Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

Flaws in Current Atomic Theory? - Physics Forum

Flaws in Current Atomic Theory? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-2003, 02:03 AM
cinquirer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?



The following are the questions being addressed by people who have
studied the Ruth-Bohr Atomic Model for years. They are not beginners.
They are seeing some logical flaw in the Standard Model even when
studying it at many angles including Quantum Mechanics, etc. This
is why many people are creating alternative models to replace the
Rutherford-Bohr Atomic model yet compatible with the experimental
data. May experts who can answer the following nicely and completely
please share your view. Thanks.

"Flaws in Current Atomic Theory

Although our concept of the atom has undergone repeated refinements
over the past century, the atom is still generally considered to be a
tiny spherical object composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons in
a manner somewhat analogous to the structure of our solar system. The
protons and neutrons are packed into a central nucleus with the
electrons zipping about - an organization reminiscent of the way the
planets orbit our sun. And also like planetary orbits held in place by
gravity, the zipping electrons are considered to be held within the
atom by the electric charge force attracting the negatively charged
electrons to the positively charged protons in the nucleus. The
simplest atomic model with these elements is the well-known
Rutherford-Bolir atomic model shown in Figure 4-1.

Although this early model of the atom is considered overly simplistic
today, its basic elements have remained essentially unchanged. Even in
today's more complex quantum-mechanical models of the atom, the
general concept of a nucleus containing positively charged protons and
surrounded by negatively charged electrons still stands; it is largely
only the details of how the electrons zip about that have been refined
in today's atomic models. However, all of our atomic models overlook a
number of serious problems with even their Most elementary components.

(Violation) The Electric Charge Model Violates the Laws of Physics

Electric charge is considered to be a manifestation of the
electromagnetic force, and as mentioned in the introduction of Chapter
1, this force is considered to be one of the four fundamental forces
of nature. Yet, the concept of "positively charged" nuclear protons
forcefully attracting "negatively charged" speeding electrons to
constrain them within the atom is a physically unexplained abstraction
and one that also violates the Law of Conservation Of Energy. Despite
our common use of the term "charge," we actually have no solid
explanation for why electric charge would emanate from particles, why
there are two types (positive and negative) that attract each other
but repel their own, and what type of power source might be powering
such behavior. In fact, the electric charge force between the protons
and electrons in our atomic models holds atoms together without
draining any known power source or weakening in strength - often for
billions of years. Such a basis for at omic structure may provide a
useful inte rim model of the atom, but cannot be considered the
literal explanation without undermining our most basic tests of
scientific credibility, as well as our most elementary laws of
physics.

(Violation) The Strong Nuclear Force Violates the Laws of Physics

According to Electric Charge Theory, opposite charges attract one
another, while like charges repel each other. Therefore, the close
Proximity of numerous positively charged protons in the nucleus of the
atom should be impossible - the nucleus should fly violently apart due
to the mutual repulsion of these positive charges in such close
proximity.

This violation of Electric Charge Theory has been addressed by
introducing yet another force into our science, known as the Strong
Nuclear Force. This force is also considered to be one of the four
fundamental forces of nature, and is said to be an attracting force
between protons which only acts when protons are very close to each
other, powerfully overcoming their large mutual repulsion within the
nucleus. However, like electric charge, this proposed nuclear force
comes with no clear physical explanation for its nature, has no known
power source, and also acts endlessly for billions of years without
diminishing in strength. Rather than resolving the problems with the
electric charge model, the introduction of the Strong Nuclear Force
only deepens the mystery, leaving us with two scientifically
impossible claims supporting our current atomic models.

This violation of Electric Charge Theory has been addressed by
introducing yet another force into our science, known as the Strong
Nuclear Force. This force is also considered to be one of the four
fundamental forces of nature, and is said to be an attracting force
between protons which only acts when protons are very close to each
other, powerfully overcoming their large mutual repulsion within the
nucleus. However, like electric charge, this proposed nuclear force
comes with no clear physical explanation for its nature, has no known
power source, and also acts endlessly for billions of years without
diminishing in strength. Rather than resolving the problems with the
electric charge model, the introduction of the Strong Nuclear Force
only deepens the mystery, leaving us with two scientifically
impossible claims supporting our current atomic models.

