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: Androcles on 24 Jul 2010 15:49 "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message news:4c4b1c1c$0$2603$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | | 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* " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate " ("plurality should not be posited without necessity").--William of Ockham. You do not know it? "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton You do not know it? What this means is we don't *need* aether for any purpose, therefore there is no point in presuming its existence. You and Stokes are outgunned by Newton. Sagnac is not null. You are deranged.
From: Androcles on 24 Jul 2010 15:57 "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message news:4c4b22d3$0$2592$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | | "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 In fact, actually, people that begin a sentence with "In fact" or "Actually" do so to convince themselves an hope to convince others, but in fact, actually, whatever follows will usually be total bullshit, and that is actually a fact, in fact. You two are both bullshitting bastards. Birds of a feather flock together, but are still birdbrains.
From: franklinhu on 25 Jul 2010 01:56 > > 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. > The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula Look under: "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element" That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling of the Rydberg formula. I did not in anyway "calculate" what the form of the formulas should be, I just plotted the data and did a curve fitting exercise to show that you could create a Rydberg formula that reproduces the He spectra to within a percent of the observed values. Now Eric says that the Rydberg formula only applies to hydrogen or hydrogen-like ions, but what I have shown is that it is wrong - just look at how closely I have been able to reproduce the spectra for He, Li, & Be using nothing but a simple scaling of the Rydberg formula. The spectra for the other ions of an atom follow exactly the same staircase spectral energy pattern which is very predictable (Have you even bothered looking at those graphs????). Eric says that this is impossible even in principle, and it would be if you blindly believed his principles based upon the orbital model of the atom. But since the spectral data can find a fit using only the Rydberg formula, then I'd say these "principles" need to come under review since I just did something which is "in principle" impossible. But once again getting back to the topic of this post, you and others simply won't look at it, you won't even get past the 1st sentence - at least look at the graphs I references in my original post. I wouldn't mind if you looked at it and then threw stones, you're not even looking. This is worse than censorship or moderation where you blanket ignore anything which does not match your existing dogma. So really, it matters little if Scientific American censors all scientifc innovation, no one would want to read about it anyways. No wonder science makes so little progress. So once again, I beg of you to actually read what I have proposed. If you spent this much time reading to the bottom of this post, it is the least you could do: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee Otherwise, you too are guilty of putting a blind unscientifc dogmatic eye on all possible scientific innovations.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jul 2010 03:32 franklinhu wrote: >> >> 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. >> > The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the > spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula > > Look under: > "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element" > > That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the > spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling > of the Rydberg formula. You are empirically wrong. [snip all]
From: Szczepan Bialek on 25 Jul 2010 04:54
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote news:NAH2o.328027$m87.95458(a)hurricane... > > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > news:4c4b1c1c$0$2603$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* > " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate " ("plurality should not be > posited without necessity").--William of Ockham. > You do not know it? > "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both > true > and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton > You do not know it? > What this means is we don't *need* aether for any purpose, therefore there > is no point in presuming its existence. We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe". But we can analyse the rare plasma and dust in the space. Can they rotate with the Sun? S* > You and Stokes are outgunned by Newton. > Sagnac is not null. You are deranged. > |