Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: Szczepan Bialek on 24 Jul 2010 04:34 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote news:bHn2o.215853$U%7.166237(a)hurricane... > > "franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794-b158-7907421bae3e(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > I have posted the complete article on sci.physics: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee > > This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate > any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the > work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic > atomic model which can be found at: > > http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > ============================= > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. Aether is the fact. Todays name is ISM: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium It was Ludwig Lorenz who said that in the space is enough matter to propagate the electric waves. The sublimation is known for years. The space is not an emptiness. >I'm not wading through > your crank theory to get to a nugget of truth embedded in it. I will try. S*
From: Androcles on 24 Jul 2010 06:56 "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message news:4c4aa5b6$0$19162$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote | news:bHn2o.215853$U%7.166237(a)hurricane... | > | > "franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message | > news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794-b158-7907421bae3e(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... | > I have posted the complete article on sci.physics: | > | > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee | > | > This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate | > any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the | > work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic | > atomic model which can be found at: | > | > http://franklinhu.com/theory.html | > ============================= | > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. | | Aether is the fact. In fact, actually, you are the insane, and that is actually a fact.
From: PD on 24 Jul 2010 10:10 On Jul 23, 6:16 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > ======================================== > > You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your > > time on a stupid bigot like Draper?- Hide quoted text - > > Well, because PD isn't stupid - he is obviously established in the > field and has a wealth of knowledge that I will never be able to > attain as an amateur science investigator. The internet is a wonderful > thing to do research - it allows me to comb through of what is > avaliable in an instant. This was impossible prior to the creation of > search engines. However, not everything is on the internet. So I rely > on posters like PD who do have the scentific background to act as the > ultimate human search engine. I believe this is a grievous mistake. You do yourself a gross disservice by telling yourself you could not possibly do research properly just because you're an amateur. The resources are just as available to you as they are to a professional. The ONLY difference is a decision to invest effort, and that is up to you. You'll also find, if you try it, that using physicists as "search engines" is slow, tedious, scattershot, and not nearly as efficient as doing this research on your own. However, if you just don't WANT to do it, that's another matter. > > So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain > the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then > this really probably has never been done. Don't delude yourself. I'm not an on-demand-info-pusher, and if I decline to give you information, it doesn't necessarily mean that the information is not there. Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of* a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at all. > He provided references which > I searched to confirm that while books and books have been created on > the subject, none of them used the approach that I created. And how did you search these books? > What is > apparent in the historical record is that after trying fruitlessly for > years to solve helium, they gave up until quantum mechanics came along > and provided a way to approximate a solution. > > PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely > and competently explain the issues at hand. On the contrary, I do not explain completely at all. I only give you snippets. If you wanted to get a more complete explanation, you'd have to read something. > I have complained in this > post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet, but even negative > comments (as long as they are based on facts and not insults) help me > probe the weaknesses of what I am proposing. Most of the time, I find > these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract > from what I am researching. Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people > didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that > would be. So, good work PD, thanks for sticking with us crazies. > > Now, you (Androcles) on the other hand won't wade through my TOE > because it starts off defining the aether. Here is yet another example > of how anything not conforming to the 'mono-theory' established dogma > gets ignored (getting back to the topic of this thread). Even us > crackpot cranks have our own form of "censorship". I think we would > all do well to not rule things out before even considering them. My > little web site can be probably be read in its entirety in half an > hour and the main page in less than 5, so I don't think there's that > much to "wade" through. Like other scientists, you just stick your > head in the sand, cover your ears and say "I can't hear you" when you > see anything not conforming to your dogma. > > http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > > Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
From: Szczepan Bialek on 24 Jul 2010 13:00 Uzytkownik "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> napisal w wiadomosci news:tFz2o.204694$9c1.4451(a)hurricane... > > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > news:4c4aa5b6$0$19162$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > ============================= > | > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. > | > | Aether is the fact. > > In fact, actually, you are the insane, and that is actually a fact. You have this: http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf In the last sentence before supplement Michelson wrote that Stokes is right. Now you know that the Sun is hot and produces the plasma. The Sun and plasma rotate (one revolution per 25 days). It is a whirl. The Sun, planets, plasma and everything rotate together. Stokes predicted it in 1845. Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. You do not know it? S*
From: Szczepan Bialek on 24 Jul 2010 13:28
"franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794-b158-7907421bae3e(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > This is part of the work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic atomic model which can be found at: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html You wrote: "4. What fills space? Since electrons and positrons are attracted to one another, they immediately form pairs in space. In fact, all of space is completely filled with these electron/positron pairs and this forms the medium through which the waves generated by the resonant frequency of the positrons and electrons is transmitted. This forms what has been classically described as the aether made up of particles." Now we know what fils space. Ions, electrons and dust. See ISM. >Too bad scientists are too busy suppressing new ideas huh? No wonder why little real progress has been made in the past 100 years since Einstein. Not all is published. >Scientists should be happy to see something new, instead they instinctively suppress and ignore it. So much for innovation. Scientists works on plasma (ions, electrons and charged dust). Do the same. S* |