Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Humble Origins

  1. #1 Humble Origins 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Questions are bolded...


    I've read that life-fostering carbon can be formed in two ways...the Salpeter (triple-alpha process)process of buring beryllium-8 into helium-4 then to carbon-12; the other involves a star with favorable conditions ( hot enough, large enough, etc) eventually burning into carbon over time. Are these processes one and the same? They sound very similar...

    Before cyanobacteria, no known force in the universe existed specifically to split water molecules into hydrogen ions, electrons and oxygen (Roston 2008)
    Proof?

    The lightest element, hydrogen, was the only element in the minute old universe )Roston 2008)
    Why?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Humble Origins 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Questions are bolded...


    I've read that life-fostering carbon can be formed in two ways...the Salpeter (triple-alpha process)process of buring beryllium-8 into helium-4 then to carbon-12; the other involves a star with favorable conditions ( hot enough, large enough, etc) eventually burning into carbon over time. Are these processes one and the same? They sound very similar...

    Before cyanobacteria, no known force in the universe existed specifically to split water molecules into hydrogen ions, electrons and oxygen (Roston 2008)
    Proof?

    The lightest element, hydrogen, was the only element in the minute old universe )Roston 2008)
    Why?

    Carbon 12 just means that there are two atoms of pure carbon in Siamese bond.

    When carbon bonds with other elements, it is no longer carbon twelve in many cases. It becomes carbon six the single atom and another element.

    You can take or leave what I am about to write. I make no claim that I can prove it. However I was taught this as truth.

    There was never anything proven as far as I know that carbon 14 exists. They say carbon 14 to symbolize a radio active nature. However there were a mass of scientists that held very firmly, as if their lives depended upon this understanding, that this carbon 14 was just contaminated by trace radio active isotopes.

    Scientists were finding a large amount of carbon 14 being manufactured, on earth. Pre World War Two, German scientists first warned it might be globally threatening, if not checked. Carbon ceramic magnet manufacture, was blamed for a large amount of radio active isotopes in carbon. At the time.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


     

  4. #3  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Carbon 12 refers to the relative atomic mass of the carbon atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus equals 12 RAM.

    Carbon 14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons, equals 14 RAM.
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Carbon 12 refers to the relative atomic mass of the carbon atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus equals 12 RAM.

    Carbon 14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons, equals 14 RAM.

    That may be what they teach now. However it was not that way in my day, in my home town.

    In fact we were still taught there was no such thing as a neutron. Because no scientist could ever convince anyone of them. Without the weight of books and schools backing them.

    But if you listen to someone anyone trying to explain them, with only what they are saying to prove them. There are huge holes in the theory. There always were.

    But today most just assume they exist because so many people say neutron. So many people talk about neutrons. Surly they have to exist. Because otherwise where are we?




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick,
     

  6. #5  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Carbon 12 refers to the relative atomic mass of the carbon atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus equals 12 RAM.

    Carbon 14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons, equals 14 RAM.

    That may be what they teach now. However it was not that way in my day, in my home town.

    In fact we were still taught there was no such thing as a neutron. Because no scientist could ever convince anyone of them. Without the weight of books and schools backing them.

    But if you listen to someone anyone trying to explain them, with only what they are saying to prove them. There are huge holes in the theory. There always were.
    In fact, neutrons are explained just as well as protons. They are both made of the same things, quarks, and both are held together with the strong nuclear force. Nuetrons play a vital role in beta decay as well; otherwise, the reaction could not occur.
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Carbon 12 refers to the relative atomic mass of the carbon atom - 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus equals 12 RAM.

    Carbon 14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons, equals 14 RAM.



    That may be what they teach now. However it was not that way in my day, in my home town.

    In fact we were still taught there was no such thing as a neutron. Because no scientist could ever convince anyone of them. Without the weight of books and schools backing them.

    But if you listen to someone anyone trying to explain them, with only what they are saying to prove them. There are huge holes in the theory. There always were.
    In fact, neutrons are explained just as well as protons. They are both made of the same things, quarks, and both are held together with the strong nuclear force. Nuetrons play a vital role in beta decay as well; otherwise, the reaction could not occur.
    I am not asking anyone to believe this below, just examine it for its validity.


    Neutrons were a patch to a sudden collapse of yuppy scientists work, that had no real scientific value, it was a continuation of a lie. By all the evidence I have ever seen.

    Protons today are also not explained properly. Of course if you do explain them properly, any man has total understanding of the universe. And massive abilities to effect it.

    I have never seen one ounce of strong nuclear force, as a scientific method proven kind of reality. Just the opposite, total speculation as if a science fiction writer had gone off on a drunken binge and forgot reality totally.

    Below are three pages from the same book, take a look at them, at this time there are no neutrons yet, in industry. They are on a black board. Yet they claim that carbon 13c exists and is an isotope or contains an isotope. At this time isotopes were the elements that could not be classified in the radiation field of earth.



    Try to understand that a neutron at the time was not a particle. But rather a state. During these times you had top Generals sputtering comical sentences to the commander and chief. Never even understanding what was taking place. The scientists were often forced to change the names of things. Either as they claimed, to hide the atom from Americans, or to appease some General that was being laughed at.

