Jump to content
Science Forums

andrewgray

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by andrewgray

  1. Montgomery, Well, if an experimenter cannot measure a value past 10 decimal places, then the value of the 36th decimal place can be hypothesized to be anything! This is just plain philosophical logic. So, I am hypothesizing that the sum of the repulsive electrical forces plus the sum of the attractive electrical forces between proton/electron pairs is slightly skewed towards the attractive side by one part in , leaving a residual force of gravity. You do not have to agree, but I can hypothesize this difference no problem! I believe it is justified just because we have a force of gra
  2. I'm glad you asked this question, Devin. You see, it is not residual charge that I am talking about. It is residual electric force. There is a big difference. What I am saying is that atoms are completely made up of protons and electrons (each neutron is a proton and electron combo). Then, between two bodies that have the save number of protons and electrons (neutral), the attractive electrical forces are ever, ever, ever, ever so slightly greater than the repulsive electrical forces by one part in ! This says nothing about charge. We are only dealing with attractive and repulsive elec
  3. Devin, Correct. Correct. What gravity is... is a Residual Electrical Force. That is, (between 2 bodies) the sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is very close to zero, but not quite! The sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is close to zero by one part in ! That is unimaginably close to zero! But that extremely, extremely small left-over-force is enough to make gravity. We cannot say what the residual charges are. Only that the sum of the electical attractive f
  4. OK. Gravity. Like we were saying, the key to understanding gravity is the neutron's mass. Since we have shown that there are no gamma particles, this equation: cannot be used, and we must revert back to Chadwick's original calculations for the neutron mass, in which he found that the neutron WAS ACTUALLY LIGHTER than a hydrogen atom! This means that the neutron actually IS a composite particle, made up of a bound electron and proton. Finally, this explains why the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are the same! How? Well first we must digress mo
  5. Yes, Devin, this New Wisdom Unifies Physics theory "goes against the grain". There will be no more... Light Particles Matter Waves Virtual Particles Wormholes Multiverses NonLocality Entanglement..... etc... Is it so bad to be against this grain??? The grain of current modern physics is very coarse and needs a good sanding! Our new theory is what actually goes with the grain and will become the orthodox. Perhaps Devin, if we have to leave you behind, you will at least listen to what we are trying to tell you, and consider it!
  6. Like I explained earlier in this thread: So "wave-particle duality" is gone. It really is silly once you know what is going on! So Devin "No!". I am not with you. Devin, don't go there! Now can we get back to gravity?
  7. The final issue that I have with the new forum software is no [math] [/math] capability. Anyone know about if the new forum will support this? The new forum software has some (more) issues. it is not showing the images in my thread. In addition, the new software is requiring that all new images be encrypted with https, not just http. Why would science images need to be encrypted in a public forum? Andrew Ancel Gray
  8. Ocean Breeze,

    It appears you have new forum software.  The change has deleted the last two messages that I posted to my thread...

    7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory

    Any way to get them back?

