 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Physicsup.com-- Today first chapter of the theory,... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| physicsup.com... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Physicsup.com-- Today first chapter of the
theory,
tomorrow second chapter, Optical phenomena.
Need grammar particularity
Chapter I
introduction
Assumptions and theoretical
First: The atomic model is currently being used is not valid,
and there is another model reflects the reality of the atom.
And can explain all optical phenomena, on the basis of the new
model, as well as the new model can ,
Unite the forces of nature on the basis, that it is properties of
the material.
Second: repair corrupted theories. and nonsense that have
been made to the knowledge of physics.
Say at the outset that there are two types of atoms: - a strong
nucleus atoms, and weak nucleus atoms.
Atoms are neutral in the normal position, a condition in
addition to the atom, equalizer particles.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Hypotheses
I will start assumptions, and I say that there is no limits for
the matter of the universe. That the universe is unlimited in his
littleness of its parts or bigness of its parts. If we find in our
measurement limits, then this universe, is part of the real universe.
The real universe is far greater than we measure.
As for the lower limits of particles. There is no limit to the
small mass of material. It is wrong to regard the particles of light,
particles with zero mass. There are mass of material has a mass less
than the mass of particle of light. If we increased the accuracy of
our measurements, we can found smaller blocks of the mass than
particle of light.
The matter or material: did not exterminate does not create but
develop.
No beginning no end of the matter. Allowed to exist in parts of
the universe develops or beginnings and endings.
Exist in the universe only to the material. And that energy is
moving of matter or material, nothing else.
These assumptions and laws that we will adopt it, I do not want
to prove now. Some are proved and the other I will demonstrate later,
so as not to prolong the issue now.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Character of particles
The particles of light and elementary particles are polarized
particles, charged, and, have mass. Based on the experiments of
Stolitov and Libidev. These particles do exist within the atom.
The new model explains the structure of the atom, and its
importance for physics. I say that the new atomic model, is able to
solve all the problems of physics easer than the others. Either keep
hold of old physics. But is an injustice to mankind, or to accept the
truth.
There is an equation of energy easy, simple and best of Einstein
equation one million times.
I will put the new form of atom soon.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Add 23 -10-09
Before putting the new atomic model, we should understand
the structure of elementary particles. and identify the charge.
All the elementary particles, including particles of light,
consisting of groups of Mona, strong and weak, and Mona groups has a
combination similar to the structure of atoms but smallest, if you
wish, but this only temporarily. If the amount of Mona strong groups
dominate on weak Mona groups, in this particle, we said that this
particle is positive, and if the amount of weak Mona groups more
effective. We say that this a negative particle. Add that all this
talk has no scientific meaning, but will reveal later, and this fact
will prove itself automatically. But I want to say, that every
particle is composed of groups groups groups, and not of a homogeneous
body as we thought before. Groups of Mona, weak and strong. In
different rates, which sets a charge particle.
This talk is currently weak and temporary, It is of great
importance in the interpretation of all the phenomena of nature,
easy, and this will be seen later. Everything in nature without
exaggeration.
Dr: Sadi Said
Muna
Equalizer particles
In general atom consists of a positively charged nucleus and
electrons are negatively charged. And another guest I'll call:
Equalizer particles. Particles of positive charge and negative
charge. It differs from the photons, it is significantly different
in every thing.
The first Low: says that the atomic charge of any atom, is less
than half of electron charge, if not in addition of equalizer
particles. When we add Equalizer particles, atom become almost
neutral.
Now there an atoms have a nuclei charge strongest, of the total
charge of electrons, this nuclei we title strong. Or strong nuclei
atoms , or strong atoms.
There are an atoms have nuclei charge weak relative to the total
charge of electrons, this nuclei we title weak, or weak nuclei atoms,
or weak atoms.
An example of the weak atoms is iron, and the strong atom oxygen or
hydrogen.
Now to balance the charge of the atoms. It must be added to the
atom equalizer particles, positive or negative, according to the type
of element.
This applies to most elements of the periodic table. But not
all. And here comes to mind, that more elements of earth, are the
elements of weak nuclei. Add that in our planet positive equalizer
particles are rare The negative is in abundance.
If so, we can: interpretation the status of the material, Causal
explanation.
