Electron’s puzzles.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Stardust in the Solar Wind
Next: Perhaps added rest mass keeps photons moving at c and only c.
From: PD on 18 May 2010 16:12 On May 18, 3:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you, > > despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other > > people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you > > just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in your > > own little tiny universe. > > you are pitiable. > > It is just the opposite! Hundreds of millions of people have never > understood > the mechanism of gravity or what light physically is or what a photon > is or how an atom reacts with transient light in a quantum reaction. I > do. A claim of understanding, plus 75 cents, will buy a cup of coffee. What is needed is a *demonstration* of understanding. That demonstration comes in one and only one way in science: Use your model to make a quantitative prediction that is different than the prediction of prevailing models, and which can be tested in accessible experimental measurement. Until you do this, you really don't have anything except possibly a cup of coffee. > Rather than investigate my explanations, you just assume they are > nonsense, and ignorantly ignore them. They will be ignored, yes, until you produce what I just described to you. > > glird
From: BURT on 18 May 2010 16:16 On May 18, 1:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you, > > despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other > > people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you > > just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in your > > own little tiny universe. > > you are pitiable. > > It is just the opposite! Hundreds of millions of people have never > understood You mean nobody at all at this time understands. Science is too young. Give it time. Give it millions of years before saying it knows a lot. Mitch Raemsch > the mechanism of gravity or what light physically is or what a photon > is or how an atom reacts with transient light in a quantum reaction. I > do. > Rather than investigate my explanations, you just assume they are > nonsense, and ignorantly ignore them. > > glird
From: glird on 18 May 2010 18:03 On May 18, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >< A claim of understanding, plus 75 cents, will buy a cup of coffee. What is needed is a *demonstration* of understanding. That demonstration comes in one and only one way in science: Use your model to make a quantitative prediction that is different than the prediction of prevailing models, and which can be tested in accessible experimental measurement. I wrote a book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", and published it in 1965. It contains quantitative models of things that had no comparable models in any other existing theories. Since then, almost every such "prediction" has been experimentally confirmed by data produced by experimental physicists who never heard of my book. In 2008, after writing several other books that condensed and then extended the things set forth in my prior ones, I decided to apply my general comprehension of the structure of the real world to a stufy of quantum theory. To do that I followed my usual procdure; which is to go to the original papers written by the person or people who created the given theory. In this case it was Max planck. Rather than read what other people said about his theory I got a copy of his original paper, and studied that. As usual, I found in it things that no-one else seems to have noticed. Wrt one such detail I found that by doing thus and so - which he never did, I came up with the exact experimental value of h. Within a few days of that, I came up with an explanation of every detail of what his quantum of action (h) physically is and also what his quantum of energy (e_0 = hf) is, both physically and mathematically. > Until you do this, you really don't have > anything except possibly a cup of coffee. I did it; and published the results. As of now, it cost me more to publish my books than I got back. But so what? Coffee and food cost less than I get from SS and i own my home so the "rent" is just the tax charged by various layers of our government. So i don't want or need any money for helping the rest of you understand the theory of reality. glird
From: glird on 21 May 2010 13:59 On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >< A claim of understanding, plus 75 cents, will buy a cup of coffee. What is needed is a *demonstration* of understanding. That demonstration comes in one and only one way in science: Use your model to make a quantitative prediction that is different than the prediction of prevailing models, and which can be tested in accessible experimental measurement. > glird replied, < I wrote a book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", and published it in 1965. It contains quantitative models of things that had no comparable models in any other existing theories. Since then, almost every such "prediction" has been experimentally confirmed by data produced by experimental physicists who never heard of my book.> Furthermore, the physicists were surprised and amazed in almost every case, at the data they found. W had added, > Until you do this, you really don't have > anything except possibly a cup of coffee. To which, after writing what follows below, I replied < I did it; and published the results. As of now, it cost me more to publish my books than I got back. But so what? Coffee and food cost less than I get from SS and i own my home so the "rent" is just the tax charged by various layers of our government. So i don't want or need any money for helping the rest of you understand the theory of reality. > Here is what had followed: < In 2008, after writing several other books that condensed and then extended the things set forth in my prior ones, I decided to apply my general comprehension of the structure of the real world to a study of quantum theory. To do that I followed my usual procedure; which is to go to the original papers written by the person or people who created the given theory. In this case it was Max Planck. Rather than read what other people said about his theory I got a copy of his original paper, and studied that. As usual, I found in it things that no one else seems to have noticed. Wrt one such detail I found that by doing thus and so - which he never did, I came up with the exact experimental value of h. Within a few days of that, I came up with an explanation of every detail of what his quantum of action (h) physically is and also what his quantum of energy (e_0 = hf) is, both physically and mathematically. > As usual, NO ONE has replied. Evidently no one is interested in understanding the things physics only know how to measure. Too bad for them. glird
From: glird on 25 May 2010 18:40
On May 21, 1:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > < I wrote a book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", and published it in 1965. It contains quantitative models of things that had no comparable models in any other existing theories. Since then, almost every such "prediction" has been experimentally confirmed by data produced by experimental physicists who never heard of my book. Furthermore, the physicists were surprised and amazed in almost every case, at the data they found. In 2008, after writing several other books that condensed and then extended the things set forth in my prior ones, I decided to apply my general comprehension of the structure of the real world to a study of quantum theory. To do that I followed my usual procedure; which is to go to the original papers written by the person or people who created the given theory. In this case it was Max Planck. Rather than read what other people said about his theory I got a copy of his original paper and studied that. As usual, I found in it things that no one else seems to have noticed. Wrt one such detail I found that by doing thus and so - which he never did, I came up with the exact experimental value of h. Within a few days of that, I came up with an explanation of every detail of what his quantum of action (h) physically is and also what his quantum of energy (e_0 = hf) is, both physically and mathematically. > That was posted about two weeks ago and again a few days ago. As usual, NO ONE has replied. Evidently no physicists are interested in *understanding* the things they only know how to measure. Too bad for them. glird |