  9. Devin, I am not sure what your "gravitation" is that you are calculating here. But I am glad you mentioned it! In order to understand gravitation, the key is to understanding the neutron. The key is the neutron's mass. Hopefully we can have a friendly discussion about the neutron mass here. In the 1930's James Chadwick and the Joliot-Curies were arguing over the mass of the neutron. Chadwick calculated and insisted that the neutron mass was less than that of the hydrogen atom, and the Joliot-Curies calculated and insisted that the neutron was greater than
  10. Well, I guess it is time to move on from the Episode1/Episode2 videos to Episode3_TheAtom. Let's discuss the Intermittent Electron Atom in Episode 3, please. What do you think about the "New-Wisdom-Non-Radiating-Planetary-Orbits-In-The-Episode3-Atom"? Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1) https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2) https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing Andrew Ancel Gray
  11. OceanBreeze, Thanks for the interesting discussion! Now, I doubt crystal orientation has much to do with electron ejection along the light wave polarization: If the crystal structure gave a bias in direction, then the poly-crystalline copper, which would have crystals aligned in all directions, would not have such a bias. But we see the same "along-the-polarization" direction of ejection from poly-crystalline copper: So again, I doubt that it is the crystal structure giving the bias towards the polarization. So the bottom line is this:
  12. Devin, Now come on Devin. "Light Particles pulling electrons out?" By what mechanism do these fictitious light particles "pull on" electrons (oh my goodness!)??? I sure hope you start to see that "light particles" are never needed for any explanation in physics. Andrew Ancel Gray
  13. Ok, OceanBreeze, sorry for the misunderstanding. And thanks for removing trolls from this thread! I had no idea. Now back to the understanding! Yes, photoelectrons do show a big preference for ejection along the polarization of the incident light wave. Here is the most stark evidence for that: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.37.1233 The Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons Ejected by Polarized Ultraviolet Light in Potassium Vapor Milton A. Chaffee Phys. Rev. 37, 1233 – Published 15 May 1931 Anothe
  14. So, OceanBreeze. I am curious. How would YOU explain the perpendicular photoelectric ejections along the polarization of the incoming light wave? So for example, how do YOU explain that if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out? How do you explain that? Wouldn't "horizontal light particles" (oh my goodness!) still be absorbed by the electrons and get knocked out? How are you going to bring in the wave characteristic (polarization) of the light wave if you think "particles"? Do the "horizontal light particles" not get absorbed by the elec
  15. I understand, Devin. Yeah, the double slit detector events are wave interactions with the film at threshold film intensity level. That is, the film "is just about to start to blacken", and the most sensitive silver bromide crystals are the ones that just start to blacken... And of course, they just start to blacken in the maxima of the diffraction pattern. The positioning of the detector events, of course, would mostly be in the maxima of the incident wave. Again, saying that these correspond to single "light particle hits" is a bit illogical given the intensity levels that can hit
  16. Yeah, sure Devin. It's fairly simple, I cannot believe we have had this double slit thing around for a century or so. The double slit "one-detection-at-a-time" experiment is straightforward. 1. You put a low intensity wave (with below-threshold intensity) through the double slit to start. 2. Then you raise the intensity of the wave gradually, until you start to get one detection at a time. 3. What you have done... is simply raised the wave intensity just above the threshold for the most sensitive spots in the detector, whic
  17. Aaron, Thank you for that. So let's discuss these so-called hidden variables, and what we have found, and how they will impact QM! OK. 1. Hidden Variable of the X-ray Frequency Limit: The beam-electrons impacting the tungsten are intermittent so they have a Nyquist Frequency Limit! Impact on QM: No need for the "photon hypothesis". 2. Hidden Variables of the PhotoElectric Effect: The electrons in the metal are intermittent and resonate with the incoming light wave. This ejects them "sideways" and along the polarization of the incident lightwave as seen experi
  18. Devin, Can I prove Intermittent Electrons? Now we are getting somewhere. 1. First of all there is the Photoelectric Effect Experiment. In this experiment there is: Perpendicular Ejection of the electrons Along the Polarization of the Incoming Light Wave! QM and all other current theories fail here. Think about this statement. QM fails here. Did I say QM fails here? Only Intermittent Electrons predicts this phenomenon. Isn't agreement with experiment what we use to "prove" theories? (That begs: "Why aren't you asking your QM bud
  19. Devin, Thanks for your feedback. Yes Devin, you are correct. Episode 1 shows the approximation of EM pulses going down the field lines of the electrons. Indeed, this is a simplified concept and a simplified version of Maxwells equations (not exactly what is really going on with the X-rays!) But the simplified version makes the extremely difficult Nyquist Frequency Limit concept easier to understand. Imagine if I tried to explain the Nyquist Frequency Limit for X-rays while simultaneously writing out complicated Maxwells equations and EM wave equations. The Nyquist Limit ex
  20. OK, Devin, I am trying too! So now that we have discussed Intermittent Electrons's view of the PhotoElectric Effect and the X-ray Frequency Limit... What did you think about Episode 3, The Atom? (and its non-radiating planetary orbits with no "light particles" in sight?) Andrew Ancel Gray
  21. Thanks for the kudos, Devin! No, "light particle" theory has definitely not been abandoned, yet! But it is going to have to be abandoned if we are to make any progress in unifying physics. Electromagnetic "light particles" were thought to be necessary (it seemed!) to explain the photoelectric effect and the X-ray cutoff frequency (they were not necessary). So Bohr conveniently used these fictitious "light particles" in his theory to experiment-match to the Rydberg equation. Then it was off in the wrong direction for 100 years, with the crowning folly being "entangled light particles" t
  22. And Turtle, nice to hear from you. Well, yes. Storm clouds will occasionally have a massive electrical discharge (lightning). Then you will have a current running through the air very similar to a current running through tungsten. These lightning-bolt-electrons running through air, even though they are intermittent, will alternatively strike the air atoms-molecules and experience periodic accelerations, causing EM radiation to go down their electric field lines. This will be emitted with all frequenicies... up the the Nyquist Limit of the most energetic electrons in the bolt! Turtle,
  23. Devin, for sure. With 30,000 eV electrons there are going to be ionizations! These "bumped off' electrons will radiate also. And the electrons replacing these "bumped off" electrons will radiate while they are "dropping" into their vacated "electron holes". I think we can agree on that. What we do not agree on is that this will be a "one-shot" process. None of these "bumped off" electrons or "electrons falling back into holes" will posses the entire KE of the 30,000 eVolt electrons. So again, the "one-shot" process seems unlikely to me. We may have to just agree to disagree here. A
  24. Devin, Yes, we agree on the braking radiation. Now, you realize that x-ray tubes typically use 30,000 Volt electrons to hit the tungsten target. These are electrons moving at about .3c. When a .3c electron enters the tungsten, it will be "moving very fast in a metal". Very fast. Fast enough to generate x-rays as it moves past the tungsten atoms and "has collisions with the electric fields" that emanate from the charges in the atoms. Yes, the charges never really have "collisions". I completely agree with you there! They only get repelled and attracted by their respective electric f
×
×
  • Create New...