    A neutron was a stabilizing effect, not a particle. That happened later.

    This is where all your science was created from. I watched it for many years. I am very sure no real science is being done. Because I saw them flip flop as they got caught after severe accidents. Accidents they did not understand nor could they see coming.

    Chaswick was warned by Universal Scientists not to play with the radio active substances. Because they were to unstable and offered no real scientific advancement. He was later injured by an accident involving a radio active isotope.

    A radio active substance can alter other chemicals near it, so when you are adding chemicals to determine its makeup, the radiation can alter the added chemicals makeup. Making all experiments unscientific.

    The young yuppy scientists like Chaswick thought they knew better. It ended with the phony neutron particle that could not be explained even by Chaswick.

    At this time Universal Scientists have free power, from ordinary equipment. They had death rays that can wipe out entire nations, all made with standard materials. And they have bombs that can wipe out an entire state also made with ordinary materials. Yet Chaswick went off with the military and actually hid this information from the public.










    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Chemicals/Uraniumofold.htm


    If you ever want to end modern science, demonstrate attraction. I know there is no such thing. Yuppy scientists were called out on this. And when to their horror they could not explain attraction, two guys in front of an audience made hugging gestures around each other.

    Yet there is no bases or model for attraction. We are just brainwashed into believing it exists. Because any other explanation is just a wooden stake in the heart of modern science.

    Real scientist are just melancholy about how you will all end up. And how your children will end up.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  8. #7  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    You are suggesting attraction does not exist?

    I reccomend you take a look at two magnets. They quite clearly attract each other. Another example would be charged polythene strips, which are quite clearly not magnetic.

    Correct, the strong nuclear force has not been properly explained. It has, however, been procen to exist, such as in nuclear fusion and alpha decay.

    Neutrons, however:

    there is deffinitely a particle which is present in the nucleus of almost all atoms with a mass almost the same as a protons, but with no charge.

    In high-energy reactions, this particle has been shown to consist of 3 further particles; two of which have a charge of -5.33x10^-20C and about a third of the mass of a proton and one of which has a charge of 1.067x10^-19C and a similar mass.

    So, yeah, I'm fairly sure the neutron exists. This is not to say it is indivisible, though.
     

  9. #8  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Do you happen to have any sources or evidence?
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You are suggesting attraction does not exist?

    I reccomend you take a look at two magnets. They quite clearly attract each other. Another example would be charged polythene strips, which are quite clearly not magnetic.

    Correct, the strong nuclear force has not been properly explained. It has, however, been procen to exist, such as in nuclear fusion and alpha decay.

    Neutrons, however:

    there is deffinitely a particle which is present in the nucleus of almost all atoms with a mass almost the same as a protons, but with no charge.

    In high-energy reactions, this particle has been shown to consist of 3 further particles; two of which have a charge of -5.33x10^-20C and about a third of the mass of a proton and one of which has a charge of 1.067x10^-19C and a similar mass.

    So, yeah, I'm fairly sure the neutron exists. This is not to say it is indivisible, though.
    Just scan this if it is not pleasing disregard it. It is how I was taught about the atom, from people who did not believe the atom should be hidden from Americans

    Take another look at two magnets. You have been pounded with the words "they are attracting one another". However there is actually repulsion between them, as they move towards one another. If there was not, they would in a fraction of an inch, reach speeds that would vaporize them as they collided.

    There is just less repulsion between two magnets who's polls are of opposite polarity, and move towards one another or attempt to.

    The yuppie scientists have been playing resentful word games for a very long time. I almost cannot blame them. They will probably never be scientists or enjoy real science from my own actual experience with them. They just need to be spanked.

    If you look at protons/matter, they can either be short of electrons/electricity or they can be abundant with electrons/electricity. So their charge is relevant to the amount of free electrons surrounding them in their proximity.

    The proton was originally thought to be a sphere of electrons, pressed together by the natural, but strange ratio of surface area to volume. Created by the tiny sphere of the proton.
    The volume of electrons in the proton is so small compared to the massive surface area, that the ambient radiation that bombards all matter, presses matter together, and keeps it under pressure. Has a fascinating effect, in creating what appears to be attraction between atoms.

    But there is no attraction that I have ever seen, or been shown. No explanation of attraction that is plausible. You can play word games. But you cannot be scientific and explain attraction or attraction forces.

    Universal Scientists were being ridiculed by spoiled brats that did not care about science. Universal Scientists could not explain to these spoiled brats how, a sphere of electrons, electrons that were repelling one another even within the sphere, the proton.
    Could be contained in a structure called a proton. A proton push comes to shove is abundant with electrons. So it is actually a positive electrical force, according to Benjamin Franklin. At this time he was still the boss of electricity.
    When a proton is smashed/disintegrated during an explosion you can see just how abundant it is with electrons. And that indeed these electrons do posses a repulsive charge against all things, when not contained in the sphere, the proton.
    Or even while contained in the proton sphere. Because when matter is put under pressure. It is the repulsion of the electrons that maintains the force to keep the substance from collapsing.


