7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory

[OceanBreeze]

On 1/31/2023 at 8:28 AM, andrewgray said:

The next topic we want to talk about is the Hubble Diagram.  The Hubble Diagram shows that the further away a galaxy cluster is from us, the faster it is moving away from us!  Something like this:

This diagram is used by astronomers to claim that spacetime itself is expanding.  "The universe is expanding", is what is colloquially said!  So let's do a little thought experiment.  Let's take a grenade out to a safe distance from the space-station and explode it!  We want to plot the velocity diagram of the grenade fragments vs. distance after 100 seconds.  A fragment plot may look something like this:

Notice that the furthest grenade fragments have the fastest velocity BECAUSE THEY WERE EJECTED THE FASTEST AND HENCE HAVE TRAVELED THE FURTHEST.  As you would expect.  Duh.  The Hubble Constant for this grenade fragment explosion is H=10.3 m/s/km.  So what?  That DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SPACETIME AROUND THIS GRENADE EXPLOSION IS EXPANDING.  It just means there was a big explosion and the fastest fragments traveled the furthest.  AGAIN I SAY, "Duh!"

 

What does this mean?  It simply means that the top diagram DOES IMPLY THAT THERE WAS A BIG EXPLOSION, but that it only means we are fairly near the center of the explosion and that the fastest ejected galaxies traveled the furthest.  That's all it means.  We are going to have to rename The Big Bang to The Big Explosion!  Spacetime "does not expand".  That is just nonsense.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

When a grenade explodes, there are different size fragments, with different mass. According to F=ma, for the same force, those fragments with the smallest mass will undergo the highest acceleration. Therefore, fragments with different masses will have different accelerations, velocities and distances traveled.

Comparing this to the the BBT is possibly the dumbest thing I have seen posted on this forum.

At the time when recombination occurred, the universe was filled with an opaque gas with a uniform temperature of approximately 3000 kelvin, so its spectrum was that of a blackbody of 3000 K.  At the surface of last scattering, the photon radiation was extremely uniform; perhaps to one part in a million or better. Even today when we examine the CMB radiation, we find it is uniform to within one part in 100,000. The intrinsic anisotropies in the CMB are differences in the temperature of the CMB of approximately +/- 200 micro-Kelvin. More than likely there were particles, other than photons, that left the surface of last scattering, such as neutrinos or even hydrogen atoms. However, we cannot detect  those particle streams today; but certainly there were no “fragments” of different masses and nothing like galaxies existed!

Your explanation of different velocities and distances for distant galaxies, based on an analogy to a grenade exploding is ludicrous, as are many of the claims you make in this thread (no photons! No general relativity! No nuclear physics!) that go against the Standard Model and all of established Physics and Cosmology.

The biggest question I have is why you have been allowed to post all this nonsense for the past 17 years? Did you receive some special dispensation that allows you to circumvent the site rules about backing up your claims?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by OceanBreeze
removed a unwarranted remark

[rodin]

On 12/31/2024 at 11:05 AM, OceanBreeze said:

Your explanation of different velocities and distances for distant galaxies, based on an analogy to a grenade exploding is ludicrous.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this idea, but why is it ludicrous? 

[OceanBreeze]

3 hours ago, rodin said:

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this idea, but why is it ludicrous? 

That’s a fair question. I consider it to be ludicrous for several reasons, starting with using the term “explosion” when referring to the BBT and the expansion of space. By now I would have thought that anyone who knows anything about cosmology would understand that there was no space for anything to explode into!

Nobody can say what existed prior to the BB event, but whatever it was, it was ALL that existed. For the purpose of this discussion only, I will refer to the origin as a seed. Since the seed was all that existed, if there was any space in existence prior to the BB event, it was somehow bundled up within that seed. I won’t say anything more about the nature of the seed itself because I just don’t know anything about it and neither does anyone else.

What I can say is the BB event, according to currently accepted theory, was an expansion of original space and, as it expanded, more space was being produced. There is evidence for this expansion because it is still continuing to this day.