(Mystery) The Mystery of Atomic Stability

Although various materials can differ in strength at the molecular
level, the atoms that compose molecules are unimaginably strong and
durable. Objects can be bent, melted, and crushed at the molecular
level, but their component atoms withstand all but the most violent
processes known to man - such as the explosion of an atomic bomb.
Surely such amazing strength and durability could not arise from the
"solar system" model of Figure 4-1, in which the electron's tendency
to speed away is balanced by the pull of the electric charge from the
nucleus - again, much like Newton's gravitational claim for orbiting
moons and planets. If another solar system came speeding toward ours,
we would not expect them to simply bounce off one another and maintain
their separate stable structures. Instead, their delicate orbital
balances would be completely thrown into chaos and disarray, which
would also be the expectation for the "solar system" structure of the
atom in Figure 4-1. This mode l cannot explain how atoms manage to b
ounce off each other or bond side by side within a solid object, often
withstanding tremendous external forces without losing their delicate
internal orbital balance.

Today, we usually replace mechanical model, which essentially states
that electrons appear here and there about the nucleus with
statistical probability rather than smoothly orbiting. This results in
"electron probability clouds" or orbitals, which are regions where the
electron might appear with a given probability (Fig. 4-2). The darker
the region of the electron cloud or orbital in the diagram, the more
likely the electron is to appear in that location. It is considered an
inherent mystery how the electr ons actually move within the atom,
which does not help to solve the mystery of the atom's amazing
strength and durability under crushing real-world conditions.

So then, if the concept of electric charge holding the atom together
violates the laws of physics, a Strong Nuclear Force holding the
nucleus together also violates the laws of physics, and our current
models cannot explain the atom's strength, then what exactly is the
physics of the atom?"

-----------

Of course, he offers the new physics of the atoms that have impressed
many readers as it can solve the Theory of Everything. But the
principles go with a lot of illustrations so it can't be conveyed
in just a few words.

c
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:16 AM
Robert J. Kolker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?



cinquirer wrote:


The Standard Model which passes experimental muster with flying colors.
However not all is beautiful. The mass of particles still has to be hand
fed in the theory, and the theory cannot account for gravitation. Work
for the future.

Be a good fellow and propose a better theory for us. Fill the room with
your brilliance.

Bob Kolker


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-20-2003, 04:50 AM
Rick Sobie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >, [Only registered users see links. ] says...



On the leading edge of today's modern physics, there are two groups.

The string people.

Well actually three groups. The old guard could be considered the third
and they will of course deny their own existence, but then they don't
want to learn anything new at this late stage on their lives,
but they too like new things, as long as they don't have to
rewrite anything and as long as they aren't expected to actually change
their havbits.

Having said that, the second group...


If you consider the nucleus. And at the center of the nucleus
exists a bubble.

Inside this bubble is hyperspace.

Now as the universe expands, these tiny bubbles expand as well.

Picture a baloon, picture a ruler drawn on the balloon.
An inch is still an inch.
What makes the universe expand is a matter of debate, most
preferring to believe in the big bang. But the gas-like univere
would expand into hyperspace just as any gas expands.

Now because there is no space past the edge of the universe,
it just expands and the atoms expand and everything appears
to remain the same 'relative' size.

The ruler on the balloon, still reads an inch.

But then now you can see, if you follow the arrow of expansion,
that the result is gravity.

As, the bubble expands, it sends out waves. Electron shells,
are these spherical wave crests. In accordance with the
inverse square law.

Yet beyond the shells these waves carry on, to form a basic
background to existence. The fluid almost of our reality.

Within this, we also have transverse waves. Light, with a photon
being a wave crest of a transverse wave.

Now these waves react upon each other in such a way as to appear
to be particles under various conditions. Cancelling out or
adding to each other, to form other particles.