    Take a look at the ratios for different sized spheres.

    Here is a sphere 10 inches in diameter. Its surface area is 314.1592 square inches. Its volume is 523.598 cubic inches.

    Here is a sphere two inches in diameter. Its surface area is 12.5663 square inches. Its volume is 4.1887 cubic inches.

    Here is a sphere 0.25 or a quarter inch in diameter. Its surface area is 0.19634 square inches. Its volume is 0.00818 cubic inches in volume.


    If this is the first time you have heard of this, I will admit it may take some time to work its magic on you. It took some time to work its way into my heart too.

    However if you know anything about pneumatics and hydraulics. You know that surface area and pressure make all the difference in the way things work or do not work. The same is true on the subatomic level. The force, cosmic or ambient radiation can apply to protons, is exponentially as great per square inch as the force these rays can apply to a larger object. Like a human or a planet.

    As you may know there is not actual physical bonds between atoms. It is a force. This force is so great because of the surface area to volume of the proton. A proton that contains electrons. A proton contains electrons, just like the ambient radiation that bombards it, contains electrons. Creating a repelling force, of these similar sub atomic particles, much more powerful, because of the amazing ratio of the protons surface area to volume.

    It does give the appearance, of some kind of "attraction". And for young kids and lazy adults, it is not going to kill you to say that magnets attract, or atoms attract. But if you are an up and coming scientist, it is just to immature to say attraction, in any scientific sense of the word.

    At least in my opinion.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Here are a few more interesting real things you can check out.

    When matter is put under pressure. It tends to expand at some point. Now from all we know about magnets, when we move them apart they become weaker.

    If that was the case with matter, it would come apart rather quickly. So we can by just observing metal and other substances in day to day life. See how there must be a repulsive force at work in the material, by observation. Pushing the metal together. Not subject to a slight increase in distance between the atoms.

    Because matter tends to exert pressures back against a force, with increasing strength against the force. Not a depleting strength, like most magnets would.

    As the atoms are pressed closer together, on one axis, the atoms on the other axis must be moving apart from one another. And you can see this in real life, as you crush metal. Yet the metal is strengthened across this axis. So we can really demonstrate that the metal must be repelling. And also that the metal in all likely hood is being pressed together. Not pulled together.

    With a substance like lead we can show that its hardness does not change. So there is no way a stronger bond could be created, by physical working of the metal. Yet the metal expands and can support more weight. As the metal gets larger, it is put under more pressure, by ambient radiation pressing the atoms together.

    Because if attraction force existed, it could only be as strong as the weakest link across a piece of material. However compressive or repulsive forces holding metal together, would explain the strength of metal.

    Two magnets no mater how powerful only exhibit an exponentially small strength compared to strength created by atomic pressures. The reason is that magnets are large bodies, and do not have the ability to make use of the small proton for creating high pressures.

    But atoms are under so much pressure, they cannot be separated easily, while there is so much pressure upon them.

    We know when watching gravity and magnets, that large is what counts. Yet the forces of gravity are nothing compared to the atomic pressures on protons and atoms. It might be hard to explain such a small object causing any kind of force if we expect to explain its effect like magnetism or gravity. Or the bad word attraction.

    But if you use the formula for a proton spheres area and volume, and bombarding electrons for the pressure. You might see that it could easily be explained.

    When matter is pulled apart this effect becomes even more obvious. Because often as the atoms are moving apart from one another. The metal holds its strength. When a magnet or gravity would give, in those situations.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  12. #11  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You are suggesting attraction does not exist?

    I reccomend you take a look at two magnets. They quite clearly attract each other. Another example would be charged polythene strips, which are quite clearly not magnetic.

    Correct, the strong nuclear force has not been properly explained. It has, however, been procen to exist, such as in nuclear fusion and alpha decay.

    Neutrons, however:

    there is deffinitely a particle which is present in the nucleus of almost all atoms with a mass almost the same as a protons, but with no charge.

    In high-energy reactions, this particle has been shown to consist of 3 further particles; two of which have a charge of -5.33x10^-20C and about a third of the mass of a proton and one of which has a charge of 1.067x10^-19C and a similar mass.

