[rodin]

Hi Andrew

Just a quick partial reply as I am 'in the pub' @ the moment with like minds.

re CH4. Yes - like charges repel, but for most? of the time your charges are 'off'.

[rodin]

coldcreation, on 01 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

That's as ridiculous as saying that Pablo Picasso appropriated Cubism from Paul Cézanne.

Knowledge evolves, or progresses. Novelty very often, if not always, draws from the past. This is not called an "appropriation" as you incorrectly write.


Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"

No one else had done so prior to this paper. Jules Henri Poincaré and others contributed to the knowledge that would lead Einstein to such an equation.


Likewise, Cubsim was born not out of products of the past (Cézanne had not pushed the envelope so far) but through visions of the future. Clearly the work of Cézanne and African art were a source of inspiration to the Cubsists, and by combining the two something new was created, i.e., neither the Africans nor Cézanne had achieved the same pictorial language.

While he was not the first to have related energy with mass, Einstein was the first to have correctly deduced the mass–energy equivalence formula. Practically all previous authors thought that the energy which contributes to mass comes only from electromagnetic fields. It was Einstein who drew major conclusions that would rigorously transform our awareness of nature, specifically, with respect to the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed by his famous equation.

Get your history straight.



EDIT> Off-topic, but for the record!!!!!!!

CC

Second result Googling E-mc squared

Quote

Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of this century. One of his most well-known accomplishments is the formula

http://www.worsleysc.../emc2/emc2.html

[coldcreation]

rodin, on 03 December 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

Second result Googling E-mc squared

[SNIP]

I didn't need to read that text you linked.

After having opened it, I took one look at the second photo of Albert Einstein and understood the entire article.

EDIT> But then I read it anyway and it supports not your chimerical "appropriation" claim.


PS. Sorry for the distraction Andrew. This will be my last post on the subject of Einstein's equation.

PSS. Though I haven't participated much in this thread I have been following it with interest. Nice work! <EDIT


CC

[andrewgray]

dduckwessel,

Quote

Are you speaking about pulsing as in sound (like you hear through a large audio speaker).

Yes, the analogy is quite good. If you took a speaker and pulsed it ON and OFF periodically, then the radial pressure fronts would propagate outward in a pulsed manner at the speed of sound. This is very similar to the pulsing of an electron's radial electric field. The radial electric field fronts (not waves!) travel outward at the speed of light.



Rodin (Graham),

Yes, the electrons in CH4 are OFF most of the time, so again, if their orbits nearly "cross each other", they would most likely be OFF, and cause no near "collision" (they would just whiz right by each other with no effect). If one or both of them were ON when they nearly "crossed each other" (less likely), then they would repel and cause the orbits to shift away from this scenario, and force them into a more stable situation (or ionize if the collision is close enough). A "real collision", of course, could not happen at these velocities.

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

andrewgray, on 04 December 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

dduckwessel,



Yes, the analogy is quite good. If you took a speaker and pulsed it ON and OFF periodically, then the radial pressure fronts would propagate outward in a pulsed manner at the speed of sound. This is very similar to the pulsing of an electron's radial electric field. The radial electric field fronts (not waves!) travel outward at the speed of light.



Rodin (Graham),

Yes, the electrons in CH4 are OFF most of the time, so again, if their orbits nearly "cross each other", they would most likely be OFF, and cause no near "collision" (they would just whiz right by each other with no effect). If one or both of them were ON when they nearly "crossed each other" (less likely), then they would repel and cause the orbits to shift away from this scenario, and force them into a more stable situation (or ionize if the collision is close enough). A "real collision", of course, could not happen at these velocities.

Andrew Ancel Gray

a) It strikes me your pulsed electric field is a wave - albeit radial and square in nature

Ionisation in extremis - nice idea. Have you mapped your model onto real chemical reactions to see if it makes sense?

[andrewgray]

rodin, on 19 December 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

a) It strikes me your pulsed electric field is a wave - albeit radial and square in nature

Ionisation in extremis - nice idea. Have you mapped your model onto real chemical reactions to see if it makes sense?

Rodin,

Yes, the pulsations are similar to a longitudinal wave (l-wave), however, in this theory they are not really a wave. An l-wave has oscillations (in both directions) along the direction of travel. The pulsations in this Intermittent Electron Theory are uni-directional. For example, for a positron, the electric force field would be outward or off, and not outward then inward. Just semantics though. No big deal.

And in reality, these pulsations would not be perfectly squared off. They would most likely have smooth transitions from OFF to ON, etc., and the squared diagrams that I have shown in this thread are a simplification for clarity.

As far as mapping this theory into real chemical reactions (possibly by computation), I have not. There is so much to do! Intermittent Electron Theory has just rewritten a 100 years of (not so) modern physics. I have many interests for the use of this new theory. I am currently working on the "origins of gravity" and redoing General Relativity. So much to do! (And not much help!)

