An atomistic theory of matter

"What experimental evidence favours your theory of gravitational charge over the standard theory?"
The UFF hypothesis is invalid! The gravitational acceleration is composition dependent!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're making all these claims, but not providing any evidence.

"Because I say so" isn't evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And guess what? Your silly hypothesis will linger forever on this rather remote science forum, to be eventually lost in cyber space, while the real scientists at the coal face, continue on oblivious to your fairy tales.
Like I said last night, f you had anything of substance, you would not be here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The laws of nature are non-deterministic, however causal."

They are causal because the fields propage with c and the velocity of particle are less than c.

The are non-deterministic because neither the position, not the velocity of particles can be ever observed exactly.

I hope, I have answered all your questions! An I hope you put the Atomistic Theroy of Matter in the forum of Science back again.

 

The paradigm shift to the atomistic theory of matter is a really scientific revolution, not such as at the beginning of the 20th century !!!

 

Sure it is, sure it is *pat, pat*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have written this several times and I have asked about it.
The gravitational constant is 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2
So what is 'g' and what is 'pi', because I do not see how these 2 variables(?) can possibly equal the gravitational constant.

 

Each schoolboy know that pi = 3.141592.... and that the inverse operation to squaring is the root. Have you been in the school? Do you know what is 4 pi?

 

No need to be an asshole.
So that means that g has the units of \(\frac{m^{\frac{3}{2}}}{kg^{\frac{1}{2}} s}\)
So what the heck is g?

 

I have not only learnt mathematics, I have also developed new mathematics; the isopretic variational principle.
I have learnt all the modern physics and I have thrown away all of them.

 

OK. No need for me to continue after that illuminating exchange, that just about says it all. Good luck with your new math and physics.

 

You have not only poor mathematic knowledge, you don't have any physical imagination: The g is the universal specific gravitational charge of all stable elementary particles.

 

Dear Sciforums,

we see that you've gotten rid of two of our earlier crank models (the mk jcc and mk tc12345).
It is with great pleasure we introduce to you the new model, now with extra Dunning-Kruger, free of charge!

We here at Cranks 'R' Us are proud to present the Atomsz!!!!!

Hope you enjoy.

Sincerely
Cranks 'R' Us

 

Summary of some objections:

• Kepler's third law:
  • There is no reason to critique Kepler's laws when the predictions of Newton's Universal Gravitation superseded them.
  • There is no reason to believe Kepler's Third Law holds exactly when Newton's Universal Gravitation only reduces to Kepler's laws in a two-body system with an infinitesimal test mass about a central body.
  • There is no reason to believe that the analysis of Kepler's Third Law by Gyula Szász was performed precisely and with correct analysis of the uncertainties of measured quantities.
• Mercury's orbit:
  • Relative to Newton's Universal Gravitation, Gyula Szász's assumption of finite propagation speed of a \(1/r^2\) force leaves 2/3rds of Mercury's anomalous precession unaccounted for.
• Gravitational Lensing of light:
  • The observed bending of light tangent to the sun and radio waves in the vicinity of the sun is off by 100% if you assume light and Newtonian gravity don't interact, and 50% if you assume light moves like an infinitesimal mass with speed c at infinity, and 50% if you assume light moves like and infinitesimal mass with speed c at perihelion.
• Loss of momentum from binary neutron stars:
  • This corresponds closely with the General Relativistic prediction, and not a pseudo-Maxwellian prediction.
• Shapiro Delay:
  • Why do radio signals slow down in the vicinity of the sun, when the Newtonian model indicates things should be moving faster at the bottom of a gravity well and the Maxwellian prediction is that they don't change speed?
• Geodetic precision
  • Why do satellite tests say gyroscopes brought in a path about the Earth alter the direction they point in exactly as if space-time is not flat as predicted by General Relativity?
• Special Relativity
  • Gyula Szász's views on Special Relativity are inconsistent. He rejects the theory while adopting its predictions of Minkowski space-time and E=mc²
• Conservation of angular momentum
  • As "Atomsz", Gyula Szász rejects that electrons and protons have intrinsic angular momentum, in contradiction to experiment.
• Quantum Field Theory
  • Gyula Szász's claim that positrons and and electrons do not mutually annihilate does not explain why the theory of how and why they annihilate does so well and allows us to create as many positrons as we want.
  • Gyula Szász's rejection of the spin-statistics theorem of quantum field theory does not explain why there are solids as the normal explanation is tied to the electron's status as a fermion.
  • Gyula Szász's rejection of quantum mechanics doesn't explain why the field of Quantum Chemistry is so successful at predicting the chemical behaviors of molecules.
  • Gyula Szász's inconsistently uses Dirac spinors while rejecting 1) the notion that electrons have spin 1/2 and that positrons, 2) electrons are excitations of the same quantum field and 3) that Dirac spinors transform under the rules of special relativity.
• Quantum Electrodynamics
  • There is no explanation of the photoelectric effect
• Weak Interactions
  • There is no explanation of the source of the sun's heat as there is no quantitative model of nuclear fusion (or beta decay, etc)
  • There is no explanation of why the Sun can be imaged by the neutrinos it produces.
• Quantum Chromodynamics
  • Gyula Szász rejects that protons have internal structure without explanation of experiments that show the opposite.
  • There is no explanation of the success of the Eight-Fold way in the 1960's and the quark model since then.
  • There is no explanation of why nuclei are bound
• Einstein Equivalence Principle and Universality of Free Fall
  • Gyula Szász rejects, without argument, bounds on experimental deviations from the Einstein Equivalence Principle that cap it somewhere below a few parts per ten trillion.
  • Gyula Szász, being a physics outsider, persuaded people to run his free-fall experiment one time and ignored their input on the design of the test and never subjected the results to quantitative analysis. As a result, he has not measured differential acceleration in free fall based on the composition of targets, but rather simply has a video of masses drifting with near constant velocities.
• Gyula Szász's electrostatic analogy to gravity:
  • There is no experimental evidence to say anti-hydrogen does not fall in a gravitation field.
  • It is inconsistent to say gravity and electrostatic behaviors are similar when like-repels-like is the phenomenology associated with electrostatic force, never gravity. Maxwell himself noted the implications of this.
  • It is inconsistent to say Universal Gravitation and Coulomb's law of electrostatics give the same prediction when Universal Gravitation has no propagation delay, so the orbits are different.
  • The hypothesis that the tabulated isotope masses are inertial and not gravitational masses makes no sense and is not justified by the literature surrounding the determination of precise values of the isotopic masses.
  • The hypothesis that the gravitational mass of every atom and particle is completely determined by their content of the four stable particle is in conflict with all isotopic mass data.

This is only a partial list.

 

At the beginning of the 20th century experimental observations, at first in microscopical range later on in the astrophysics, forced the physical community to change the foundations of classical physics. Double theories have become apparent. The special theory of relativity (SRT) and the quantum theory (QT) conglomerated to the Standard Model of particle physics (SMPP) and the general theory of relativity (GRT) forms the Standard Model of astrophysics (SMAP). Each of them is breaking with some principle of classical physics but not in a uniform and consequent way. Before those, that the classical physics was completed with the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. The Maxwell equations for the time dependent movement of the electromagnetic field with a constant propagation c brought problems of integration in the classical physics. The electromagnetic field is a non-conservative continuous field and in its equation of motion only the charge and stream probability density appear for the motion of particles. For the description of electromagnetism the Minkowski space was created which connect space and time because of the constant propagation of the field. The SRT tries to handle this problem for the particles with the known results of velocity dependent (inertial) masses, and with the relativity of motion in comparison with c. The absolute role of time and space were given up. The relative movement of bodies to the constant c and to coordinate systems with constant velocities was accomplished with the weak equivalence principle (the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass) and with the equivalence of mass and energy E = mc2. A prerequisite of the SRT is that the position and velocity of bodies as well as the time can be determined exactly, or with other words, the SRT is a deterministic theory. But the Maxwell theory is principally not a deterministic theory. There is a discrepancy between SRT and the theory of electromagnetism, see www.atomsz.com. The criticism against SRT was in earlier time very loud and also nowadays is not ebbed away. However, the academic community takes no notice of them.

The second requisite of the SMPP is the quantum theory (QT). According to the QT, the Planck’s constant h quantizes the particles energies and the fields. The energy conservation is a prerequisite; however, the electromagnetic field is a non-conservative field. Furthermore, the precise knowledge of particle position and velocity (impulse) is given up; their uncertainty is regulated with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle connected with h. Although the QT and the SRT are quite different theoretical and logical constructions, they were bound together to the SMPP.

The GRT’s shortcoming is simply to explain; the underlying principle of the Universality of Free Fall (UFF) was not controlled seriously with fall experiments since Galileo formulated this as a hypothesis. Also the GRT uses the prerequisite that the acceleration of bodies can be determinate exactly. Furthermore, the gravity cannot be distinguished from a coordinate system which moves with constant acceleration. The consequence is the SMAP which is believed by the physical community as a true fact. The gravity is considered as a deformation of the space-time and has another metric as the metric of electromagnetism. This is a serious contradiction in the description of Nature.

At the end, I will give some remarks about the role of publication in scientific journals with the aid to bring discussion in the scientific community. The peer review system prevents publications which are not conforming to “emphasized scientific standards”. It was thought to bring quality control in the publications, but it plays a role as censure. Therefore for instance a monoculture of science is established, the energetic physics. A pluralistic discussion of theories, of the energetic AND atomistic theories, is in the physical literature not allowed. The atomistic theory of matter is considered as non-conform to the “emphasized scientific standards”. Furthermore, it is established that “the theory says what have to be measured”; no matter if the accepted theory is correct, or not. For instance the violations of UFF are not allowed to measure and the deviated results are not allowed to publish.

The development of the Atomistic Theory of Matter on the basics of stable elementary particles in [link removed] is a self-consistent and complete theory with the unification of the electromagnetism and gravity and uses valid mathematical theories for its prognoses. For instance, the Planck’s constant is identified as Lagrange multiplier which appears only in the equation of motion of particles. Despite of them the reviewers reject the publication and the physical community cannot discuss it in connection to the energetic SMPP and SMAP. Also scientific forums contribute unconsciously to the censure, than they also throw way threads in which hot discussions take place about established physics and the new physics and in which gravitational cherges occured.

The pillars of modern physics stand in stalemate and the physical community does not take notice. The Fundmental Principles of Physics at the beginning of this thead is the first time that such generally formulated principles of physics appear. See also the complet disussion and the matematical formultation of the new theory in [link removed]

 

wikki, youtube and google university ?

 

i have a significant question.
why are you here spewing , rather than working in a lab or project site, since this hypothesis is so massively correct ?

 

Quit spamming your site here. It is bad enough that you push your ridiculous pseudoscience here. Reported.

 

My mind! The anti-boggle goggles do nothing!