    So, yeah, I'm fairly sure the neutron exists. This is not to say it is indivisible, though.
    Just scan this if it is not pleasing disregard it. It is how I was taught about the atom, from people who did not believe the atom should be hidden from Americans
    I am not american.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Take another look at two magnets. You have been pounded with the words "they are attracting one another". However there is actually repulsion between them, as they move towards one another. If there was not, they would in a fraction of an inch, reach speeds that would vaporize them as they collided.
    Yet all the same, there is a force which causes them to move together. This is called attraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    There is just less repulsion between two magnets who's polls are of opposite polarity, and move towards one another or attempt to.
    So... there is a force which is causing them to move together to lessen the repulsive forces? Again, attraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The yuppie scientists have been playing resentful word games for a very long time. I almost cannot blame them. They will probably never be scientists or enjoy real science from my own actual experience with them. They just need to be spanked.
    You are completely ignoring 200 years of evidence from very reliable sources and providing no evidence to support your own pseudoscience. Who needs a spanking, sorry?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you look at protons/matter, they can either be short of electrons/electricity or they can be abundant with electrons/electricity. So their charge is relevant to the amount of free electrons surrounding them in their proximity.
    Then how can there possibly be such a thing as a positive charge? Why do two particles in a vacuum move towards each other instead of away? Why does an electron move towards a positron to the extent that they occupy the same space and cease to exist? Surely by your theory they should reach an equilibrium distance and begin to repell?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The proton was originally thought to be a sphere of electrons, pressed together by the natural, but strange ratio of surface area to volume.
    Er, no. The proton was originally thought to be a single sphere which filled the whole atom, with spaces in it where negative electrons were. It was called the 'plumb pudding' model.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Created by the tiny sphere of the proton.
    The volume of electrons in the proton is so small compared to the massive surface area, that the ambient radiation that bombards all matter, presses matter together, and keeps it under pressure. Has a fascinating effect, in creating what appears to be attraction between atoms.
    See the above about electron-positron interaction.

    Any evidence for this 'ambient radiation'?

    Also, try gravity. And the strong and weak nuclear forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But there is no attraction that I have ever seen, or been shown. No explanation of attraction that is plausible. You can play word games. But you cannot be scientific and explain attraction or attraction forces.
    Nor can you be scientific and explain the lack of them.

    I can demonstrate that attraction does exist but not provide a mechanism.
    You are demonstrating that it does exist, and considering that proof that it doesn't.

    Not a very logical arguement you are forming...

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Universal Scientists were being ridiculed by spoiled brats that did not care about science. Universal Scientists could not explain to these spoiled brats how, a sphere of electrons, electrons that were repelling one another even within the sphere, the proton.
    Wait, so electrons and protons have the same charge, now?

    How about positrons and anti-protons?

    And how do explain their interaction with a magnetic field (they are deflected in opposite directions)

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Could be contained in a structure called a proton. A proton push comes to shove is abundant with electrons. So it is actually a positive electrical force, according to Benjamin Franklin. At this time he was still the boss of electricity.
    ...Yes, a protons is positively charged. Is this your revelation?

    I can tell you it's charge, as well; 1.6x10^-19 coulombs.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When a proton is smashed/disintegrated during an explosion you can see just how abundant it is with electrons. And that indeed these electrons do posses a repulsive charge against all things, when not contained in the sphere, the proton.
    Yes. This is a result of W bosons and the weak nuclear force. You will also note that overall charge and lepton number is not changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Or even while contained in the proton sphere. Because when matter is put under pressure. It is the repulsion of the electrons that maintains the force to keep the substance from collapsing.
    Repulsion makes matter stick together? Really? If they repell that strongly against each other, there would need to be a force holding them together. We could call this, say, attraction?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Take a look at the ratios for different sized spheres.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Here is a sphere 10 inches in diameter. Its surface area is 314.1592 square inches. Its volume is 523.598 cubic inches.

    Here is a sphere two inches in diameter. Its surface area is 12.5663 square inches. Its volume is 4.1887 cubic inches.

    Here is a sphere 0.25 or a quarter inch in diameter. Its surface area is 0.19634 square inches. Its volume is 0.00818 cubic inches in volume.
    What is this proving?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If this is the first time you have heard of this, I will admit it may take some time to work its magic on you. It took some time to work its way into my heart too.
    Magic as well, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    However if you know anything about pneumatics and hydraulics. You know that surface area and pressure make all the difference in the way things work or do not work. The same is true on the subatomic level. The force, cosmic or ambient radiation can apply to protons, is exponentially as great per square inch as the force these rays can apply to a larger object. Like a human or a planet.
    Pressure is caused by forces of attraction pushing particles against one another. Without forces of attraction, there is no force, so by the equation for pressure there is no pressure applied. Sorry.

    pressure = force/area

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    As you may know there is not actual physical bonds between atoms. It is a force. This force is so great because of the surface area to volume of the proton.
    What force? You said there was no force of attraction...

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A proton that contains electrons.
    Explain ionisation. And ionic compounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A proton contains electrons, just like the ambient radiation that bombards it, contains electrons. Creating a repelling force, of these similar sub atomic particles, much more powerful, because of the amazing ratio of the protons surface area to volume.
    Again with the SA:vol ratio. How is that relavant?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It does give the appearance, of some kind of "attraction".
    You are saying there is a force pulling particles together, but it is not attraction? Look for the definition of attraction, my friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for young kids and lazy adults, it is not going to kill you to say that magnets attract, or atoms attract. But if you are an up and coming scientist, it is just to immature to say attraction, in any scientific sense of the word.
    It is immature to deny a 200 year old theory which has been experimentally proven.

    At least in my opinion.


    Sincerely,


    Drowsy turtle
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman danacus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32
    Well said Drowsy!
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    You are suggesting attraction does not exist?

    I reccomend you take a look at two magnets. They quite clearly attract each other. Another example would be charged polythene strips, which are quite clearly not magnetic.

    Correct, the strong nuclear force has not been properly explained. It has, however, been procen to exist, such as in nuclear fusion and alpha decay.

