# An atomistic theory of matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Atomsz, Sep 2, 2015.

1. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,613
Atomsz, here's the thing as it applies to a thread like this. It is fine and appropriate to post your alternative ideas, theories, hypotheses, etc. here, and discuss and defend them in response to questions and arguments from the membership. If you are making a claim that differentiates your views from the mainstream, that becomes a topic of discussion, but if you are claiming that evidence supports your alternative view over the mainstream view, then you have a responsibility to provide the evidence. The membership then passes judgement on the evidence and if they find that it is a violation of scientific observations and data, then they point that out by presenting the science that your evidence violates. The community, and ultimately the moderators then make a judgement as to if you have defended your claim or have failed to defend your claim, and the moderators decision is final.

That might result in a finding that your evidence is inconclusive, where upon you continue to argue your point, or the result may be that your thread is ousted from the Alternative Theories sub-forum; maybe to Pseudoscience or worse, to the Cesspool. If you fail to make your case according to the communitie's appraisal, you might find yourself subject to a warning, and you can be banned for short durations or longer duration, generally depending on how open you are to the communities criticisms.

I think you can stay around and make your case for a long time as long as you are open to the communities statements, and can present reasonable arguments, but once you are perceived as insisting that you idea is right in spite of the opposing science based arguments, the outcry from the community will grow, and moderation action will usually result. Govern yourself accordingly.

3. ### AtomszRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
264
That do you have misunderstand such as all my communications: There were words of James R.

I said: The energetic mainstream physics is a distinctive example of conventionalism: Non physical law is experimentally validated. Striking wrong theories of the 20th Century have to say what you have to measure.

Furthermore, the word “evidence” doesn’t have strict meaning. There are “physical evidences” and phenomenological claims. The existence of elementary gravitational charges has physical evidence. And the elementary gravitational charges are missed in the mainstream.

That’s all!

Last edited: Oct 4, 2015

5. ### DaeconKiwi fruitValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,133
Care to provide ANY evidence for your claims?

"Because I say so" isn't evidence, by the way.

Messages:
264
8. ### rpennerFully WiredRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
You know, that page is part of a 1991-1994 self-published paper by an internet crackpot. On the front page we have “Keywords: physics, grand unification, gravity, electromagnetic, UFO, levitation, anti-gravity.” so it looks like something far from the scientific mainstream. The author currently hangs out at http://electrogravityphysics.com which is still deep in pseudoscience and crank magnetism, the tendency of people who believe one implausible thing to believe many implausible things.

But you never argue why you think it is nonsense.

9. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,226
You said: " Ich have physical evidence that a proton + electron system has energies very much lower than the so called "1s orbital" of the hydrogen atom."

Provide us with this evidence. Or if you do not have it , admit it.

As long as you dodge this issue, your reputation here will continue to sink.

10. ### KristofferGiant HyraxValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,233
Is it actually possible to sink lower?

I'm still hoping he meant it when he said he'd leave, so why don't those who hope he will, join me in a heartfelt "Bye".

11. ### rpennerFully WiredRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
I have analyzed the video and the very description of the motion as reported in Chapter 6 of Szász's book. Consistent with my eyeball examination, there is some evidence that the data is not homogeneous as if the Lithium sample had contact with the wall of the tube. Also, if you ignore the first and last points where the methodology of amateurs is susceptible to wishful thinking and the point of inflection, two linear fits do just about as well as two quadratic fits, meaning there is no quantifiable anomalous acceleration not connected with physical contact. To the overall quadratic fit it is the opposite of the direction needed to fit Szász's hypothesis that the anomalous acceleration of the Lithium is 0.23% less than the acceleration due to gravity near 980 cm/s/s or about 2.25 cm/s/s.

Overall fit: –0.48 cm/s/s Two accelerations fits: +0.47 cm/s/s AND –0.45 cm/s/s – both the comparison with linear fits and robustness checks against subsamples suggest that the error on estimation of acceleration might be as large as 0.88 cm/s/s so these accelerations are consistent with the null hypothesis and we need to reject Szász's hypothesis. Needless to say, that's not the conclusions Szász came to.