We know that the strong nuclei atoms need to negative equalizer
particles
to because neutral strong nuclei atoms, they get them easily, they
becomes a neutral atom or above neutral atoms, become liquid then
gas. The neutral is liquid.
But if the element of weak atoms nuclei, it can not get or obtain
everything
of what it wants. and it remains in solid state.
And solid-state different degrees, If the difference between the
nuclei charge and the charges of electrons significantly big, The atom
needs a big amount of positive particles in order to become a liquid
or gas. This explain the heat needed to melt metals. and the variation
in what is required for each element of them.
If that Temperature, is particles are added to the atom, not motion
of molecular as we thought before.
But in appearance like motion of molecules, but not the truth of
causation of what happened.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Reciprocity or far gravity
We consider that the earth have neutral charge and this is
true for the inhabitants of the earth. For an observer from outside
the Earth
That is not true or incorrect, because most of the elements of
the planet or the proportion of the most, are weak nucleus elements,
this in comparative to the elements of the sun
That mean the earth have negative charge, and the sun
positively charged. for that the our planet needed to get positive
particles from the sun.
And the sun need to get negative particles to her stability from
our planet.
For those who say gravity is much weaker than the charge. We
would tell them that the ratio of charge is equal to the amount or
quantity of cargo divided on the mass. Second low.
For example, the greater the mass, decreased ratio of charge .
and remember: that the charge of atom less than half electron charge.
And because, to the atoms were added equalizer particles, which reduce
the charge.
Further, the elements of earth is made of two types of elements,
weak and strong together, for that the difference in the charge will
be much much much less.
It is important to know that the rate of charge is much less when
the mass is greater .
It is important to know, that what happens between the electron
and the nucleus is the same as what occurs between the earth and the
sun, The reciprocity.
Depending on the law of the proportion of the ratio of charge .
Here we have a little stretch to the new atomic model, and we got
an understanding of Far gravity, one of the qualities of the matter.
Every day I will explain a new quick understanding of forces,
From the forces of nature, and a deeper explanation of the
universe. What concerns me is what I present to humanity and not to
get an award.
We must rename the gravity, and called it reciprocity because
reciprocity more general and comprehensive and interactive, it not
limited to what is happening between the stars and its planets, but on
what happens between the nucleus and accessories as well.
Dr: Sadi Said Muna
Add physicsup.com 26-10 - 09
This theory requires the material support of those who love truth
to win, and scientific institutions, in order to be able to use an
efficiency interpreter. Perhaps the majority did not grasp what I
write. However, some nationalities, who mastered the Arabic language
are the first to have been convinced, and take care of this theory,
they try to formulate a language, and translate well. And claiming
that they are the their own. And other hackers.
Here is a summary overview of the new atomic form to:
Black holes and the invisible universe
First: We as human beings see the positive light and positive
equalizer particles, but negative equalizer particles we do not see
them, that mean we see positive light particles only.
Any group of strong nuclei as the sun, or the nucleus of
oxygen, it sends to the outside of the group positive particles,
different from the radioactive elements. And depends on several
factors will put it in a timely manner. And any weak nucleus group,
absorbs the positive particles. These weak groups, considered as the
unseen world. The stars absorbent to light. I consider it to be stars,
not black holes, they are like nuclei of absorbent particles and
positive particles are similar to anti-particles. That is, negative
nuclei, and positive orbital charge.
That the difference between the invisible universe and black
holes is that the group be weak nucleus, and not a negative nucleus,
and absorbs the positive particles.
In the black holes, the star itself absorbed positive objects
and positive particles.
Here we have another understanding of the antibody. Also,
there are anti-atoms and anti stars .Too.
Black spots solar
It is the volcanoes only occur on the surface of the sun, and
issued a negative particle rather than positive particles resulting
from a volcano on the Earth's surface. These particles absorbs from
the solar surface. No ray is issued from them.
For those who believe in the sun occur nuclear reactions, in
order to give us this energy, or particles, is in preparation or fully
wrong. That the sun gives positive particles in the process of
reciprocity, and take from the planets negative particles, it is
purely an interactive process.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Note
What I want people to say about me: that I am the first how
but the correct foundations for physics science.
That the model of atomic evolve gradually. When we complete the
theory, we have come to the model, the closest thing to the truth. but
It is not the whole truth.
What type currently is a summary. And will go further in the
future in each case separately.
Weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear forces
In the weak nuclear force the nucleus are of a size and
mass larger than usual, and almost neutral. The nucleus is trying to
get rid of this excess of the mass size and non-compatible with its
tropics group.
In the strong nuclear forces, the nucleus are almost neutral,
and neutral have close similarities qualities, to qualities of liquid.
If the nucleus stoned appropriate external particle unable to access
the nucleus. It is easy to split and disintegrate part of it. These
particles released from detritus off the atom, which have different
sizes so it has the equation, different from Einstein's equation, in
all aspects.
Equation is: energy is equal to the total mass released multiplied
by the average speed square.
And not the speed of light. True if the nucleus release visible
light only. And nothing else.
Most of our concepts of physics, were based on fallacious
grounds. Came in.: wave characteristics of the particles, and mass
zero, and idle talk about the fourth dimension, etc..
Planets attraction of its accessories and expulsion
At the outset, I say that this force varies dramatically with
far gravity, or gravity between the stars and planets. And we call it
attraction. It is not our goal to increase the number of forces, but
understanding the truth is correct, on the basis that everything that
happens in nature depends on the characteristics of the material. And
to access to the truth.
We know a lot of planets and stars and it attracts of the
objects, and this attraction is not commensurate with its mass, and
bodies mass. There are many examples of this. In some of the giant
planets, we find that the attraction does not differ or only slightly
differ from the Earth's attraction.
How can we assure their laws. And find that attractive in a big
planet, is less than the Earth's attraction. Indeed, what happens is
that some planet's are trying to increase there planet's mass, making
them more stable in space. And there on the contrary, planets want to
get rid of its mass. Some stars also get rid of the excess mass.
Nuclei get rid of excess mass. There are several factors, reliable
pull or expulsion, including mass objects, the proportion of there
charges, the amount of there charges , distance of the body from the
surface. That is, one of the properties of the material and there are
other properties contrary to it.
Electricity and Magnetism
We have said previously that any object or particle can be
polarized. And the group as well. Body contains Mona strong particles
part, more than the other part, it becomes polarized. And the Earth as
well.
Now talking about magnets and say that: an iron has polarized
atoms in the metal which is found randomly, and if we order them, some
particles go out of the tropical group, because its existence,
upsetting the balance of the group. And most of these particles
revolve in the same direction. It is important to know that these
field are particles, and these particles have the ability to move
other particles, inside elements that its particles can be moved, such
as copper, for example. The action of moving a few particles of the
material into a wire for example, is what we call electricity. The
issuance of these particles from the point of resistance, is what we
call the beam, if we were invisible particles that this visible light,
and this depends on the nature of the resistance and the quality of
particle and particle mass and the amount of current to the end.
Note: - The one space object, can increase magnetic globe, or
reverse its magnetic pole, this depends on his cargo of space object
and where it landed.
The New atomic form
That the atom consists of nucleus and electrons and other particles of
different size and moonlet, There is no a difference between atom and
the sun group or any other group constellations.
Now that the quantity of groups Mona positive and negative, that
construction the particle. Or the amount of a strong nucleus of atoms,
and weak nucleus which is the body. The mass of the body or the
particle to the Group, are what determines what is the body or
particle, and what the direction of the group and disposal of objects
and other groups.
All of these particles and objects and groups polarized charged
and have mass, which is part and parcel of the atom. It remains to say
that there is an atoms have nuclei charge, stronger than the orbital
particles. Or atoms have nuclei charge weaker than the orbital
particles. Furthermore, there are positive nuclei, also negative
nuclei, and their tropical bodies are positive. Exist between these
objects and particle mass close to a neutral state and with a big
block and another with a smaller of the normal and far from the
neural.
And in this sense we can explain what is happening in the universe
and the nature. Here, I want to abolish the concept of power of the
nature, and replaced it by the concept of properties of the material.
As we have already seen, how they have Standardization of the forces
of nature or by force and arbitrary, on the similarities and not by
the attributes.
All that was explained earlier is a summary, for testing the new
model, no more, and I will soon go deeper in each subject suggested
above.
Although most of the explanations, and frames of the theory, become
clear.
Chapter II
Optical phenomena |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
....
[quote]It is wrong to regard the particles of light,
particles with zero mass.
[/quote]
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us photons have zero mass.