(a particle being a point in space-time)

Now then each atom, each bubble is expanding, but meets resistance,
as it sends out these EM waves. (and see black body radiation
to see that all matter emits EM radiation)

Now depending on the frequency of the nucleus, what fixed harmonic
vibrational pattern it is locked into, by the tremendous
pressure of the expanding universe, that determines which element
it is.

Try to stop the bubble from expanding, and you get the equivalent
of a sonic boom on the quantum level.

Superconductivity, is merely the arangement in a medium, whereby
the resistance to the EM waves being emitted, meet no resistance.

That is to say, that they are not fighting against each other but
flowing freely.

The same is true for permanent magnets.

The flow of EM waves due to the organized structure of the substance.

The geodesics of course are caused by the expansion of matter,
and the expansion of the universe as a whole.

A black hole is caused, when a star collapses, and is no longer
able to continue to expand along with other matter.

Like the sonic boom mentioned above only to a much greater degree.

So it creates a well. A gravity well.

It is not a singularity in my mind that resides there, but the
pressures would be enormous. But to have a singularity you need
solid matter and there is no such thing on our plane of existence
as solid matter. So you would have a hole to hyperspace.
A drain of sorts.

Planets are round, because matter expands.

Planets rotate, because the universe expands and they are round
and as such the pressure on the planet is not uniform,
so it will spin one way or the other.

Now you might ask, well what of this particle zoo?

If you freeze time, and examine a wave interaction, you can
call the interaction a particle.

Because all the elements are in a certain range of frequencies.

That is to say, that cesium here on earth, is cesium
a billion light years away and the frequency of the cesium atom
determines that it is cesium.

So these frequencies are precise, and these elements are
unique.

The universe is not a homogeneous mush, but rather made up of
elements that have individual and fixed characteristics.

If you bump an element with a very strong high energy wave,
you can bump it into another frequency.

As in a super collider.

The inverse is true.

Hypothetically you could neutralize radiation by dampening the
vibration, if you treated it with just enough energy to cancel
the wave to the degree that it would settle into a proper
bubble vibration, chugging along with the expansion of the
universe, rather than a feedback type of vibration in and out, which
sends odd waves out. Harmful waves of frequencies that tend to
not be in the norm of the background. These waves interupt things,
and cause other atoms to vibrate irrationally, and we know this as
harmful radiation.

So we use water to try to stabilize the element. To cool it.

We use lead to sheild us from it. Seeing as how lead has a certain
kind of frequency that chugs right along with the expanson of
the universe and can absorb, a lot of shock, without its vibration
being affected.


I could go on and on, but you should just by this, be able to
see how existence works.

We are not made of solid substance.

We are energy. E=Mc2

We detect things that are energy, with energy. That is to say,
we detect waves. Interactions of these waves. We call these
interactions particles, when we freeze the reference frame.
xyzt

The arrow of time, is the direction of expansion into hyperspace.

Hyperspace exists at the center of the nucleus, past the edge
of the universe of matter, and may even exist all around us.

We have no reason to doubt, that just a fraction of a Planck moment
before us, and behind us, are other universes.

We also have no reason to doubt that there are other elements in
those universes, very similar to ours, but their scale is slightly
different than ours.

If you examine this closely, you will see that what we have in fact,
is a multiverse. Each universe may be so similar, that to go from one
to the next, may not even be noticeable, as the entire universe
would change, but the obejects in it, the frequencies of the
elements would be relational to each other.

We may actually travel a bit with a spectrum of the multiverse
and still not see any noticeable difference.

Yet, to see an actual difference, you would have to travel
a fair ways.

But you cannot take your atoms with you. They stay there, at the
universe you were at, and your consciousness just moves through
the multiverse. Copies exist all the way around you. Not
exactly copies as much as just different frequencies by
comparison. But to see it, you would have to travel a good
distance, to notice the change, or have a birds eye view of
more than one at the same time.

Wormholes, are merely a hole, through this background reality
of waves, into the space which exists outside of it, around
it etc.

Going to the very extreme of theoretical physics, to time travel or
how does reality really work, when people have been known to have
premonitions, and thinsg have been predicted, and we can predict
that we will do some thing and then do it.

