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: franklinhu on 26 Jul 2010 01:29 On Jul 25, 11:20 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:16 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. > > Yes, it was. There used to be these wonderful places called > "libraries". > > > 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. > > > 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. > > Or, he just can't be bothered to do your work for you. > > > 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. > > For reasons that are glaringly obvious for anyone with a minimal high > school education. > > > 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. > > It is also "apparent" that you have minimal understanding and > experience in science. > > > > > PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely > > and competently explain the issues at hand. > > Which proves that PD is a nice guy, but it hasn't helped you that > much, since you are incapable of learning. > > > I have complained in this > > post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet, > > Why should it be? Why should other people do YOUR work for you? > > > 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. > > No point - there are no "weaknesses" in your proposals, just as it > would be silly to call the babbling of an infant a "weakness". > > > Most of the time, I find > > these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract > > from what I am researching. > > When you are right, you're right, and when you are wrong, you're still > right. Interesting logic there.... > > > Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people > > didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that > > would be. > > It wouldn;t be any fun, either, if people didn't throw stones at YOU. > > > > > > > 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. > > Your Rydberg formula for spectroscopy is quite funny - I have to give > you credit. First off - if you send something laughably inept to a > real scientist, they will ignore it, and block you on their email. > > You can not even make a proper chart on Excel. Anyone who claims to be > a scientist that (1) keeps the grey background, and (2) keeps the > horizontal grid lines, on Excel has never seen a real graph in his > life. Take a look at a Figure in any physics or chemistry journal some > time. > > Second - one of the first "tricks" that any scientist learns is the > wonderful world of logs. By plotting logs on one axis, ANY > relationship looks more linear. Some relationships, like the energy of > activation for a reaction, actually DO depend on a logarithmic > relationship. For more "success", when in doubt, plot the log as a > function of the log - damn near anything will look linear, and you'll > get an apparently "better" fit. > > That is why your "theory" involves log plotting the energy of > transitions. BTW, you haven't learned how to even LABEL a chart > properly. The axes have neither labels nor units.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The purpose of the chart was not to show off my Excel charting abilities, that you choose to spend so much time on that rather than what was plotted or understanding what that plot meant, does not in any way detract from what I was showing which was that the energy wavelengths show a remarkable pattern. It also shows how closely my formulas match the experimental results. Now comment on that instead of my charting skills. The chart clearly shows that the spectra follow a very specific and predictable pattern based only on the N1, N2 energy shell level. It isn't a complex 3 body problem at all. It shows up well on a log plot, just because there is such a wide range of data. That is the only way to make it fit, but the pattern would also show up on a linear plot as well, you'd just need a bigger Y axes and it would be more difficult to see the pattern. You do see the staircase energy pattern which has never been recognized before by modern science, don't you? This staircase pattern does not come from charting on a log scale. These posts do remind me of the unfortunate nature of "unmoderated" forums, which is, when people cannot refute what you see, it degrades into petty insults. I only point this out to show you that those who are "losing" the argument are the ones who are slinging insults (in this case my use of excel charts) - an utterly irrelevant point here. However, I do thank you for actually bothering to look at the chart and providing your comments which I have responded to. That is doing more than most would.
From: franklinhu on 26 Jul 2010 01:52 On Jul 25, 12:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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]- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You still haven't looked at my article, haven't you??? By emprirically, you mean supported by experiment and evidence - yes? Well, I took the empirical evidence as found in the NIST spectral database and matched it against formulas based on the Rydberg formulas and found matches that fit within 1 percent of the observed values for Helium. How could you say this is not well empirically supported? Unless you can point out a problem with my analysis, I'm afraid the weight of the evidence is in my favor. All I have done and all I need to do is to show that I can fit the observed spectral lines with the results generated a scaling of the Rydberg formula. Unless you can find a flaw in the series of formulas I provided, I all I have to do is show that they produce the observed wavelengths - which they do to be emprically supported. There isn't any magic at all. If anyone simply plots the wavelengths for He II based on the transitions found in the NIST database and then does the same for He I, it is obvious to see that the He I ion (which is thought to be a multi-body problem) follows the He II staircase pattern exactly. Remarkably, there isn't any big difference between the 2 at all - as if there was no difference between the hydrogen-like and non hydrogen like ions, other than a simple setup up in wavelength and some minor scaling based on the N2 value. Look at the chart: http://franklinhu.com/spectrahe.jpg The pink line is He II, the yellow just above it is He I - see the pattern? The He I values can be calculated using only Rydberg based formulas based only upon N1, N2 starting/ending energy shell level numbers. This is an empircal fact. If the spectra for He I was truly a multi-body problem, then the shape of the spectra couldn't possibly mirror the He II spectra. But this is what is NOT empirically supported by the data.
From: Androcles on 26 Jul 2010 03:17 "franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b5687566-0863-4f40-8550-5ed2382b77dd(a)u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com... You do see the staircase energy pattern which has never been recognized before by modern science, don't you? ============================================== Bwahahahahahaha! I was going to let it go, but when you come out with such outlandishly stupid statements I have to speak up. Do you have any clue what these people were doing, Hu? Pfund, Paschen, Balmer, Lyman, Brackett. Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series You don't see the staircase energy pattern which has always been recognized by modern science for a century, you idiot? The great aetherialist franklinhu's astounding discovery: The Rydberg constant of helium (R_He) is related to the Rydberg constant for hydrogen (R_H). Amazing! Listen up, cretin! frequency = (1/n_1^2 - 1/n_2^2) * (constant) The constant is called the Rydberg constant. Constants are used to express numbers in the arbitrarily chosen units of meters, seconds and kilograms. A different constant would be needed if the frequency was RPM instead of hertz. There is a different constant for each element. The important part of Rydberg's work is 1/n_1^2 - 1/n_2^2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg%E2%80%93Ritz_combination_principle The spectral lines of hydrogen had been analyzed and found to have a mathematical relationship in the Balmer series. This was later extended to a general formula called the Rydberg formula. This could only be applied to hydrogen-like atoms. In 1908 Ritz derived a relationship that could be applied to all atoms. This principle, the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle, is used today in identifying the transition lines of atoms. Nobody minds you learning, Hu, but don't tell us "never been recognized before by modern science", dumbfuck.
From: Szczepan Bialek on 26 Jul 2010 03:38 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote news:IB03o.22833$FM1.4781(a)hurricane... > > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > news:4c4c7702$0$17103$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | > | > | > | We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, > as > | > | opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe". > | > > | > That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since > there > | > is no aether to breathe there are no gods either. > | > You do not know it? > | > You are insane. > | > | Not only me. A.G. Kelly also: > | > http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf > | S* > > Ok, you and A.G. Kelly are both insane, but A. G. Kelly isn't here to > answer > to his crackpottery so he's irrelevant. Clearly he doesn't > understand Sagnac or Coriolis and neither do you. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm You did a lot to disprove the results of Michelson and Sagnac. But now are the another evidences collected by Kelly. The question is what is the role of the rare plasma produced by the Sun and rotated with it.. Is it a medium for the electric waves? S*
From: Szczepan Bia�ek on 26 Jul 2010 13:35
U�ytkownik "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> napisa� w wiadomo�ci news:4c4dc4a6$0$19183$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > > > Page 34, the paragraf before supplement. Should be page 341 S* >> |