothing to be gained for going through and ripping it apart piece by
piece.


Regardless of any theory, this study is only based on symmetrical
(balanced) structures and common minimum structural distance. With the
composite of neutrons which are composed within the proton structure,
force is towards center of structure. It proves clearly and absolutely
to be a fact, that nuclei of specific numbers of protons and neutrons
are composed into these structures. Deviation from spherical symmetry
is only dependent on these structures. Your supposed justifications are
false.

Your "study" proves nothing.

You have no mathematics. You rely on an *empirical* formula derived
almost 150 years ago that is *derived* by modern quantum theory. The
rest is handwaving based on half-assed "symmetry" arguments for atoms
that are only vaguely symmetric. They aren't symmetric in proton &
neutron count, nor are they symmetric in arrangement of neutrons and
protons. The electron orbitals are only sometimes symmetric.


It is very easy to recreate. Initially you only need to analyze proton
organization. Then the placement of the neutrons can be done for final
proof. There is only a finite number of structrues that can be derived
for each number of protons. This is the control. This study is
basically for 1-20 protons (thru calcium). This study is perfect for
the recreation of the chart for stable isotopes. Structural
difficulties of minimum distance show up in relative mass defect.
Relative proportions of naturally occurring stable isotopes can be
correlated.

Just work with,,, 6 protons, 8, 9, 13, or 14 to start. These are easy
numbers. You have 2 stable structures at 6, C12,C13.....3 at 8,
O16,O17,O18.... 1 at 9, F19,..... 1 at 13 Al27.....3 at 14 Si28 Si29
Si30. there are no other stable structures that can be derived, The
neutrons fit perfectly, which is not random either. It is immpossible
that this is coincidence!!!!!!!!

Just work with the elements that have only one stable isotope. F, Na,
AL, P, Show me one other stable structure, besides the one for the
stable isotope of this element.

Can your "theory" explain why gold is yellow rather than silverish? Or
why mercury is liquid?

Can it match experiment EXACTLY?

Take Hydrogen for example. Can it create all the spectral lines? I
don't mean just the ones the Rydberg formula cover, I mean can it
replicate fine structure splitting and the lamb shift?

Do you even know about fine structure splitting and the lamb shift?!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydfin.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html


I'm still having trouble understanding why no one in your field has
interest in this simple truth. More and more I am reaching the
conclusion that theoretical science is guilty of deleberate fraud and
embezzlement.

Why would anyone care if another idiot came to the conclusion that
physics is based upon fraud and embezzlement if they have NO IDEA what
kind of experimental evidence modern physics is based on?


You seem very learned in theoretical physics. At least explain to me
why you know the study I know to be valid is invalid without an
objective investigation.

It isn't valid because your knowledge of experimental physics dates to
about the 1850s. There have been improvements since then that your
"study" cannot even hope to grasp.


Kent Deatherage
http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... composite of neutrons which are composed within the proton structure, ... for each number of protons. ... Relative proportions of naturally occurring stable isotopes can be ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ... structure, three neutrons above and below for 7, and total weight 13. ... different properties than the protons. ... If you analyze structures for say,,12 magnesium (3 stable isotopes) 13 ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Photons orr special relativity
    ... a new quantum, that the nuclei are not symmetrical. ... In formalism you've achieved and you have well justified nuclei ... for each number of protons. ... Relative proportions of naturally occurring stable isotopes can be ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... > about the internal structure of the protons and neutrons? ... octahedral configuration and but they do not blend into the aether and ... The atoms fill space and the nucleus occupies the ... > If empty space is filled with neutrons as you say, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why dont protons attract due to gluons and only with neutrons?
    ... Why are protons ONLY attracted to neutrons due to gluons? ... electron, and a neutrino, if that is energetically favorable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading