Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

AaronB wrote:

Thanks for the links. Judging from the excerpts which cinquirer quoted
so
far, I've come to the same conclusions as you - complete crackpot who
doesn't even understand basic physics.

Now, how can we teach cinquirer how he can recognize crackpots, so that
he
doesn't keep running to sci.physics asking everyone to tell him what
the flaws in this and this web site are? (another problem is that, as
far
as I can see, cinquirer often doesn't understand the explanations why
the web sites are wrong - because he himself doesn't understand
elementary
physics...)


Bye,
Bjoern

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >,
Y.Porat <[Only registered users see links. ].il> wrote:

It does not yet incorporate neutrino masses. It's not hard to put
neutrino masses into it, but we need to know more about neutrinos, first.

It has a bunch of measured parameters. It would be nice to see them
coming from a more fundamental theory with fewer adjustable parameters.

It's not a Grand Unified Theory, and although there's no good reason right
now to say their should be one beyond electroweak, it would be nice to
have one.

It does not incorporate gravity. But quantum gravity might need something
a little more fundamental than a few extra terms added to the standard
model Lagrangian, so I think we can't say that's a problem with the
standard model per se.

Except for neutrino masses, it has more to do with what we want out of a
theory than about problematical data.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

[Only registered users see links. ] (cinquirer) wrote in message news:<69cb3a95.0311201548.51684d0@posting.google.c om>...

Incorrect. In any application of muscles, there is some
energy lost to non-useful avenues, e.g., heat. In the
case of straining on a heavy object, this loss is 100%.
Nobody would claim that no energy was expended, merely
that none of it went into work.

In the same way, I can use my muscles to hold a picture
up on the wall, and I will get tired. I will require input
of energy to maintain that position. I am burning that
energy in order to maintain that position. I am really
consuming energy, despite not doing any work.

But then I can take a nail and fix the picture on the wall
in the same position, and the nail can do the job with
no fuel requirement, and do it forever. The nail is
applying the same forces that I was to hold the picture
up against gravity. Do you think the nail is getting
tired, or is burning energy?

- Randy

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]> ,
cinquirer <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

It doesn't matter what he's talking about. He is simply making an
assumption that forces wear out. And I don't know why he thinks that, but
it's not coming from a scientifically supportable position.

It is true that any given statement of a theoretical system (e.g. "forces
wear out if they don't have a power supply") can be maintained if all the
other statements of the system are changed drastically enough. But that
rarely results in a satisfying new fundamental physics (relativity and
quantum mechanics are two notable exceptions). Going strictly by
the odds, you can safely ignore any claims to revolutionary new theories
that you find on the web.

From the quotes you've given, you seem to have spent a lot of time reading
these things. Your time might be better spent with a freshman physics
textbook. Or with accomplished scientists like Davies, Gell-Man, Hawking,
Feynman, that don't have to self-publish their works. Sturgeon was an
optimist when compared to the web. Google on Sturgeon's law.


Newton's theory is dated. Einstein's theory doesn't say how spacetime
gets curved, only that it does. And you know what? Ultimately, any
theory is going to come to that sort of point-- statements that you simply
accept as primitive notions. Any theory at all. It's impossible to
create an axiomatic system with axioms that are fully explained, because
that requires additional axioms to deduce them from, and those axioms will
be unexplained unless you introduce even more, falling into an infinite
regress. Anybody that says they have a theory that doesn't rely on
unexplained axioms is probably making "self-evident" assumptions that they
don't recognize as unexplained axioms.


There is also no known reason to suggest a power source is necessary. I
don't know how he thinks the power source for a force can provide energy
without having a force of its own, anyway.


There is no evidence whatsoever that energy is expended by Earth's gravity
to hold objects down. That energy is expended by Earth's gravity to hold
objects down seems to by the cornerstone of the author's argument, all
else follows from that one notion. But it's devoid of science.


When an object rests on the surface of the Earth, no work is done on the
object, the gravitational field (and the energy of the field) doesn't
change, gravitational waves aren't radiated away, heat isn't generated.
There's no violation of the law of conservation of energy, and no reason
to think there should be.


Gravity doesn't have an internal combustion engine.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

Bjoern Feuerbacher <[Only registered users see links. ].uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ].uni-heidelberg.de>...


Let me address Gregory's earlier comments now.

Isn't it for every action there is a reaction. So when you
exert all your effort to lift up the heavy car and you can't
do it in spite of all your muscle exertion and perspiration.
Then the heavy car being holded down by gravity needs
force to resist you. Because if it doesn't do. You can easily
lift the car. So in effect he is saying gravity needs energy to
maintain the attraction. And he wonders where the energy
comes from. Why is it everlasting. So even though there is no
movement. Work is produced by gravity by simply holding the
object down and maintaining the gravitation. He stated the work
equation is believed like a dogma that common sense dies
down in face of obvious observation.

It boils down to what is gravity. Why is there a gravity? His
book starts analyzing about gravity. And he was able to
"discover" a new atomic principle which explains the gravity
as well as the 3 fundamental forces without having to rely
on these as his stated "mysterious forces". If anyone has
time. Visit his website for more info and the second url for
the sample copy of the first chapter of his book so you'd
know where he is coming from.

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

In effect, he is saying gravity breaks the laws of physics
because to maintain attraction, you need force. Particle
physics state the force is mediated by gravitons that is
virtually exchanged between objects. Einstein said it is
curvature in spacetime which cause objects to be attract.
He is just offering a third explanation and so attacking those
notions.

Anyway. Supposed gravity is not mediated by gravitons. And
there is really no curvature in space that brings objects down.
Anyone has other theories what gravity may be? What possible
structure of reality can make it possible? I don't necessarily
believe in his alternative explanation which is very mechanical
and well... funny.

c

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >,
cinquirer <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

"Work" is doing nothing of the kind because the gravity is doing no work
at all! W=Fz, z=0, so W=0.

Even when objects move gravity doesn't wear out. For instance, you drop a
rock and it falls down and stays there. Potential energy becomes kinetic
energy, then it hits and kinetic energy becomes heat. That's conservation
of energy. The rock won't just pop back up again. That's conservation of
energy again. You can also put a thermodynamic slant on it-- the second
law of thermodynamics says that things will do whatever they'll do, and
not return to their initial condition.

If you want to make analogies, make the analogy of a spring. You pull it
down, let it go, it springs back up. You pull it down, let it go, it
springs back up. It doesn't run out of energy; you put energy into it
when you pull it down and that energy isn't going to go away, barring
relaxation of the metal which is a physical change and liberates heat. If
it takes effort for you to hold the spring in a stretched position, who
cares? You have muscle fibers that are constantly twitching, the spring
doesn't.

Do you think it makes sense that you would do more work than is done on
something you're pushing? What if the object was heavy enough that you
could move it, but your feet keep slipping on the ground? The energy
expended by you would equal the work done on the object, plus the work
done on your feet against the ground, multiplied by about 3 because of the
efficiency of the human body in converting its chemical energy.


It's believed by a definition. He thinks a static force needs a power
supply. I don't know why he thinks that, but I can guarantee you he
doesn't have anything that comes from measurement or extant theory. He's
making some kind of assumption there; it's true because he says it's true,
and you're just choosing to take his word over everyone else's. Why? I
don't know.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

[Only registered users see links. ] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bpm596$non$[Only registered users see links. ].indiana.edu>...


You are using equation again. Imagine there is no gravity and you have
to artificially make two planets revolve around a massive object such
as sun. What would you do. You have to put giant rockets on one
side of the planet to move it and minor ones at the side to maintain
the movement. And when your fuel gets low. You have to go to
another planet to get more fuel. This is what he is implying that
this mysterious force called gravity is doing heavy work and the
equation w=fz is doctored to make it zero when zero distance
is made.

Bottom line is. He thinks gravity breaks the law of physics. But
what really is gravity. Is it gravitons being mediated by two
objects or is it curvature in space like Einstein said. He is offering
a third alternative. And this is where things become very weird.
It's about Expansion Theory. See "Atomic Expansion Theory"
message for the details.

With his new theory. Anti-gravity doesn't work and will never
work. Someday, if gravity can be shielded and object can
float on the other side of it. Then his theory breaks down.

c

[Only registered users see links. ] (cinquirer) wrote in message news:<69cb3a95.0311211953.3e6dda69@posting.google. com>...


[EL]
LOL
What do you want him to use cinquie!
The man said that work is force times distance and distance is zero
that is why work is zero.
It is that simple really.


[EL]
Ah! Now that would not be the gravity of earth doing that work.
It must be the sun too helping in doing the work of rotating the
planets with a force for a distance and continuously.
To understand the difference between force and work compare between
the effect of a one ton rock sitting in your front yard a one ton
asteroid falling on your house while you are writing your last post.