    Neutrons, however:

    there is deffinitely a particle which is present in the nucleus of almost all atoms with a mass almost the same as a protons, but with no charge.

    In high-energy reactions, this particle has been shown to consist of 3 further particles; two of which have a charge of -5.33x10^-20C and about a third of the mass of a proton and one of which has a charge of 1.067x10^-19C and a similar mass.

    So, yeah, I'm fairly sure the neutron exists. This is not to say it is indivisible, though.
    Just scan this if it is not pleasing disregard it. It is how I was taught about the atom, from people who did not believe the atom should be hidden from Americans
    I am not american.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Take another look at two magnets. You have been pounded with the words "they are attracting one another". However there is actually repulsion between them, as they move towards one another. If there was not, they would in a fraction of an inch, reach speeds that would vaporize them as they collided.
    Yet all the same, there is a force which causes them to move together. This is called attraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    There is just less repulsion between two magnets who's polls are of opposite polarity, and move towards one another or attempt to.
    So... there is a force which is causing them to move together to lessen the repulsive forces? Again, attraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The yuppie scientists have been playing resentful word games for a very long time. I almost cannot blame them. They will probably never be scientists or enjoy real science from my own actual experience with them. They just need to be spanked.
    You are completely ignoring 200 years of evidence from very reliable sources and providing no evidence to support your own pseudoscience. Who needs a spanking, sorry?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you look at protons/matter, they can either be short of electrons/electricity or they can be abundant with electrons/electricity. So their charge is relevant to the amount of free electrons surrounding them in their proximity.
    Then how can there possibly be such a thing as a positive charge? Why do two particles in a vacuum move towards each other instead of away? Why does an electron move towards a positron to the extent that they occupy the same space and cease to exist? Surely by your theory they should reach an equilibrium distance and begin to repell?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The proton was originally thought to be a sphere of electrons, pressed together by the natural, but strange ratio of surface area to volume.
    Er, no. The proton was originally thought to be a single sphere which filled the whole atom, with spaces in it where negative electrons were. It was called the 'plumb pudding' model.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Created by the tiny sphere of the proton.
    The volume of electrons in the proton is so small compared to the massive surface area, that the ambient radiation that bombards all matter, presses matter together, and keeps it under pressure. Has a fascinating effect, in creating what appears to be attraction between atoms.
    See the above about electron-positron interaction.

    Any evidence for this 'ambient radiation'?

    Also, try gravity. And the strong and weak nuclear forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But there is no attraction that I have ever seen, or been shown. No explanation of attraction that is plausible. You can play word games. But you cannot be scientific and explain attraction or attraction forces.
    Nor can you be scientific and explain the lack of them.

    I can demonstrate that attraction does exist but not provide a mechanism.
    You are demonstrating that it does exist, and considering that proof that it doesn't.

    Not a very logical arguement you are forming...

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Universal Scientists were being ridiculed by spoiled brats that did not care about science. Universal Scientists could not explain to these spoiled brats how, a sphere of electrons, electrons that were repelling one another even within the sphere, the proton.
    Wait, so electrons and protons have the same charge, now?

    How about positrons and anti-protons?

    And how do explain their interaction with a magnetic field (they are deflected in opposite directions)

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Could be contained in a structure called a proton. A proton push comes to shove is abundant with electrons. So it is actually a positive electrical force, according to Benjamin Franklin. At this time he was still the boss of electricity.
    ...Yes, a protons is positively charged. Is this your revelation?

    I can tell you it's charge, as well; 1.6x10^-19 coulombs.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When a proton is smashed/disintegrated during an explosion you can see just how abundant it is with electrons. And that indeed these electrons do posses a repulsive charge against all things, when not contained in the sphere, the proton.
    Yes. This is a result of W bosons and the weak nuclear force. You will also note that overall charge and lepton number is not changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Or even while contained in the proton sphere. Because when matter is put under pressure. It is the repulsion of the electrons that maintains the force to keep the substance from collapsing.
    Repulsion makes matter stick together? Really? If they repell that strongly against each other, there would need to be a force holding them together. We could call this, say, attraction?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Take a look at the ratios for different sized spheres.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Here is a sphere 10 inches in diameter. Its surface area is 314.1592 square inches. Its volume is 523.598 cubic inches.

    Here is a sphere two inches in diameter. Its surface area is 12.5663 square inches. Its volume is 4.1887 cubic inches.

    Here is a sphere 0.25 or a quarter inch in diameter. Its surface area is 0.19634 square inches. Its volume is 0.00818 cubic inches in volume.
    What is this proving?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If this is the first time you have heard of this, I will admit it may take some time to work its magic on you. It took some time to work its way into my heart too.
    Magic as well, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    However if you know anything about pneumatics and hydraulics. You know that surface area and pressure make all the difference in the way things work or do not work. The same is true on the subatomic level. The force, cosmic or ambient radiation can apply to protons, is exponentially as great per square inch as the force these rays can apply to a larger object. Like a human or a planet.
    Pressure is caused by forces of attraction pushing particles against one another. Without forces of attraction, there is no force, so by the equation for pressure there is no pressure applied. Sorry.

    pressure = force/area

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    As you may know there is not actual physical bonds between atoms. It is a force. This force is so great because of the surface area to volume of the proton.
    What force? You said there was no force of attraction...

