Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

[Only registered users see links. ] (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.0311242011.4e373eca@posting.google. com>...

Gee. Everytime I'm naturally leaving. Someone have to let me stay.
2 months ago. I started studying physics. I started with Quantum
Chromodynamics with quarks, then Electroweak Forces with Symmetry
Breaking, Higgs field, then I go to Relativity, first SR, then GR.
Then I go to Newtonian Physics.

In reverse. Lol.

Anyway. While the official formula is that work must involve distance.
What Mccutcheon is implying it is doctored. That gravity doesn't exist
and just an illusion.

Of course that's his thought. He doesn't believe in the 4 forces,
no charges, no quarks, no muon, no nothing. He believes only
expanding electrons exist. And all those QCD, Electroweak, Relativity
don't exist and are just illusions. Now the strangest thing is that
many who have read his book consider it possible. Well. Debunking
him would be fun and freshman challenge. You must get his book
as assignment to ask students to analyze what is wrong in every
page. It's a great test exam material.

c



c

cinquirer wrote:

[snip]



The original formula, which Mccutcheon doesn't like, is the *definition*
of what "work" *means*
in physics. How can a *definition* be "doctored"?
This accusation makes no sense!

Apparently he uses an alternative definition for "work" (or more likely,
he uses only a very vague concept of what "work" means and doesn't
bother
to define it) and then whines that his definition/his concept of work
contradicts the physical definition of work. Essentially, he is playing
word games, not attacking actual physics. And he doesn't even notice
this,
because he is so utterly ignorant about physics that he doesn't even
understand that the formula he attacks is a *definition*.




As pointed out repeatedly, his alternative explanations (for orbits,
for example) don't work.



In other words: he is completely deluded.



Are there any with an actual *education* in physics who consider his
ideas to be possible?



Err, this has already happened, if you didn't notice.



Why should we take his book and not the book from any other of the
hundreds of crackpots?


Bye,
Bjoern

[Only registered users see links. ] (cinquirer) wrote in message news:<69cb3a95.0311250514.344b1988@posting.google. com>...

[EL]
But that was the whole idea in challenging you and insulting you.
We want you to stay and learn and then perhaps maybe then you could
teach us something.
It is a stranger that has your zeal that would have a new radical
idea.
Certainly we do not want you to leave and that is why I told you to
get lost.
It is pushing you away that make you resist, and it is your equal
reaction in the opposite direction that we wish to induce into you.
As Sir Isaac Newton said, every action has a reaction equal in
magnitude but opposite in direction.

[EL]
That is fabulous!
Now you are getting to the bottom of the issue.
Soon you need to study Galileo and Kepler too.
In fact it was Kepler who discovered through a telescope that the sun
was at the centre of the solar system.
So he imagined that divine star to be holding the planets tugged by
invisible ropes and rotating them.
Kepler believed that the sun had a pulling force emanating from it.
Galileo is famous for the Pizza Tower experiment that showed that all
bodies are equally accelerated in a gravitational field.
Newton then rigorously formulated the classic laws of motion.


[EL]
That is good because you need to forget what you studied already and
remember what you have to study from now.


[EL]
The expression "doctored" is very silly because a formula is either
correct or erroneous.
It so happens that that Newtons formulae are correct as tested and
confirmed over a zillion times.
Engineers use them regularly every day.


[EL]
We already know that "Mccutcheon" is rightly rejecting our knowledge
base as an illusion.
So what?
We simply envisioned a model and applied formulae to that model and
they work correctly.
So saying that all of that model is a false illusion must be correct
but saying that work is done by a force without accelerating that body
through a distance is wrong, simply because it is founded on an
arbitrated system of dimensions.

You might really want to study Mach also, because his ideas are the
most genius ideas.
It was E. Mach who suggested a universal gravitational field to exist
and that body motion in absolute space is ridiculous. It was E. Mach
who philosophically envisioned that inertia and gravitation must be
equivalent.

If a huge vessel was navigation close to a small boat and both were
moving in the same direction at the same speed, soon the vessel seem
to attract the small boat to it, but in fact it is the intermediate
waves that are being modified through interference to cancel and drop
the intersecting zone pressure such that the remaining bulk of water
is pushing both water vehicles inwards.

I do believe in Mach's vacuum Aether too as much as A. Einstein did.
Lord Kelvin also has pinpointed a natural tendency of mater to move in
curves spirals and vortexes, which is also what Riemann proposed in
his geometry.

All straight-line motion is in fact not a straight-line at all but a
great arc of a great circle such that that motion is in the direction
of a tangent to that circle.

Since all bodies in the universe contribute to the gravitational
background waves then they all must be interacting indirectly and all
bodies must be accelerated for the equilibrium between a centripetal
and a centrifugal term in that motion and that is the Newtonian
Absolute inertia or mass.

This means that any two independent bodies in close proximity in space
must be equally accelerated by the universal gravitation and their
local mass expression would act like the vessel and the boat and they
seem to pull each other by a force proportional to the product of the
masses and the inverse of the square of the distance between the
centres of the masses.

This means that mass is an inertial expression of the quantity of
oscillators within a body that interacts with the background waves and
that gravitation must be a secondary effect-force rather than a
primary effect one and that is why it is called a pseudo-force, but we
must understand that it is a force expression regardless of its nature
and the illusion.

Can you see in your mind now why the universal gravitational
acceleration is causing the inertial relative state?
It is because bodies are equally accelerated such that their relative
velocities at any single moment is proportional and that is the true
meaning of constant velocity, which must be relative to something
being equally accelerated. This brings us to the mutual interaction
between such inertial bodies to have their internal and local
gravitational expression of attraction within the global and universal
gravitational expression of their inertial state.

That is why in your example, the car stays put on the surface of the
earth because the car and the earth are being equally accelerated
externally (Inertia) and at the same time the internal particle
oscillators are interacting with the background waves and bodies get
pressed together proportional to that number of oscillators (mass)
expressing itself as weight (a gravitational force).

Of course a freely falling body is doing work and also gaining energy
but it loses it on collision in the form of destructive work that
deforms the arrangement of the bonded oscillators. But once it is at
rest with respect to the surface of earth no work is being done any
more in-between the body and earth.

Kind regards.

EL