We looked. Your fantasy is a waste of time.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"physicsup.com" <physicsup at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebd238dc-9e78-407e-aef0-8249e0322f79 at (no spam) b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
Physicsup.com-- Today first chapter of the
theory,
tomorrow second chapter, Optical phenomena.
Need grammar particularity
[/quote]
Get someone else to translate what you write into English. This translation
is difficult to read due to grammatical and syntax errors. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"physicsup.com" <physicsup at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebd238dc-9e78-407e-aef0-8249e0322f79 at (no spam) b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Add that all this
talk has no scientific meaning
[/quote]
I think that sums it up nicely |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
[quote]Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07 pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles with zero mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us photons have zero mass. We
looked. Your fantasy is a waste of time.
David A. Smith
[/quote]
He is plain wrong saying above, because we have *working* models with
non-zero mass photons.
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said. Nature did not show that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass. I.e. we do not really
know if photons have or have not mass, we merely know that *if* they have
mass it may be less than 10^-51 grams
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
In fact, there is some theoretical reasons suggesting that the photon has
a very tiny non-zero mass. We just do not know enough still.
Of course, even if the photon has some tiny mass, it would be observable only
in some exotic situations. The current models with nonzero mass will continue
to work so fine like they do today.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
physicsup.com wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:09:46 -0800:
[quote]Physicsup.com-- Today first chapter of the theory,
[/quote]
There is none scientific theory and most of what is said is nonsense :-D
[quote]tomorrow second chapter, Optical phenomena.
Need grammar particularity
Chapter I
introduction
Assumptions and theoretical
First: The atomic model is currently being used is not valid,
and there is another model reflects the reality of the atom.
And can explain all optical phenomena, on the basis of the new
model, as well as the new model can ,
Unite the forces of nature on the basis, that it is properties of
the material.
Second: repair corrupted theories. and nonsense that have
been made to the knowledge of physics.
Say at the outset that there are two types of atoms: - a strong
nucleus atoms, and weak nucleus atoms.
Atoms are neutral in the normal position, a condition in
addition to the atom, equalizer particles.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Hypotheses
I will start assumptions, and I say that there is no limits for
the matter of the universe. That the universe is unlimited in his
littleness of its parts or bigness of its parts. If we find in our
measurement limits, then this universe, is part of the real universe.
The real universe is far greater than we measure.
As for the lower limits of particles. There is no limit to the
small mass of material. It is wrong to regard the particles of light,
particles with zero mass. There are mass of material has a mass less
than the mass of particle of light. If we increased the accuracy of our
measurements, we can found smaller blocks of the mass than particle of
light.
The matter or material: did not exterminate does not create but
develop.
No beginning no end of the matter. Allowed to exist in parts of
the universe develops or beginnings and endings.
Exist in the universe only to the material. And that energy is
moving of matter or material, nothing else.
These assumptions and laws that we will adopt it, I do not want
to prove now. Some are proved and the other I will demonstrate later, so
as not to prolong the issue now.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Character of particles
The particles of light and elementary particles are polarized
particles, charged, and, have mass. Based on the experiments of
Stolitov and Libidev. These particles do exist within the atom.
The new model explains the structure of the atom, and its
importance for physics. I say that the new atomic model, is able to
solve all the problems of physics easer than the others. Either keep
hold of old physics. But is an injustice to mankind, or to accept the
truth.
There is an equation of energy easy, simple and best of Einstein
equation one million times.
I will put the new form of atom soon.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Add 23 -10-09
Before putting the new atomic model, we should understand
the structure of elementary particles. and identify the charge.
All the elementary particles, including particles of light,
consisting of groups of Mona, strong and weak, and Mona groups has a
combination similar to the structure of atoms but smallest, if you wish,
but this only temporarily. If the amount of Mona strong groups dominate
on weak Mona groups, in this particle, we said that this particle is
positive, and if the amount of weak Mona groups more effective. We say
that this a negative particle. Add that all this talk has no scientific
meaning, but will reveal later, and this fact will prove itself
automatically. But I want to say, that every particle is composed of
groups groups groups, and not of a homogeneous body as we thought
before. Groups of Mona, weak and strong. In different rates, which sets
a charge particle.
This talk is currently weak and temporary, It is of great
importance in the interpretation of all the phenomena of nature, easy,
and this will be seen later. Everything in nature without exaggeration.
