An atomistic theory of matter

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My judgment about the mainstream (accepted) physics which build up the UFF hypothesis and up the light quantum hypothesis is a pseudo-science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear James R., we are not on a school bench to present detailed results of a new fundamental theory read to use! You have to learn the new theory from the beginning.

 

The stable neutron N0=(P,e) at the binding energy E(No,bound) = 2.04 MeV is an example.

James R., you are an advocate of the pseudo-science called mainstream and are not able and ready to learn the new theory.

 

Says who?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Atomsz said: ↑
Gyula I. Szász: Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach in Physics and Astromomy, Cerberus, Budapest (2005) ISBN: 963 219 792 7
Is this text online?
Yeas, in www.atomsz.com

 

Jame R., you are incredible. You have www.atomsz.com declarated as spam, and you did not look at the website.

Is this the modus of a moderator?

 

Just one week?

 

I don't like to do with such a people!

 

Then leave.

 

He is not asking you about theory. He and I are asking you to provide evidence. That means observations, not theory, that are consistent with the electron in the hydrogen atom going below its 1s ground state energy level.

What observations indicating this do you have? I bet you have none, in which case your claim is false. That would make you a liar, by the way.

So come on, let's have this evidence of yours, or we will be entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions.

 

"He is not asking you about theory. He and I are asking you to provide evidence. That means observations, not theory, that are consistent with the electron in the hydrogen atom going below its 1s ground state energy level."
"For evidence, that means observations, not theory?" But photons don't exist as observation in Nature, only in theory!

 

Don't be ridiculous.
You claimed earlier that you "have evidence that the electron in a hydrogen atom can go to energies very much lower than the 1s orbital".
You have been asked to provide this "evidence".
So far you haven't done so.

 

So I guess that means you do not have any evidence of your claim. You should then retract your claim. You also have spammed your website 2 more times when you have been repeatedly directed not to (reported). Making claims and then refusing to give evidence of those claims is pseudo-science. Simply restating the unsupported claims over and over is stupid.

 

Off the point.

Your evidence for your statement, please. You said you had some evidence. So what is it?

 

It is enough for me, incredible advocates of a wrong theory ask me for observational evidence for somewhat, which exists only in theory .

 

In other words you don't have evidence. Just a belief.

 

So when you said you had evidence, you were being less than honest? Well, I never...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You, Dywyddyr, if you want know „evidence“ than it is not enough specified. Do you mean “physical evidence in microscopic physics”? Give an example for such an evidence!