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

andrewgray, on 26 December 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

Rodin,

Yes, the pulsations are similar to a longitudinal wave (l-wave), however, in this theory they are not really a wave. An l-wave has oscillations (in both directions) along the direction of travel. The pulsations in this Intermittent Electron Theory are uni-directional. For example, for a positron, the electric force field would be outward or off, and not outward then inward. Just semantics though. No big deal.

And in reality, these pulsations would not be perfectly squared off. They would most likely have smooth transitions from OFF to ON, etc., and the squared diagrams that I have shown in this thread are a simplification for clarity.

In other words the amplitude of the charge wave (from 'visible' to 'gravitationally bound a la black hole') would be sinusoidal-ish? I suppose you could argue the 'Schwarzchild radius' lay close to the tip of the 'up' oscillation... So you have a sequence of intermittent short duration peaks popping out of the charge black hole like the humps of some Loch Ness Monster...



I dunno. I love your debunking of the tenets of the standard model, not sure about your intermittent electron theory.

Quote

As far as mapping this theory into real chemical reactions (possibly by computation), I have not. There is so much to do! Intermittent Electron Theory has just rewritten a 100 years of (not so) modern physics. I have many interests for the use of this new theory. I am currently working on the "origins of gravity" and redoing General Relativity. So much to do! (And not much help!)

Andrew Ancel Gray

How is your work progressing?

[Blacksmith]

The thing is, there are no real definitive physics in quantum mechanics. The subatomic world follows a different set of physical laws then the ones that our multimolecular world obeys. We may eventually define the laws of physics on the subatomic level, but, for now, we need to stick to current theories, and either prove or disprove them over time. We may disavow certain theories that involve quantum mechanics, but we must never throw away quantum mechanics as a whole.

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

Well, I am indeed progressing. In a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" kind of way, I have been incessantly studying General Relativity to complete a foundation for my "micropulsars", or Intermittent Electron Theory, based on GR. Know what I found? I was wrong. I found a new non-problematic solution to gravitational collapse, and according to Albert Einstein's own field equations, , stationary black holes are not possible. This blows a hole in the very origins of my IET theory, and I am in the process of grabbing more tightly onto my own bootstraps, and using this new IE Theory to explain the origins of gravity!

Your Loch Ness Monster analogy is perhaps a good one. Even without a GR foundation to build from, the evidence for a pulsating charge is overwhelming.

Andrew Ancel Gray

This post has been edited by andrewgray: 12 April 2012 - 12:58 PM

[andrewgray]

BlackSmith,

I agree with you, "There is no real definitive physics in quantum mechanics". Think about what you just said! But you are incorrect, the subatomic world follows the same logical set of physical laws that our common sense demands. As soon as the IET experiments are done by a new young physicist not trapped by Quantum Conformity, the QM world will come crashing down. In the mean time, We Are Wasting Time! But oh well, the NSF is writing grants to find WIMPS and we are claiming that particles travel through 300 kilometers of solid rock faster than lightspeed. Oh, the shame. But "grants are what makes the world go 'round". Truth does not Make the World Go 'Round (unless it can inspire grants from the NSF).

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

andrewgray, on 12 April 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Rodin,

Well, I am indeed progressing. In a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" kind of way, I have been incessantly studying General Relativity to complete a foundation for my "micropulsars", or Intermittent Electron Theory, based on GR. Know what I found? I was wrong. I found a new non-problematic solution to gravitational collapse, and according to Albert Einstein's own field equations, , stationary black holes are not possible. This blows a hole in the very origins of my IET theory, and I am in the process of grabbing more tightly onto my own bootstraps, and using this new IE Theory to explain the origins of gravity!

Your Loch Ness Monster analogy is perhaps a good one. Even without a GR foundation to build from, the evidence for a pulsating charge is overwhelming.

Andrew Ancel Gray

Anything not built on a GR foundation has at least a chance of getting to the truth IMO

Pulsars do pulse, claimed to be a manifestation of rotation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

Of course one of the first things 'science' did with the discovery of the pulsar was to use it to 'verify' GR ....

Quote

Applications (Uses)

Relative position of the Sun to the center of the Galaxy and 14 pulsars with their periods denoted
The study of pulsars has resulted in many applications in physics and astronomy. Striking examples include the confirmation of the existence of gravitational radiation as predicted by general relativity and the first detection of an extrasolar planetary system.
The discovery of pulsars allowed astronomers to study an object never observed before, the neutron star. This kind of object is the only place where the behavior of matter at nuclear density can be observed (though not directly). Also, millisecond pulsars have allowed a test of general relativity in conditions of an intense gravitational field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar

[rodin]

andrewgray, on 12 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

As soon as the IET experiments are done by a new young physicist not trapped by Quantum Conformity, the QM world will come crashing down.

I might know a couple of promising candidates. One would be starting his Phd in 3 years assuming contiguity. The other 6 years ditto...

Objective?

To dismantle Mythics altogether