The study of cepheid variable stars revealed there is a direct correlation between a cepheid star's magnitude and  the star’s periodical  change of luminosity. Since a star’s brightness is also related to distance, astronomers only needed to know the period of a cepheid variable to figure out how bright, and therefore how far away it was. Next, by analyzing the light from distant galaxies, astronomers found that nearly all of the light spectrums were shifted into the red part of the spectrum, indicating that nearly all of the galaxies  appeared to be moving away from Earth.

Considering the above facts and making his own observations, Hubble observed that the red shift of galaxies was directly proportional to the distance of the galaxy from earth.  He then concluded that things farther away from Earth were moving away faster. Thus, the universe is expanding! This has been further confirmed by observations of the cosmic microwave background, but to keep my reply reasonably short, I won’t go into detail about the CMB.

Mathematical calculations, using the Hubble “constant”  (67.7 (km/s)/Mpc) have determined that the most distant galaxies are moving away from earth at more than double the speed of light. Since no object that has mass can move through space at the speed of light, these superluminal speeds must be due to the expansion of space itself and not due to an explosion taking place in existing space.

Getting back to your question, I would not consider it ludicrous for someone who has no knowledge of cosmology to compare the BB to an explosion. In fact, many people continually make that same mistake.

The comparison only seems ludicrous to me because it is coming from someone who has dedicated at least 17 years of his life to investigation into nearly all areas of science only to make such a rookie mistake!

Unfortunately, that is far from his only mistake, but I only intend for my remarks to be  a criticism of his theories and not a criticism of the man himself.

[andrewgray]

OceanBreeze,

You go along just fine until you say:

Quote

Thus, the universe is expanding!

Again, the furthest galaxies are moving fastest because their ingredients had to be ejected the fastest to be furthest away (!). NOT because the universe is expanding.  If you cannot understand this along with the grenade analogy, then perhaps the supernova analogy will allow you to understand a little better.  Here is the supernova analogy:

Here we see that the outer gas and dust must have been ejected at a higher initial velocity because it is the furthest away!  The inner gas and dust was ejected at a lower initial velocity because it is not so far away!

This "Hubble curve" of the supernova explosion does not imply that there is some kind of special spacetime expansion inside the supernova!   And further, if this Hubble expansion curve happens to "curve upwards", it does not mean that this supernova expansion is accelerating ( a double "Duh" here ). It simply means that the outer ingredients were initially ejected faster than the linear Hubble curve, that's all!  The "Hubble curve" for an explosion obviously does NOT have to be linear!

 

 

Rodin:

Quote

That's brilliant Andrew!

Thanks rodin. 

 

Quote

Newton considered kinetic energy to equal momentum BTW, as I recall from reading...

That's not true rodin, as kinetic energy, KE=½mV²,   while momentum, P=mV

So they are not the same, they even have different units!

 

OceanBreeze:

Quote

...why you have been allowed to post all this nonsense for the past 17 years? Did you receive some special dispensation that allows you to circumvent the site rules about backing up your claims?

Au contraire, OceanBreeze.  I have backed up everything in this thread with logic and experimental evidence.  I will give you one example which I guess you missed while you skimmed this forum.  

Electromagnetic particles.

That EM particles do not exist is clearly shown from the photoelectric effect.  In this forum I described two experiments that prove that the photo-electrons ejected in the photoelectric effect are alway ejected sideways in a transverse direction.  And never forward!

Let me emphasize and rephrase:  The photoelectric-effect photo-electrons are always ejected sideways and never forward.

One more time: The photoelectric-effect photo-electrons are always ejected sideways and never forward.

So if you do not understand what this means, let me give you another analogy!  We want to understand why if a particle is absorbed by another particle, the resultant particle is alway ejected in the forward direction and never sideways!

So imagine some styrofoam balls floating in the space station (the electrons).  Take a pellet gun (the supposed "EM particles") and fire away at the styrofoam balls.  The pellets go into the balls and are absorbed.  The resulting pellot/ball combos ALWAYS go forward and never sideways.  However, they DO go sideways. SInce the photo-electrons always go sideways, this proves there was never any EM particles being absorbed by the electrons.  See my PhotoElectric Effect video and this forum for further details.  The light simply cannot be particles.  It is simple as that.

 

So OceanBreeze, how do YOU explain the sideways ejection of photo-electrons?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

[OceanBreeze]

8 hours ago, andrewgray said:

One more time: The photoelectric-effect photo-electrons are always ejected sideways and never forward.