Heck, while your city people are doing the last thing they do whatever
that would be.



[EL]
You are ignorant.


[EL]
But gravity is a critical constituent of the laws of physics and that
thinking must be plain stupid.
What was he by the way?


[EL]
It is a topology, or a hyper geometry, which is a pseudo-force but it
is a force no doubt.


[EL]
No.


[EL]
Bingo, you got that correct and I am not even a worshipper of
Einstein.


[EL]
Why not.


[EL]
You mean he offered a weird offering!


[EL]
I have no time for details of any expansions including that of the
universe.
Idiots come in many scales if you care to know.


[EL]
Err ...But he has to prove that there is what he may call antigravity
first but saying that there is a dead god does not really make any
difference. So let him say what he wants.



[EL]
Oops, that would be more than enough.
You said gravity have sides?
Heads and tails?

You know, I would never have this fun by going to the movies or an
amusement park.

The loonies' park has no equivalent entertaining abilities.

Please keep posting this fabulous line of ignorance; it makes some of
us become deluded to be Gods of sorts.

EL

[Only registered users see links. ] (cinquirer) wrote in message news:<69cb3a95.0311211953.3e6dda69@posting.google. com>...

Bottom line, you have to use the equation to talk about energy.


Not necessarily. The amount of force required would probably be fairly
minimal. Let's assume you want to have a large object and small
object, which exist outside of the realms of gravity. Now, first you
attach a rod or string between the centres of the two masses, with a
spindle on the larger mass. Now, use a rocket to give the smaller mass
an initial speed, then remove the rocket. The small mass should
continue in circular motion around the large mass forever, unless some
other force (friction) acts on it. Replace the string with gravity,
and you have the same result.


It's not "doctored" to have that effect, it is defined in that way in
all cases. The fact that it has this effect on gravity is purely
mathematical. Basically, the function is W = I[F.r] where I is
integral, and . is the dot product function. Lets assume a constant
force, so now we have W = F.r, where F and r are vectors. BECAUSE F
and r are vectors, they have direction. Energy is a scalar; it has no
direction. Hence, we need a method to convert vector quantities into
scalars. One such method is the dot product, which says, basically,
that A.B = |A||B|CosK, where |A| and |B| are the magnitude (numerical
value of a vector, eg if a vector was 24Ni + 10Nj - 2Nk (i j and k are
unit vectors of length 1 in each of the cartesian axis, then |A| would
be (24^2 + 10^2 + (-2)^2)^(1/2)). This function can also be expressed
in terms of each axis, AxBx + AyBy + AzBz. Dot product is defined this
way mathematically, and it can be proven geometrically. Physics simply
borrows the dot product, but any equation that uses dot product MUST
follow its rules.

Now, in our case, we have a function W = F.r, where F is the force of
gravity, and thus and r is some 3 dimensional vector. We say that W =
Fxrx + Fyry + Fzrz (or W = FxcosK if you prefer). Fx of gravity is
zero, Fz of gravity is also zero. So, only Fzrz has any numerical
value, which is a scalar, in units kgm^2/s^2, which are joules, which
is energy. Claiming that dot product shouldn't work in physics is like
claiming that multiplication shouldn't work: it is ludicruos (sp?),
because it is a mathematical function.


Bottom line is: he is wrong. You'll note I've commented on his atomic
expansion theory (equally wrong).


Nobody ever claimed that anti-gravity works, but his theory breaks
down just fine without it, don't worry.

A

[Only registered users see links. ] (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.0311212323.7d6d50eb@posting.google. com>...

Mccutcheon is simply emphasizing the fact that the object resting
on earth should not have zero work even if the distance is zero
(that is, he stated the equation is doctored) because by the man
exerting effort to lift it, what's holding it to the ground thru
gravity requires energy in terms of gravitational energy and
since he has a theory where gravity is not required,
then he is emphazising the fact that gravity seems to have
unlimited source of energy to continue making the force of
attraction all centuries long. What he is doing is attacking
the fact gravity doesn't exist and it's all bubbles of matter
expanding and producing gravity (when we fall down, he stated
it's not us that fall to the ground, but the earth getting larger
and hitting us. And since we are expanding too. We are same
size as earth before and after. Go to the thread "Atomic Expansion
Theory..." for debates of all the mechanisms and contradictions
which he had addressed in his 400 page long book with dozens of
illustrations. I'm looking for that one conflict that can nail him.
But then, if you don't bother about it. Just go to sleep or smoke pot
with Uncle Al.

c