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A proton that contains electrons.
    Explain ionisation. And ionic compounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    A proton contains electrons, just like the ambient radiation that bombards it, contains electrons. Creating a repelling force, of these similar sub atomic particles, much more powerful, because of the amazing ratio of the protons surface area to volume.
    Again with the SA:vol ratio. How is that relavant?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It does give the appearance, of some kind of "attraction".
    You are saying there is a force pulling particles together, but it is not attraction? Look for the definition of attraction, my friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And for young kids and lazy adults, it is not going to kill you to say that magnets attract, or atoms attract. But if you are an up and coming scientist, it is just to immature to say attraction, in any scientific sense of the word.
    It is immature to deny a 200 year old theory which has been experimentally proven.

    At least in my opinion.


    Sincerely,


    Drowsy turtle


    Humor me here for a moment. Lets say you hate this girl, but you get drunk and she gets pregnant, and her father gets the shotgun out, and off to the chapel you go.
    Now it may appear to many that you were attracted to this girl and therefore wanted to marry her. However we know the shotgun was the repulsive force involved in getting you two together. Ha-ha.

    Well the same is true of atoms. If you are saying "OK there is no such thing as attraction force between the magnets and they are just pushed closer together" fine. That is a word game. But if you are saying there is some attraction force present, then you need to check the definitions of attraction.


    On our planet at sea level if you remove the air from a suction cup, we can create about fifteen pounds per square inch, against the cup, and against the window, we stick the cup to.

    If our planet had only eight psi of atmospheric pressure, we could only apply eight pounds of force per square inch, against the cup and eight pounds of force, per square inch, against the window. Once we created a near perfect vacuum.

    So right off, we see what dominates vacuum or what some call attraction. Even though the only real scientific force is pressure. Or a lessoning of pressure to make the dominant pressure more noticeable.

    If we were in space a vacuum cup would not work.

    If we increased the pressure on earth or in a room, to thirty five pounds pre square inch, and vacuumed out the suction cup while it was upon a piece of glass, the suction cup would be pressed to the glass with thirty five pounds of force, per square inch, and the window would be pressed to the suction cup with thirty five pounds of force, per square inch.

    Pressure is the motivating force, when dealing with areas of high or low pressure. High or low voltage. Gravity, magnetism or any force in the Universe.


    Consider you would probably have to be from America, to know about the real bombs that they have claimed they did not want the world to know about. Benjamin Franklin could have ended the world a long time ago. But he was an inventor, a teacher, a doctor a scientist.


    Atoms are being pushed together with such a tremendous force, that most never really measure it or understand it. Look at the strength of some metal. Only external pressure could cause those kinds of effects.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    From all of Benjamin Franklin's work, work that was very good. I mean very good. Very new, very bold, very different.

    He was stating that the only thing that mattered was an abundance of electrons in one place compared to another. This was all that created, charge. He was and still is the best scientist I have ever seen or heard about.

    He stated that matter was in fact electricity. Just electricity, contained in a structure. Today called protons and atoms.

    That is what the World Wars were about. This total understanding of matter. Our Universe. Socrates had no doubts about what had to be done with knowledge, neither did George Washington.

    "Nothing deserves your utter most patronage, more then the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness". George Washington.

    It is just coming out now that Socrates was the founder of Universal Science. Universal Science, was truth to oneself, he believed that would allow for real science to take place. In fact without it he claimed there could be no science, as there was none in his day.
    Socrates was also a scientist and mathematician. But dedicated his life to creating individuals that were not afraid to see that a whole nation cold be wrong.
    He was able to bring his students to a state of contentment with their own knowledge and achievements. That allowed them to face how stranded and without true friends they were. And he gave them the tools to enlighten others.

    Sure they killed him. But that is a small price to pay for truth. And the major advancements he brought about overnight. Ha-ha.

    During the World Wars. Poor diplomats, crooked diplomats, diplomats on the take. Diplomats working for or blackmailed to the other side. Presidents, Senators and congressmen, with personal agenda, embarrassing behavior, debts, crime, murder, kidnapping, extortion, racketeering, to hide, were to blame for the coverups.
    Believe it or not these types were a little paranoid about what people like themselves might do with power. So they tried to hide if for themselves. Ha-ha. They were not alone. The other side felt the same way. Go figure.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  16. #15  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Humor me here for a moment. Lets say you hate this girl, but you get drunk and she gets pregnant, and her father gets the shotgun out, and off to the chapel you go.
    Now it may appear to many that you were attracted to this girl and therefore wanted to marry her. However we know the shotgun was the repulsive force involved in getting you two together. Ha-ha.

    Well the same is true of atoms. If you are saying "OK there is no such thing as attraction force between the magnets and they are just pushed closer together" fine. That is a word game. But if you are saying there is some attraction force present, then you need to check the definitions of attraction.
    Irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    On our planet at sea level if you remove the air from a suction cup, we can create about fifteen pounds per square inch, against the cup, and against the window, we stick the cup to.

    If our planet had only eight psi of atmospheric pressure, we could only apply eight pounds of force per square inch, against the cup and eight pounds of force, per square inch, against the window. Once we created a near perfect vacuum.

    So right off, we see what dominates vacuum or what some call attraction. Even though the only real scientific force is pressure. Or a lessoning of pressure to make the dominant pressure more noticeable.

    If we were in space a vacuum cup would not work.

    If we increased the pressure on earth or in a room, to thirty five pounds pre square inch, and vacuumed out the suction cup while it was upon a piece of glass, the suction cup would be pressed to the glass with thirty five pounds of force, per square inch, and the window would be pressed to the suction cup with thirty five pounds of force, per square inch.

    Pressure is the motivating force, when dealing with areas of high or low pressure. High or low voltage. Gravity, magnetism or any force in the Universe.
    However, you need a force to cause the pressure to start with. Pressure is measured in Pa, or N/mē (or PSI, if you prefer). The mass, in kg or pounds, is caused by an objects weight acting within a gravitational field. That is why things fall. Pressure is, therefore, caused by a force acting on an inpermiable surface.

    Pressure only acts, as a result, on particles which are trapped within an enclosed space. Or it can be caused by gravity, where each layer of particles above the previous acts as the impermiable layer.

    If you are saying pressure is the only force, then all that would be possible for anything ever is to spread out. I have survived to write this, so I can assume this is not true.

    To summarise for you, pressure is not the compressive force, it is the reaction. It therefore only acts as a repelling force.

    Sources are always good, you should provide some.

    Pressure is an effect which occurs when a force is applied on a surface. The symbol of pressure is p (lower case).

    Formula
    Conjugate variables
    of thermodynamics
    Pressure Volume
    (Stress) (Strain)
    Temperature Entropy
    Chem. potential Particle no.

    Mathematically:

    p = F/A

    where:

    p is the pressure,
    F is the normal force,
    A is the area.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Consider you would probably have to be from America, to know about the real bombs that they have claimed they did not want the world to know about. Benjamin Franklin could have ended the world a long time ago. But he was an inventor, a teacher, a doctor a scientist.
    ?! You've lost me there.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Atoms are being pushed together with such a tremendous force, that most never really measure it or understand it. Look at the strength of some metal. Only external pressure could cause those kinds of effects.
    As I said, pressure is not the compressive force, it is the reaction. External pressure means nothing, unless you are referring to a 'balloon inside a balloon' situation?

    Also, tell me, what is an atom? What holds it together?

    Particle collisions have shown that the atom is not fundamental, and many many many experiments have shown the mass of the atom, and it's components. Try to deny this, I dare you.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Don't wear yourself out Drowsy, William is well known in these parts as being rather eccentric.
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Humor me here for a moment. Lets say you hate this girl, but you get drunk and she gets pregnant, and her father gets the shotgun out, and off to the chapel you go.
    Now it may appear to many that you were attracted to this girl and therefore wanted to marry her. However we know the shotgun was the repulsive force involved in getting you two together. Ha-ha.

    Well the same is true of atoms. If you are saying "OK there is no such thing as attraction force between the magnets and they are just pushed closer together" fine. That is a word game. But if you are saying there is some attraction force present, then you need to check the definitions of attraction.
    Irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    On our planet at sea level if you remove the air from a suction cup, we can create about fifteen pounds per square inch, against the cup, and against the window, we stick the cup to.

    If our planet had only eight psi of atmospheric pressure, we could only apply eight pounds of force per square inch, against the cup and eight pounds of force, per square inch, against the window. Once we created a near perfect vacuum.

    So right off, we see what dominates vacuum or what some call attraction. Even though the only real scientific force is pressure. Or a lessoning of pressure to make the dominant pressure more noticeable.

    If we were in space a vacuum cup would not work.

    If we increased the pressure on earth or in a room, to thirty five pounds pre square inch, and vacuumed out the suction cup while it was upon a piece of glass, the suction cup would be pressed to the glass with thirty five pounds of force, per square inch, and the window would be pressed to the suction cup with thirty five pounds of force, per square inch.

    Pressure is the motivating force, when dealing with areas of high or low pressure. High or low voltage. Gravity, magnetism or any force in the Universe.
    However, you need a force to cause the pressure to start with. Pressure is measured in Pa, or N/mē (or PSI, if you prefer). The mass, in kg or pounds, is caused by an objects weight acting within a gravitational field. That is why things fall. Pressure is, therefore, caused by a force acting on an inpermiable surface.

    Pressure only acts, as a result, on particles which are trapped within an enclosed space. Or it can be caused by gravity, where each layer of particles above the previous acts as the impermiable layer.

    If you are saying pressure is the only force, then all that would be possible for anything ever is to spread out. I have survived to write this, so I can assume this is not true.

    To summarise for you, pressure is not the compressive force, it is the reaction. It therefore only acts as a repelling force.

    Sources are always good, you should provide some.

    Pressure is an effect which occurs when a force is applied on a surface. The symbol of pressure is p (lower case).