 

It does not matter one bit how many times you state this; it is still wrong!

8 hours ago, andrewgray said:

 

So OceanBreeze, how do YOU explain the sideways ejection of photo-electrons?

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

Like this: The fact (verified by experiment) is, if high frequency light  (that has sufficient energy to liberate electrons from the conduction band of a specific metal), is shined on an unbiased metal block, the vast majority of photoelectrons so liberated will move further into the bulk of the block and not be emitted from the block.

This is in accordance with the conservation of momentum and exactly the way particles behave in collisions. Same as your example with the pellet gun  fired at the styrofoam balls.  The electrons are driven forwards, into the block and Not sideways.

Some (very few) of these photoelectrons after being driven down into the body of the metal, will backscatter off other electrons and travel back toward the surface. It is just a matter of probability whether the re-directed photoelectron still has enough energy to escape from the surface of the block or remain in the block.  After colliding with other electrons and transferring away some kinetic energy, there is only a very low probability these photoelectrons can escape; so shining a light on a metal block will have a very low photoelectron yield.  

This is why photo cathodes are not simple metal blocks! Instead, they are designed to operate either as reflection mode or transmission mode photocathodes, which work in conjunction with an electric field to achieve reasonable photoelectron yields.

The theory is well established and confirmed by experiments: Electrons are held inside the metal cathode by a potential energy step, with the potential energy taken as zero inside the metal.  The energy required to move an electron from the metal to the outside is the work function (ϕ).  When an electron inside the metal absorbs a photon of energy hv, the maximum kinetic energy (KEmax) of the ejected electron is given by:

KEmax = hv - ϕ

This kinetic energy can be measured using a circuit with a cathode (the metal surface emitting electrons) and an anode (collecting the electrons) in a vacuum.  A voltage V is applied between the cathode and anode, and the current is measured by a galvanometer.  The stopping potential (V_s) is the voltage that prevents the most energetic photoelectrons from reaching the anode, and is related to the kinetic energy by:

eV_s = KEmax.

The focus of the experimental evidence is on the frequency and intensity of the light, as well as the work function of the metal.

Bottom Line: Based on empirical knowledge, the polarization of light typically does not affect the photoelectric effect, as the emission of photoelectrons depends primarily on the energy (frequency) of the incident photons and the work function of the metal.

 

 @

Andrew Ancel Gray :

 You have not explained anything with your silly analogies and your videos are better described as cartoons rather than support for your ridiculous “theories”

You have been getting away with posting nonsense on this forum (for 17 years!) as if this is your official blog.

Now you are exposed as just another crank and this thread is being moved to the Silly Claims Section of this Forum where it belongs.

 

[rodin]

Quote

 

That's not true rodin, as kinetic energy, KE=½mV²,   while momentum, P=mV

So they are not the same, they even have different units

 

This I know. Newton did not have our KE equation, which I agree appears to 'check out'. That still does not answer - and as you say there are no paradoxes in nature - the rocket fuel problem. How can 2 x fuel burnt impart 4 x KE to the rocket without violation conservation of energy?

first unit of fuel burnt > x velocity in initial frame > y KE of rocket

second unit of fuel burnt > 2x velocity in initial frame > 4y KE of rocket

Welcome back to your thread! I guess you will have come across this demo by Prof Eric Laithwaite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo&ab_channel=ImperialCollegeLondon

[OceanBreeze]

On 1/7/2025 at 8:16 PM, rodin said:

This I know. Newton did not have our KE equation, which I agree appears to 'check out'. That still does not answer - and as you say there are no paradoxes in nature - the rocket fuel problem. How can 2 x fuel burnt impart 4 x KE to the rocket without violation conservation of energy?

first unit of fuel burnt > x velocity in initial frame > y KE of rocket

second unit of fuel burnt > 2x velocity in initial frame > 4y KE of rocket

Welcome back to your thread! I guess you will have come across this demo by Prof Eric Laithwaite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo&ab_channel=ImperialCollegeLondon

Rodin, I realize your question “How can 2 x fuel burnt impart 4 x KE to the rocket without violation conservation of energy?” wasn’t directed to me.

Also, I am not sure if you are asking because you don’t know the answer; or you are asking because you Do know, and you are checking to see if anyone else also knows?

I generally don’t care to watch youtube videos, so I skipped the link you posted.

In any case, I am interested in this sort of question because rocket problems in general can be deceptively complicated. Some involving continuous fuel burn and variable mass, cannot be solved without the use of differential equations.

In case other readers are interested in this type of problem, I decided to answer your question using a simplification: The fuel is burned as an impulse, rather than continuously, so there is no need to accelerate the fuel with the rocket and no need to deal with varying mass.  This makes it much easier to demonstrate that these two statements are true:

(A) First unit of fuel burnt → x velocity in initial frame  → y KE of rocket

(B) Second unit of fuel burnt → 2x velocity in initial frame  → 4y KE of rocket

 

My solution:

 (A) Initially: 10 kg rocket starts @ 0 m/s and accelerates to 10 m/s by expending 1 kg fuel as an impulse.

Conservation Of Momentum: 10 kg  x 0 m/s= 0 mv,  → (10kg x 10 m/s) + (1 kg) x (v_F) = 0 mv, momentum (0) must be conserved. Note:  v_F is the velocity of the spent fuel expelled.

Therefore, to conserve momentum, the velocity of the expelled 1 kg of spent fuel, v_F = -100 m/s

KE starts at 0 goes to → (1/2) 10kg (10m/s)^2 + (1/2) 1kg (100m/s)^2 = 500J +5000J = 5500J Total.

Of the Total KE of 5500J, only 500J goes to accelerate the rocket upwards,  5000J goes to accelerate the spent fuel exhaust in opposite direction, downwards.

 

(B) Next, we consider this happening in where the rocket is already moving at 10 m/s.

That is, the 10 kg rocket moving @ 10 m/s, accelerates to 20 m/s,  by accelerating away 1 kg of spent fuel, as before.

Conservation Of Momentum: 10 kg x 10 m/s  = 100 mv → 10kg x 20 m/s + 1kg  x v_F , v_F = -100 m/s. Momentum of 100 mv is conserved by the velocity of the expelled 1 kg of spent fuel, v_F = -100 m/s

In this case, the exhausted 1 kg of spent fuel accelerates from +10 m/s to -90 m/s  velocity for KE

Starting energy is (1/2) 10kg (10m/s)^2 + (1/2 ) 1kg (10 m/s)^2 = 500J +50J= 550J

KE increases to (1/2) (10kg) (20m/s)^2 + (1/2 ) 1kg (90m/s)^2 = 2000J + 4050J = 6050J

That is an increase in KE of 6050J-550J = 5500J same as in the fist situation (A)

KE going to accelerate the rocket: (A) 500J → (B) 2000J = 4X KE

Rocket velocity: (A)10 m/s → (B) 20 m/s = 2X Vel

Which hopefully answers your question or verifies your claim, whichever way you choose.

 

Brief explanation without any math: The faster that a rocket is moving, the more of the total energy created by the rocket thrust goes to accelerate the ship, and the less goes to accelerate the spent fuel.

 

[sanctus]

On 11/6/2022 at 9:09 PM, andrewgray said:

Your video of Roger Penrose starts off with the CMB.  Look again at the microwaves given off in all directions:

 

  It is very dumb to think that THEY can.  The CMB claims are dumb, dumb, dumb.  So Roger Penrose starts off with a dumb, dumb premise.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Thinking to be smarter than 1 person or also 10 or 100 is one thing. Thinking to be smarter than 40 or 50 years of scientific comunity, thousands of experiments etc. calling them dumb etc. just shows either your lack of understanding.

You know I worked on foreground removal in the cmb. And guess what I found foregrounds to be removed which were also found by telescopes as quasars etc. at other frequencies. And we could remove them. What should blow your mind is that if you can model galactic radiation (as you did somewhere on page 25), then guess what? The scientific comunity can too and guess what?  they can remove it from the signal...Now if you are so much smarter than 50 years of scientific comunity like you think (this is not an insult, you called everyone dumb), you would have to admit that that argument of yours does not hold. But I somehow doubt this is gonna happen.

Or showing the CMB anisotropies and using it to say this is not a black body, just shows you actually do not know what the CMB -anisotroies are...