Such as , I am going to go get a cup of coffee and then I am going
to tell you a secret about existence, and how the universe
works, in such that a person can be told of the future
and that future transpire.

part II to follow...


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-2003, 05:12 AM
Bilge
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

cinquirer, crossposting spammer:


They don't appear to be physicists either. Go post this spam elsewhere.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-2003, 05:26 AM
Rick Sobie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?



So, having predicted the future, had my coffee, and now I continue...

(yes, babies were also born in Africa in the interim)

The difference between that sort of prediction, and a quantum
prediction or a large macro prediction, is complexity.

A sufficiently complex computer, could analyse all factors
within the area, and determine what the result would be.

Just as our brain does the same thing. With a resaonable degree
of probability.

Such is the same on the quantum level, but you never know
when a cosmic ray, might hit your nucleus, cause it to
vibrate, and that cause another to vibrate, and soon, a small
point of vibration (heat) causes the monkey to scratch,
he falls over, hits the keyboard, and since he is spastic
monkey, flails around a bit, and types a sonnet.

A small one, but a sonnet none the less.

You cannot measure the wave in motion and know where it is
exactly in one moment in time in a freeze frame.
We do not have a radar gun like that, that will return
a result in exact time freeze. Heisenberg applies there.

One or the other. If we measure movent, or if we measure
location, but not both.

So, then how is it, that even without a super computer of
unimaginable scope, we can still be forewarned about the future
given the enormous complexity.

So here we have a few camps.

One camp I belong in, whereby those who have gone before us,
can tell us what to expect, but only if we follow the same
basic path they did.

We might wander about in the multiverse a bit, but things will
vary only by small degrees. If we stay basically on the same path.

This part is extrememly complicated, and takes a great deal
of understanding - objective understanding about consciousness.

But I will take a crack at it for you.

You know when you smile at a person, they will likely smile back.

You know that if you go around throwing punches you will likely
get punched. Both of these will affect your future.

Cause and effect.

Hit someone, it hurts. What is hurt? Cell rupture, waves hitting
waves, causing vibration causing heat, disturbing
the normal at rest state of a person's atoms.

They get angry, self preservation, hurt, pain, survival,
they hit back.

Smile, friendly, safe, love, endorphins, more smiling,
and then a nice relaxing cigarette, to calm those vibrations
while you think of a name and rejoice in the fact that you have
justified your existence by perpetuating the species.

Now then, here is the secret.

The universe doesn't expand.

Your consciousness does.

Back there, if you could get your consciousness back there,
are your waves still vibrating stationary in space and time.

You have moved through, not them.

They are in a perpetual state of existence.

As your consciousness expands, it moves through and gives the
appearance of movement.

To such a degree that you appear to live in real time.

But what is real time?

At what point, do we exactly say that now is now.

We cannot. We are smeared over a span of time.

We are a whole bunch of waves, not one wave, although we could
say we are a wave function, and so are other objects,
events, and even the universe as awhole, could be said to be described
as a wave function.

But let us look at consciousness. Each moment, you are reflecting
on the immediate past, as a part of you exists there.

You are constantly pinging the previous state, to determine the
difference, to determine if you have been burnt, or hit, or
are about to be.

You can watch a process or trajectory, and duck.
By imagining, the future.

The future for you, is imagination. You are looking at your
oath through the multiverse, by pinging your surroundings,
and trying to determine a course through.

Most of which is a subconscious automatic process.

Above the process, at conscious awareness, you are singing,
while your fingers like lightning, are playing the guitar,
and as the sun sets, on the horizon, and the last days
of summer turn to autum, you breathe deep the gathering gloom,
watch lights fade, from every room, Bedsitter people look back
and lament Another day's useless energies spent Impassioned
lovers wrestle as one Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her son Senior Citizens wish
they were young Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight Red is Grey and Yelllow, White
But we decided which is right And which is an illusion...


Right now, the most exciting thing in physics, is the
physics of worm holes, stargates, Rev 21:21 and 42.

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-20-2003, 06:44 AM
Rick Sobie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

>The future for you, is imagination. You are looking at your

Yes looking at your oath, that should read path, and if I wasn't
such a spastic monkey, I could type with perfection I am sure.

But while I am back here,and on the subject of monkeys,
Arthur C. if you are reading this, when was the last time,
you offered a bloody chunk of gazelle guts to an ape?

I mean without grinding it up in corn meal, or disguising it?

You see, people have a funny idea of evolution, and philosophy,
and that inlcudes religious philosophy.

There is my segway, and I will tell you why.

Because at a point, advanced physics can be so difficult,
that you need to have a rock solid philosophy.

For the really far out stuff, a belief in God is not sufficient.
You need to know about God.

Take Enrico Fermi for instance. He flipped a switch, turning
on a nuclear reactor, under a field beside a university.
For all intents and purposes, he might have destroyed the universe.

Not just the campus or the country or the planet.

But he flipped that darn switch nonetheless.

And that is what it takes, to deal with things after a point.

For instance, right now, there are people who are terrrified
in this field, I kid you not. Afraid of what they know, afraid
of what they suspect and etc.

For instance, you discover that living things have a biological
clock, and that clock has a frequency and you discover the frequency
and then you say, gee if I turn this on, I might turn everything
else off?

What do you do?

Or you are like Hutchison, and you fire up your Tesla machinery
and wood, welds to metal, objects suddenly accellerate and hit
the roof - anti-gravity, the telephone pole outside begins to wobble.

What do you do?

What did they do in the past? "Is this what happened during
the Philadelphia experiment?" he asks, envisionng himself
and others looking like Scotty just had trouble with the
transporter and is trying to explain to Kirk about the
people half sticking out of the floor.

So what does he do?

So you find a stargate, and you send things through and it
never comes back.

So you send a person. Same.

So you send a team. Same.

So you think, well, we have sent everything and nothing
came back, so you tie a rope and you get a piece of rope
back. Same.

So you decide, we must understand how this works before we
can be sure it is working. (a hypothesis or rather just
an example of what might happen)

Or, you come across a spacecraft, with alien bodies, and right
away you are worried about contamination of the gene pool
and desease.

You are concerned about a lot of things as well as how can you
take advantage of the find and use it to rule the world.

Because not all men are good idealists.

The examples are many and varied.

What on earth, is the Casimir effect?

How is it, that two plates can extract energy from the vacuum?

Well if you read the first part, you know that space is
permeated with waves and all you have to do is set up a situation
where the waves add as waves do, rather than add and cancel out
as they normally do, to become part of the background.

That is all that is. Zero point energy.

Yet the world runs on oil and guns.

And bs. Heaping piles of bs. Because again, not all men
are good idealists. They are also selfish and predatory,
and individuals and they come in all shapes and sizes, with no
two exactly alike.

But getting back to my point.

Suppose you knew how, to move through the multiverse without moving
your body.

You could move your consciousness through the multiverse by will
alone.

What then?

Well chances are, that at that point, you would attract the attention
of a higher power and that higher power might say something
like, look, there is another one, we had better keep an eye
on that one, lest he head off to oblivion or mess up the works.

Or similar.

But mostly it is, keep and eye on that one, he will need a little
help and direction.

Now, for some of us, we actually know people, who have came
before us.

And we can still communicate with them, through a variety
of ways.

Do you think they tell us anything of real substance?

Hints. That is all we get in matters of these sorts of
things. Experience is the thing.

We may even continue to share our lives with each other
although dimesions apart, but we are not permitted, not allowed,
cannot communicate through, any substantial information,
because all communication goes through a third party. Another
in-between consciousnesss, THE consciousness if you will,
and it is his universe.

He is the gracious host, that your consciousness moves through.

But if you knew more, you would also know that things exist for
a reason. And he would say that ALL things exist for a reason.

And in the end we must accept our fate, and just try to
live the best life we possibly can.

The universe is conscious. Extremely vast and complex,
yet knowable as a person.
But freedom, is part of individuality, and many of the
things about the universe are hidden from us, for our benefit.
That is just the way it *is*.

But have no fear, because there are others who went before us,
and as consciousness expands, and some of those others
are vast as well. Like Zeus for instance.

Vast and powerful.

One of the first consciousness through. He is a god.

I don't even know how many times he hads been through. More
than once, but likely not through the same path. He probably
took a lot of paths, in order to find one that he
thought was safe enough for us to go through.

And there are others I know. Bea, his wife for instance.

I cannot promise that all people will evolve as they have,
I have no idea. But those I know, are all good.
I do not know any very large bad men or women.

That should tell you something. Oh sure, some are mischevious
at times, and comical, and fun, and cosmic jokers, but there
is only one vast indidual who does anything truly negative
and that is the same one, who is the greatest at doing good.
And that is that same consciousness who in the final
analysis, is and does everything. The creator.

And maybe that is the middle ground for America.

You may have noticed they are moving that way. Away from
the word God, towards the word creator to mean,
that vast consciousness that is the creator, mostly
since many of the powers that be, discovered that Zeus,
Yahweh, has a God, and that God is the creator.

Also the term creator is less humanistic for those who
have trouble seeing the creator as a person, because
people have faults etc.

Even an atheist could say that the big bang was the creator.

Its a stetch but you cannot deny reality, and there is a creator,
so that is the best I can suggest.

I hope that if you do have knowledge that you are afraid of,
you will tell others. Don't bottle it up inside yourself.

Keep the faith.

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-20-2003, 06:57 AM
Rick Sobie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

Oh, and one more thing...

In case you need some encouragement and direction is cut and dry
and poetic, and can act as a guide here are two good ones...

An old one

Desiderata.mp3

and a newer one

Wear Sunscreen.Mp3

(stretch...


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:01 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

I apologize if I've seemed rude to you - please read my latest answer in
the thread where you finally provided references. I explain there why I
feel that not I, but you have been rude.


But now on to this new topic:

cinquirer wrote:

I thought this post about the *current* atomic theory? The
Rutherford-Bohr model is *not* "current atomic theory".



Well, the author of the following stuff doesn't even understand power
and energy... (see below)



Err, it was already replaced 77 years ago. Try looking up "Schroedinger
equation".



Where did you get the following from? Where can we look up the figures
belonging to this text?



Wrong. The structure of the atom isn't considered to be analogous to the
structure of the solar system.



According to current atomic theory, the electrons don't "zip around" the
nuclei, they don't orbit the nuclei. Instead, the electrons have a
probability amplitude to be found around the nuclei, which can be
calculated from the above mentioned Schroedinger equation.



If you remove the "zipping", this is right.



Right.



Depends on what is meant by "basic elements". I would consider the
change going from orbits to probability amplitudes a very essential one.



Right.



Again, QM says nothing about electrons "zipping" around.



Oh my goodness. Strange that millions of physicists have overlooked this
in the last 80 years, don't you think?



Wrong. This statement even makes no sense.



Right.



The electrons aren't speeding.



Huh? Why?



In what way?



No one claims that charge "emanates" from particles. This makes no
sense.



Essentially, this person isn't attacking the atomic model - he is
attacking all of electrodynamics!

BTW, why does he think that a "power source" is needed there? Nothing
about charges attracting and repelling each other violates the
conservation of energy.



Why should a power source be necessary for this??? Energy is only
required if one wants to do work, and work is only done if one moves
something over a distance. Therefore simply holding something together
requires no energy - because nothing is moved there.



Which "elementary laws of physics" are violated here, please? He doesn't
say. He claims that conservation of energy is violated, but doesn't say
why. He apparently doesn't even understand what energy and work are.



Oh my goodness. Strange that millions of physicists have overlooked this
in the last 80 years, don't you think?



There is no theory with this name.



This is an experimental observation, not a theory.



Right.



Well, there is lots of evidence that this force exists; try opening a
basic textbook on nuclear physics, there you will find lots of
experimental results which demonstrate its existence.



