andrewgray Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 (edited) Quote A physicist discovering that there are no photons would be just as catastrophic as an electrical engineer discovering that there are no electrons. Except there are no photons! So there are no photons. What does that mean for the future of physics??? Well, it is catastrophic for a century of theoretical physics! Quantum Anything is gone! We have shown that atomic physics is based in reality and is analog, not quantized! E.g., the photoelectric effect is caused by an acceleration resonance for the threshold followed by a non-acceleration resonance for the KE limit! The double slit experiment simply tests the threshold intensity of the detector, and on and on... Quantum is gone! You physicists must face this! You may not like it, but you must face this! Quote An astronomer discovering that there is no spacetime curvature would be just as catastrophic as an electrical engineer discovering that there are no electrons. Except there is no spacetime curvature! So there is no spacetime curvature! Instead we have a weak equivalence principle and Special Gravitivity! What does that mean for the future of theoretical astronomy??? Well, it is catastrophic for a century of theoretical astronomy! Spacetime curvature is a goner! We have shown that all general relativity experiments are fraught with confirmation bias. E.g., the Pound/Rebka redshift-doppler experiment was done with a vibrating speaker instead of a simple moving cart, and the velocity of the radioactive sample actually included the non-redshift velocity and the velocity actually used was never even measured! Never measured! Scientific misconduct! Another example: Mercury does NOT orbit the sun! It orbits the inertial barycenter of our solar system. There is a maximum of a 1.25° difference between the perihelion position and actual inertial barycenter periapsis position (and this can be "fudged" so it agrees with general relativity)! Final example: the bending of light around the sun is due to refraction from the massive amounts of atomic hydrogen in the solar atmosphere (proven by the fact that the solar Balmer hydrogen spectrum is an ABSORPTION spectrum, and not an emission spectrum. All that Balmer emission from a 1000 quettagrams of atomic hydrogen is absorbed by the solar atmosphere!!!! )! ... So we have Special Gravitivity instead of general relativity. You physicists must face this. You may not like it, but you must face it. There are no Black Holes. You can look out at Sagittarius A* with an x-ray telescope and see it. It is not black in the x-ray frequency spectrum. Special Gravitivity predicts that Sagittarius A* is simply a giant neutron star ( the Chandrasekhar limit is spacetime curvature nonsense) so there are no atoms present on the star to emit visible light, that's all. So it looks "black" in the visible spectrum, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE X-RAY SPECTRUM! I can see it, and so can you! Just use an x-ray telescope! There it is! So general relativity is gone! You may not like it, but you must face it! The state of nuclear physics in not much better. We will get to that next time! Andrew Ancel Gray Edited March 4 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted March 11 Author Report Share Posted March 11 So let's talk about binding energy of nuclei. When you take some neutrons and protons and bind them together into a nucleus, the resulting nucleus is ALWAYS less massive than the sum of the masses of the constituent protons and neutrons. ALWAYS. So in general, when you take two things and bind them together, the mass of the result is always less than the mass of the parts! Some binding energy escapes! So the mass of both the proton and electron can be measured with a mass spectrometer. The masses are as follows: Mass of proton: 1.67262 yoctograms Mass of electron: 0.00091 yoctograms But the mass of the neutron is tricky because one cannot use a mass spectrometer. The way modern physicists calculate the neutron mass is by using a deuteron. The equation used is: But they use 0.003921 yoctograms for the mass-energy of the "photon". To mass-balance the equation, this leaves the neutron mass as 1.67492 yoctograms! But that means that the neutron would be more massive than a proton + electron! proton + electron : 1.67358 yoctograms neutron: 1.67492 This seems impossible since putting two things together ALWAYS results in less mass. What is wrong? Well. we have seen that there ARE NO PHOTONS! Bluntly, like this: The emitted gamma radiation is NOT an EM particle! We have shown that EM radiation is analog and can be emitted in ANY AMOUNT OF ENERGY, so their neutron mass is in error! Quote A physicist discovering that their neutron mass is in error would be just as catastrophic as an electrical engineer discovering that their electron charge is in error. Except the neutron mass is in error! Since the neutron mass is in error, we can go back to Chadwick's original idea that a neutron is a proton/electron composite. This makes so much more sense! (QUARKS ARE NONSENSE!) So the maximum mass that a neutron can be is 1.67358 yoctograms. The neutron's mass would be (1.67358 ygrams) - (Its Binding Energy)! This makes so much more sense! You "soon-not-to-be-so-dumb" physicists had better start using this new knowledge to make some progress in modern physics! Get with it! Andrew Ancel Gray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.