Dr: Sadi Said
Muna
Equalizer particles
In general atom consists of a positively charged nucleus and
electrons are negatively charged. And another guest I'll call: Equalizer
particles. Particles of positive charge and negative charge. It
differs from the photons, it is significantly different in every
thing.
The first Low: says that the atomic charge of any atom, is less
than half of electron charge, if not in addition of equalizer particles.
When we add Equalizer particles, atom become almost neutral.
Now there an atoms have a nuclei charge strongest, of the total
charge of electrons, this nuclei we title strong. Or strong nuclei atoms
, or strong atoms.
There are an atoms have nuclei charge weak relative to the total
charge of electrons, this nuclei we title weak, or weak nuclei atoms, or
weak atoms.
An example of the weak atoms is iron, and the strong atom oxygen or
hydrogen.
Now to balance the charge of the atoms. It must be added to the
atom equalizer particles, positive or negative, according to the type of
element.
This applies to most elements of the periodic table. But not
all. And here comes to mind, that more elements of earth, are the
elements of weak nuclei. Add that in our planet positive equalizer
particles are rare The negative is in abundance.
If so, we can: interpretation the status of the material, Causal
explanation.
We know that the strong nuclei atoms need to negative equalizer
particles
to because neutral strong nuclei atoms, they get them easily, they
becomes a neutral atom or above neutral atoms, become liquid then gas.
The neutral is liquid.
But if the element of weak atoms nuclei, it can not get or obtain
everything
of what it wants. and it remains in solid state.
And solid-state different degrees, If the difference between the nuclei
charge and the charges of electrons significantly big, The atom needs a
big amount of positive particles in order to become a liquid or gas.
This explain the heat needed to melt metals. and the variation in what
is required for each element of them.
If that Temperature, is particles are added to the atom, not motion
of molecular as we thought before.
But in appearance like motion of molecules, but not the truth of
causation of what happened.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Reciprocity or far gravity
We consider that the earth have neutral charge and this is
true for the inhabitants of the earth. For an observer from outside the
Earth
That is not true or incorrect, because most of the elements of
the planet or the proportion of the most, are weak nucleus elements,
this in comparative to the elements of the sun
That mean the earth have negative charge, and the sun
positively charged. for that the our planet needed to get positive
particles from the sun.
And the sun need to get negative particles to her stability from
our planet.
For those who say gravity is much weaker than the charge. We
would tell them that the ratio of charge is equal to the amount or
quantity of cargo divided on the mass. Second low.
For example, the greater the mass, decreased ratio of charge .
and remember: that the charge of atom less than half electron charge.
And because, to the atoms were added equalizer particles, which reduce
the charge.
Further, the elements of earth is made of two types of elements,
weak and strong together, for that the difference in the charge will be
much much much less.
It is important to know that the rate of charge is much less when
the mass is greater .
It is important to know, that what happens between the electron
and the nucleus is the same as what occurs between the earth and the
sun, The reciprocity.
Depending on the law of the proportion of the ratio of charge .
Here we have a little stretch to the new atomic model, and we got
an understanding of Far gravity, one of the qualities of the matter.
Every day I will explain a new quick understanding of forces, From
the forces of nature, and a deeper explanation of the
universe. What concerns me is what I present to humanity and not to get
an award.
We must rename the gravity, and called it reciprocity because
reciprocity more general and comprehensive and interactive, it not
limited to what is happening between the stars and its planets, but on
what happens between the nucleus and accessories as well.
Dr: Sadi Said Muna
Add physicsup.com 26-10 - 09
This theory requires the material support of those who love truth
to win, and scientific institutions, in order to be able to use an
efficiency interpreter. Perhaps the majority did not grasp what I write.
However, some nationalities, who mastered the Arabic language are the
first to have been convinced, and take care of this theory, they try to
formulate a language, and translate well. And claiming that they are the
their own. And other hackers.
Here is a summary overview of the new atomic form to:
Black holes and the invisible universe
First: We as human beings see the positive light and positive
equalizer particles, but negative equalizer particles we do not see
them, that mean we see positive light particles only.
Any group of strong nuclei as the sun, or the nucleus of
oxygen, it sends to the outside of the group positive particles,
different from the radioactive elements. And depends on several factors
will put it in a timely manner. And any weak nucleus group, absorbs the
positive particles. These weak groups, considered as the unseen world.
The stars absorbent to light. I consider it to be stars, not black
holes, they are like nuclei of absorbent particles and positive
particles are similar to anti-particles. That is, negative nuclei, and
positive orbital charge.
That the difference between the invisible universe and black
holes is that the group be weak nucleus, and not a negative nucleus, and
absorbs the positive particles.
In the black holes, the star itself absorbed positive objects
and positive particles.
Here we have another understanding of the antibody. Also,
there are anti-atoms and anti stars .Too.
Black spots solar
It is the volcanoes only occur on the surface of the sun, and
issued a negative particle rather than positive particles resulting from
a volcano on the Earth's surface. These particles absorbs from the solar
surface. No ray is issued from them.
For those who believe in the sun occur nuclear reactions, in
order to give us this energy, or particles, is in preparation or fully
wrong. That the sun gives positive particles in the process of
reciprocity, and take from the planets negative particles, it is purely
an interactive process.
Dr: Sadi
Said Muna
Note
What I want people to say about me: that I am the first how
but the correct foundations for physics science.
That the model of atomic evolve gradually. When we complete the
theory, we have come to the model, the closest thing to the truth. but
It is not the whole truth.
What type currently is a summary. And will go further in the
future in each case separately.
Weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear forces
In the weak nuclear force the nucleus are of a size and
mass larger than usual, and almost neutral. The nucleus is trying to get
rid of this excess of the mass size and non-compatible with its tropics
group.
In the strong nuclear forces, the nucleus are almost neutral,
and neutral have close similarities qualities, to qualities of liquid.
If the nucleus stoned appropriate external particle unable to access the
nucleus. It is easy to split and disintegrate part of it. These
particles released from detritus off the atom, which have different
sizes so it has the equation, different from Einstein's equation, in all
aspects.
Equation is: energy is equal to the total mass released multiplied
by the average speed square.
And not the speed of light. True if the nucleus release visible
light only. And nothing else.
Most of our concepts of physics, were based on fallacious
grounds. Came in.: wave characteristics of the particles, and mass zero,
and idle talk about the fourth dimension, etc..
Planets attraction of its accessories and expulsion
At the outset, I say that this force varies dramatically with
far gravity, or gravity between the stars and planets. And we call it
attraction. It is not our goal to increase the number of forces, but
understanding the truth is correct, on the basis that everything that
happens in nature depends on the characteristics of the material. And to
access to the truth.
We know a lot of planets and stars and it attracts of the
objects, and this attraction is not commensurate with its mass, and
bodies mass. There are many examples of this. In some of the giant
planets, we find that the attraction does not differ or only slightly
differ from the Earth's attraction.
How can we assure their laws. And find that attractive in a big
planet, is less than the Earth's attraction. Indeed, what happens is
that some planet's are trying to increase there planet's mass, making
them more stable in space. And there on the contrary, planets want to
get rid of its mass. Some stars also get rid of the excess mass. Nuclei
get rid of excess mass. There are several factors, reliable pull or
expulsion, including mass objects, the proportion of there charges, the
amount of there charges , distance of the body from the surface. That
is, one of the properties of the material and there are other properties
contrary to it.
Electricity and Magnetism
We have said previously that any object or particle can be
polarized. And the group as well. Body contains Mona strong particles
part, more than the other part, it becomes polarized. And the Earth as
well.
Now talking about magnets and say that: an iron has polarized
atoms in the metal which is found randomly, and if we order them, some
particles go out of the tropical group, because its existence, upsetting
the balance of the group. And most of these particles revolve in the
same direction. It is important to know that these field are particles,
and these particles have the ability to move other particles, inside
elements that its particles can be moved, such as copper, for example.
The action of moving a few particles of the material into a wire for
example, is what we call electricity. The issuance of these particles
from the point of resistance, is what we call the beam, if we were
invisible particles that this visible light, and this depends on the
nature of the resistance and the quality of particle and particle mass
and the amount of current to the end.
Note: - The one space object, can increase magnetic globe, or
reverse its magnetic pole, this depends on his cargo of space object and
where it landed.
The New atomic form
That the atom consists of nucleus and electrons and other particles of
different size and moonlet, There is no a difference between atom and
the sun group or any other group constellations.