Code:
t    two slopes two accels    single accel  Pred        Obs
0.00 -0.319947  -0.0427899    -0.678527      0          0.0
0.35  0.452937   0.55578066    0.307965413   0.1380575  0.55
0.63  1.0712442  1.075663514   1.054556097   0.4473063  1.1
0.95  1.777881   1.71446994    1.861431713   1.0171175  1.7
1.23  2.3961882  2.31249833    2.526873357   1.7050383  2.3
1.55  3.102825   3.04061394    3.241007213   2.7076175  3.0
1.83  3.7211322  3.716787866   3.825299817   3.7742103  3.8
2.15  4.427769   4.53421266    4.446691913   5.2095575  4.5
2.43  5.2554867  5.201240048   4.949835477   6.6548223  5.2
2.75  5.6083475  5.619004688   5.478485813   8.5229375  5.6
3.03  5.9171007  5.961914948   5.900480337  10.3468743  6.0
3.63  6.5787147  6.625587848   6.677234397  14.8503663  6.6
4.23  7.2403287  7.192258748   7.280097657  20.1652983  7.2
4.63  7.6814047  7.516149348   7.585400497  24.1593863  7.5


12. ### AtomszRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
264
I summarize and explain what the Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOMSz) is:

The theory formulated new Fundamental Physical Principles with help on “physical evidences”. The theory decides between physical evidences and emphasized phenomenological claims which are experimentally not confirmed.

The ATOMSz based on four stable particles, the carrier of two elementary charges, and is a proposal for a Theory of All (TOA). The theory assumes that all particles (e, p, P and E) of the Universe with all their physical properties and the interaction between them (the electromagnetic and the gravitation field) are known.

Furthermore, the theory based on new mathematical approach, described in Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach of Physics and Astronomy and in [link removed]. The new mathematical approach uses the isopretic variation principle in a finite range of the Minkowski space in order to derive the equation of motion of the fields and of the particles.

The stationary solutions for the particles of the isopretic variation principle describe as well the atomic shells as the structure of nuclei and all the known stable or instable particles.

For all particles the gravitational and inertial mass can be calculated and these two kinds of masses are generally different (the UFF does not hold).

The ATOMSz can explain why the emphasized mainstream based on wrong theories and what is wrong on the basic theories. The outcry from the physical community is although understandable but groundless.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2015
13. ### DaeconKiwi fruitValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,133
Which part of that was the evidence?

14. ### AtomszRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
264
The continuations of drop experiments at the drop tower in Bremen are prohibited by the gravitational physicists of the University Bremen and by the operating company of the drop tower ZARN-FAB. Also a court in Mainz do not allowed the continuation of the drop experiment with improved design. Therefore, the results for a drop experiment described in the book and in [spam removed] are the only realized results.

I have shown with the drop experiment on 21.06.2004 that the violation of the UFF can be verified with a mesasurement uncertainity of 10^-5 because the gravitational and inertial mass differences are in order of 10^-3.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2015
15. ### AtomszRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
264
Finally, in physics the results of actual experiments decide and not the presumed “validity” of the 400 years old physical hypothesis about the Universality of Free Fall.

Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
16. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,352
Try to be an adult and take responsibility. Present whatever evidence you have for your claim or withdraw your claim. Stop acting like child that got caught fibbing!

17. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,226
This reminds me very much of a similarly fruitless I exchange I have been having elsewhere with an ID creationist. I've been asking what physical observations ID predicts and in response got nothing but more and more theoretical arguments. It seems to be a common fault with pseudoscience of all sorts. People fall in love with their own ideas and forget the need to produce physical evidence in support.

18. ### AtomszRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
264
Once more again: the proton + electron system build a stable neutron N0 with bound energy at 2.04 MeV and it is 0.702 x 10^-13 cm large.

The difference between the stable neutron N0 and the (e,p)-neutrino is that the proton is exchanged by a positron. The binding energies are different but the size is almost the same 0.702 x10^-13 cm to 0.703 x 10^-13 cm. The 10^-13 cm is the size of nulcei.

Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
19. ### DaeconKiwi fruitValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,133
How do you think this claim could be falsified?

Messages:
264
????

21. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,352
So your physical evidence that there is an energy state of a hydrogen atom below the 1s orbital is electron capture? Sort of an apples and oranges sort of answer, don't you think? Under what conditions do you think a hydrogen atom can under go electron capture?

At least you answered the question, even though the answer is bogus (calling electron capture a lower energy state of a hydrogen atom

).

Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
22. ### AtomszRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
264
It is enough! I don't discuss more with people who did not learnt the ATOMSz.

23. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,352
Well, based on that criteria it should end any discussion with you, which should decrease the amount of pseudo-science on the site. Sounds good to me.