Wrong. The strong nuclear force isn't considered to be a fundemental
force, but a residual effect of the strong (color) force.



Right. Again: there is lots of evidence for this. You could start by
reading up on "Weizsaecker formula".



What would he consider to be a "clear physical explanation"?



Why on earth should a power source be needed?



So what? Why is this a problem?



Well, for him perhaps.



1) There is nothing scientifically impossible here. He hasn't
demonstrated so far that this violates any laws of physics - he thinks
that it violates the conservation of energy, apparently, but this is
only because he doesn't understand very basic things about energy (see
above).
2) The forces in the nucleus aren't part of the atomic model.



This is a repetition of exactly the same paragraph.



What does he mean be "strength" here?



What does he mean by "strong" here?



What does he mean by "at the molecular level" here?



Wrong. The "shapes" of atoms change when they take part in chemical
bonds. Hence most chemical reactions change atoms, you don't need the
explosion of an atomic bomb (which is misnamed and should be called
"nuclear bomb").



1) This stability doesn't exist, see above.
2) Why not?
3) That model isn't used any more.



Completely right. But
1) The model of the solar system isn't used any more.
2) Atoms which come close to each other do *not* remain stable, but
disturb each other - for example, form chemical bonds.

So where is the problem?



Well, again: this model isn't used anymore.

And where is the evidence that atoms can withstand "tremendous external
forces without losing their delicate internal orbital balance"? This is
simply not true; there are *LOTS* of cases known where electrons are
splits off from atoms by collisions with other atoms, for example.



This sentence doesn't make sense grammatically. There seems to be
something missing in the first part of the sentence; among other things,
I guess that there should be "quantum" in front of "mechanical".



Vaguely right.



It is not considered to be an "inherent mystery". Quantum mechanics
tells you "simply" that the electrons do *not* move within the atoms -
that it makes no sense to speak about the trajectory, the path of the
electron. This is one of the most important lessons in QM: elementary
particles don't have well-defined trajectories! The author of this
stuff, although he is, according to you, "not a beginner", has
apparently missed this very important point...



As I explained above, this amazing strength and durability simply
doesn't exist.



He still hasn't explained how, besides claiming that it violates
conservation of energy, which is absolute nonsense.



The same.



Which doesn't exist.



Exactly the one used by millions of physicists for decades now.




I would estimate that there are at least 1,000 people on the World Wide
Web who claim that they have found the Theory of Everything. Probably
far more.



Well, then why don't you tell us where we can find this "great" stuff?


Bye,
Bjoern
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:35 PM
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?

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

They're idiots.


Doesn't look like they've gotten as far as the standard model.

[...]


Is this one of Retic's diatribes?

The author expects the force to wear out over time if it doesn't have a
power source to renew it. But that's not how a field is defined, or
thought of. And it's not required for energy to be conserved. If work
expended is force times distance, and distance is zero, then no work is
expended. This is freshman level physics. Perhaps he has some conception
of the force as a nucleus spewing out particles that somehow interact
with the electron, or like a helicopter pushing air down so it can hover,
I don't know. But any violation of the conservation of energy here is a
figment of his metaphysical imagination. What he's probably doing-- what
many crackpots will do-- is create his own physical picture that is
contrary to current theory, and then insert it into current theory to
find a contradiction. And that's what happens when you make mongrel
theories, it amounts to saying "Let us assume this theory is wrong, then
I can prove that it's wrong." Most commonly it's a half-Newtonian,
half-Einsteinian analysis of a relativity paradox. This time it's a
force that wears out.

--
"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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:57 PM
Robert J. Kolker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Flaws in Current Atomic Theory?



Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

That should be force vector dot displacement vector = 0. If the force
acts at right angles to the displacment, no work is done by the force.

Bob Kolker


Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
atomic , current , flaws , theory


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM
FFiMP: Misconceptions about Special Relativity Jan Gooral Physics Forum 0 05-22-2008 02:53 PM
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 0 08-29-2006 06:32 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 1 07-06-2006 05:19 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.31441 seconds with 16 queries