Now that the quantity of groups Mona positive and negative, that
construction the particle. Or the amount of a strong nucleus of atoms,
and weak nucleus which is the body. The mass of the body or the particle
to the Group, are what determines what is the body or particle, and what
the direction of the group and disposal of objects and other groups.
All of these particles and objects and groups polarized charged
and have mass, which is part and parcel of the atom. It remains to say
that there is an atoms have nuclei charge, stronger than the orbital
particles. Or atoms have nuclei charge weaker than the orbital
particles. Furthermore, there are positive nuclei, also negative nuclei,
and their tropical bodies are positive. Exist between these objects and
particle mass close to a neutral state and with a big block and another
with a smaller of the normal and far from the neural.
And in this sense we can explain what is happening in the universe
and the nature. Here, I want to abolish the concept of power of the
nature, and replaced it by the concept of properties of the material. As
we have already seen, how they have Standardization of the forces of
nature or by force and arbitrary, on the similarities and not by the
attributes.
All that was explained earlier is a summary, for testing the new
model, no more, and I will soon go deeper in each subject suggested
above.
Although most of the explanations, and frames of the theory, become
clear.
Chapter II
Optical phenomena
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:53:09 +0000:
[quote]dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07 pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles with zero
mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us photons have zero mass. We
looked. Your fantasy is a waste of time.
David A. Smith
He is plain wrong saying above, because we have *working* models with
non-zero mass photons.
[/quote]
TYPO: He is plain wrong saying above, because we have *working* models
with *zero* mass photons.
[quote]Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said. Nature did not show
that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass. I.e. we do not
really know if photons have or have not mass, we merely know that *if*
they have mass it may be less than 10^-51 grams
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
In fact, there is some theoretical reasons suggesting that the photon
has a very tiny non-zero mass. We just do not know enough still.
Of course, even if the photon has some tiny mass, it would be observable
only in some exotic situations. The current models with nonzero mass
will continue to work so fine like they do today.
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez:
On Nov 5, 2:53am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles
with zero mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us
photons have zero mass. We looked.
....
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said.
Nature did not show that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass.
[/quote]
No, the number you show below is the *upper* limit on photon mass.
The measurement result is inclusive of ZERO. It is also 18 orders of
magnitude less than the photon's energy.
[quote]I.e. we do not really know if photons have or have
not mass,
[/quote]
We know it would violate conservation of charge if they did.
[quote]we merely know that *if* they have mass it may
be less than 10^-51 grams
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
In fact, there is some theoretical reasons
suggesting that the photon has a very tiny non-zero
mass. We just do not know enough still.
[/quote]
And let me congratulate you on more fully stating also that Science
did not regard light as having no mass, we looked. We even make
models with non-zero mass, and challenge those models. Unfortuately
our words may be lost on this post-only spammer, I am afraid.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:11:57 -0800:
[quote]Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
On Nov 5, 2:53 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07 pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles with zero
mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us
photons have zero mass. We looked.
...
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said. Nature did not show
that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass.
No, the number you show below is the *upper* limit on photon mass.
[/quote]
Right.
[quote]The
measurement result is inclusive of ZERO.
[/quote]
Measurement does not support your claim that "Nature shows us "photons have
zero mass. We looked."
Read the link.
[quote]It is also 18 orders of
magnitude less than the photon's energy.
[/quote]
Have all the same? :-D
[quote]I.e. we do not really know if photons have or have not mass,
We know it would violate conservation of charge if they did.
[/quote]
There is absolutely no violation.
[quote]we merely know that *if* they have mass it may be less than 10^-51
grams
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
In fact, there is some theoretical reasons suggesting that the photon
has a very tiny non-zero mass. We just do not know enough still.
And let me congratulate you on more fully stating also that Science did
not regard light as having no mass, we looked. We even make models with
non-zero mass, and challenge those models. Unfortuately our words may
be lost on this post-only spammer, I am afraid.
David A. Smith
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez:
On Nov 5, 12:39pm, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]dlzc wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:11:57 -0800:
On Nov 5, 2:53am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ....
It is wrong to regard the particles of light,
particles with zero mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us
photons have zero mass. We looked.
...
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you
said. Nature did not show that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass.
No, the number you show below is the *upper* limit
on photon mass.
Right.
The
measurement result is inclusive of ZERO.
