Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Now proof that I am a conspiracy theorist? " How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud?" https://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html#bomb "The thesis of this piece is that, in fact, the invention of the atomic bomb was almost entirely empirical. Fairly simple new concepts of the nucleus, electrons, neutrons, atomic weights etc. sufficed. Specifically, ‘e=mc 2 ’, quantum ideas, uncertainty in measurement and the more elaborate mathematics had no effect on the discoveries leading to the invention; these discoveries each came as a complete surprise. The link with ‘modern p
  2. It's OK if you consider me a conspiracy theorist, pseudo-scientist, electric universe crank whatever... The important thing is I cannot lie! All my words and assertions are recorded in the 13/15 papers at my site and also at viXra.org. People just need to look into my papers to know what I have written about Einstein's relativity - my refutation of relativity. Printed words cannot lie! They just need to read and decide if my arguments are wrong or correct. Best regards, Chan Rasjid http://www.emc2fails.com
  3. I am sorry. I have to expose you to one big "secret" of mine. I don't know quantum mechanics except that there is such a thing called the "Schrodinger" equation related to probability waves! Thought I don't know quantum field theory (QFT) nor the Standard Model, yet I categorically dismiss them as wrong physics! This follows the usual practice of people saying space is curved when they do not know what is dy/dx. I apologize. The current notion that there is a mass defect in the nucleus all comes from the weights of atoms as measured from mass spectrometry, especially the Penning trap. There
  4. I can only say we hold different views about modern physics that incorporates special relativity. Yours is the mainstream view supported by all the top university professors. But there is also a group of qualified physicists - with formal physics degrees - who reject all physics related to relativity. Of course you could say experiments don't lie, but the people interpreting the experiments, data may lie. Only time will tell if Einstein's relativity theories would be retained or booted out. Best regards, Chan Rasjid
  5. I believe the experiment analyzing the atomic mass composition in NaF should be simple by today's standard. I myself don't have the means to do the experiment. I don't expect anyone else in the near future to do such an experiment unless a cataclysmic world event - like a 3rd World War - happens when man got dazed and care not about what Princeton and Cambridge professors say. if done, which peer reviewed journals would care to publish the result - especially if it is against mass defects making a mess of nuclear physics. As for general relativity being experimentally corroborated, I hold
  6. I have just completed a paper (unpublished, 10 pages) entitled : "Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?" The pdf file of the paper is may be downloaded at my website. Our nuclear physics theory on nuclear binding energy is all wrong. The current concept of nuclear mass defect is wrong. The reason why the nuclear masses don't add up correctly in nuclear fission is because the the atomic mass provided by NIST is all wrong! Yes, the most prestigious of equipment, the Penning trap, cannot weigh atoms correctly! It could provide high precision indeed - to 10¯¹⁰ , but precision is not the same as accuracy
  • Create New...