Measurement does not support your claim that
"Nature shows us "photons have zero mass. We
looked."
[/quote]
Measurement provides an upper limit. It does not provide a lower
limit.
[quote]Read the link.
[/quote]
You too please, regarding your next question.
[quote]It is also 18 orders of
magnitude less than the photon's energy.
Have all the same? 
[/quote]
Only a "few" wavelengths tested.
[quote]I.e. we do not really know if photons have
or have not mass,
We know it would violate conservation of
charge if they did.
There is absolutely no violation.
[/quote]
Yes, there is. Easily as informative as your repsonse. X-P
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:23:16 -0800:
[quote]Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
On Nov 5, 12:39 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
dlzc wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:11:57 -0800:
On Nov 5, 2:53 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07 pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles with zero
mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us
photons have zero mass. We looked.
...
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said. Nature did not
show that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass.
No, the number you show below is the *upper* limit on photon mass.
Right.
The
measurement result is inclusive of ZERO.
Measurement does not support your claim that "Nature shows us "photons
have zero mass. We looked."
Measurement provides an upper limit. It does not provide a lower limit.
[/quote]
And as remarked above this is *Right*.
[quote]Read the link.
[/quote]
Providing an upper limit is not the same that showing that mass is zero.
*Read* the link.
[quote]You too please, regarding your next question.
It is also 18 orders of
magnitude less than the photon's energy.
Have all the same? :-D
Only a "few" wavelengths tested.
[/quote]
Then have or have not the same? :-D
[quote]I.e. we do not really know if photons have or have not mass,
We know it would violate conservation of charge if they did.
There is absolutely no violation.
Yes, there is. Easily as informative as your repsonse. X-P
[/quote]
No there is not. Your "We know" was misinforming others ;-P
[quote]David A. Smith
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vince Morgan... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2009.11.05.21.11.19 at (no spam) canonicalscience.com...
[quote]dlzc wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:23:16 -0800:
[snip]
No there is not. Your "We know" was misinforming others ;-P
David A. Smith
[/quote]
..Don't worry about the "we". The "we" are far less important then they
imagine themselves to be. And cannot be trusted with the plain truth, quite
evidently.
Glad to see you didn't let the "we" have the last word.
Regards,
Vince Morgan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vince Morgan... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"dlzc" <dlzc1 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:fa78cc81-7ab2-440a-bac8-45b932da2113 at (no spam) 12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Dear "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez:
On Nov 5, 2:53 am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07 pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles
with zero mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us
photons have zero mass. We looked.
....
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said.
Nature did not show that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass.
No, the number you show below is the *upper* limit on photon mass.
The measurement result is inclusive of ZERO. It is also 18 orders of
magnitude less than the photon's energy.
[/quote]
If it's any orders of magnitude of anything whatsoever, it cannot also be
zero.
Interesting.
Vince Morgan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vince Morgan" <vinhar at (no spam) TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4af7d556$0$6094$afc38c87 at (no spam) news.optusnet.com.au...
[quote]
"dlzc" <dlzc1 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:fa78cc81-7ab2-440a-bac8-45b932da2113 at (no spam) 12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Dear "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez:
On Nov 5, 2:53 am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
dlzc wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:08:31 -0800:
Dear physicsup.com:
On Nov 4, 5:07 pm, "physicsup.com" <physic... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote: ...
It is wrong to regard the particles of light, particles
with zero mass.
Hypothesis dead on arrival. Nature shows us
photons have zero mass. We looked.
...
Now, you are also plain wrong saying what you said.
Nature did not show that.
At the best, we have a lower limit for photon mass.
No, the number you show below is the *upper* limit on photon mass.
The measurement result is inclusive of ZERO. It is also 18 orders of
magnitude less than the photon's energy.
If it's any orders of magnitude of anything whatsoever, it cannot also be
zero.
[/quote]
Yes it can. If the maximum limit for the number of people in a bus is 70
does than mean the bus can never be empty of people? Of course not. That
there is a maximum limit (due to how accurately and precisely we can measure
the mass), that does not mean the mass is not zero as predicted. AS our
experimental techniques get better, the limit of accuracy decreases and
phone mass is always below the threshold. So all experiment is compatible
with it being zero, and there is no indication or theoretical basis for
thinking it is non-zero. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:38 am
|
|