    Formula
    Conjugate variables
    of thermodynamics
    Pressure Volume
    (Stress) (Strain)
    Temperature Entropy
    Chem. potential Particle no.

    Mathematically:

    p = F/A

    where:

    p is the pressure,
    F is the normal force,
    A is the area.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Consider you would probably have to be from America, to know about the real bombs that they have claimed they did not want the world to know about. Benjamin Franklin could have ended the world a long time ago. But he was an inventor, a teacher, a doctor a scientist.
    ?! You've lost me there.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Atoms are being pushed together with such a tremendous force, that most never really measure it or understand it. Look at the strength of some metal. Only external pressure could cause those kinds of effects.
    As I said, pressure is not the compressive force, it is the reaction. External pressure means nothing, unless you are referring to a 'balloon inside a balloon' situation?

    Also, tell me, what is an atom? What holds it together?

    Particle collisions have shown that the atom is not fundamental, and many many many experiments have shown the mass of the atom, and it's components. Try to deny this, I dare you.
    In a way I like how you combat me because it lets me see where your understanding is. I do not really like to battle with individuals. But I do love to come to some mutual understanding with them. So we can both gain from each others collective lives work.

    If you are honest you will admit that what I am saying about the Universe being under pressure is rather new to you. So it may take a few days of beating it around, until it begins to absorb or transform you. Ha-ha.

    Let me offer some analogies in real life that you can relate to the Universe.

    If you know about diodes. Or insulators. You know they need a difference in electromotive force to work. And they need a difference in electromotive force to function.

    What takes place is a gradient of abundance of electrons to a shortage of electrons. In either an insulator or a diode. Right at the source of the electrons entering into the diode, there are a lot of electrons. However if the diode is setup to stop this flow. You will note that over some distance, the abundance of electrons will, decrease. So that on the other side, the shortage of electrons does not allow the abundance of electrons, to be pushed across this area, into the shortage. The reason is that electrons stop the electrons. Or electrons repel electrons. That is how insulators and diodes stop electricity/electrons. They create a gradient or a ramp of an abundance of electrons to a shortage of electrons. That does not allow the flow of electrons.


    Do you see the gradient involved.

    Look at our planet, and the atmosphere around it. You can see that it gets thinner and thinner as you move upwards. That is another gradient, or a ramping of pressure. That keeps the high pressure down low. And does not let it fly off into space.

    We know out in space there is fractionally small amounts of air pressure. Slowly and surely the pressure increases. Each layer adding to the one under it. Until we have about fifteen pounds per square inch upon us. Yet there is no tank, no vessel containing this pressure. Just the ramping of minute pressure, to a greater pressure.

    Now we know we are in a huge universe. It was taught to me that at the edges exist pure free electrons, and that is why we cannot see beyond the edges of the universe. Because these none structural, subatomic particles block all communications. Because it was also taught to me that we need atoms, the structures created by the protons (balls of electrons) to allow the radiations that communicate all things a path to travel through.
    Like electricity needs a wire or substance to travel through.

    In other words nothing communicates without, matter to communicate through. A radiation would just be turned away from any solid object if it was in a total vacuum. We cannot produce a total vacuum within the universe.

    I was also taught that the electron was the only subatomic particle in the Universe. It repelled all things. Even the structures that are created by it, atoms the proton.
    The electron is indestructible, and never actually touches another electron. I was taught that I had never actually touched another human being before. And it rang true with my understanding. Comical but it rings true.

    My point was the size of the Universe. Could such a vast area, create the gradient necessary to cause the incredible pressure matter is under? I say everyday.

    We are in an electrical effect. Matter can be hurled from zero to infinity, electrically. Often without damaging the structure.

    The really great scientists admitted we will never see an electron. And they stated that it was because, in order to see an electron, it would take an infinite number of electrons to carry the vision of the single electron in question, through and past huge atoms, to bring a picture of it to you. So it is just a scientific impossibility to ever see one.

    I am not getting off the subject here at all. I am just offering you what I have been taught by those that, thought everyone should understand the atom and the Universe. They were very good scientists. And they were the individuals that put us on the moon. With these missing details it might become more apparent how things really work. And what the law makers did to hide the atom.

    As I said you might have to let this roll around for a while. I am not saying believe me. I am saying take a good look at the basics I claim exist. And try to dispute them.

    I am telling you it is all pressure in the Universe. And I am not alone on this point. Many do know what I know. They just do not wish to keep slamming into the disrespectful sorts, fighting it, just to share it with them.

    For me I feel it is the only way to make a better world.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  19. #18  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Let me offer some analogies in real life that you can relate to the Universe.

    If you know about diodes. Or insulators. You know they need a difference in electromotive force to work. And they need a difference in electromotive force to function.

    What takes place is a gradient of abundance of electrons to a shortage of electrons. In either an insulator or a diode. Right at the source of the electrons entering into the diode, there are a lot of electrons. However if the diode is setup to stop this flow. You will note that over some distance, the abundance of electrons will, decrease. So that on the other side, the shortage of electrons does not allow the abundance of electrons, to be pushed across this area, into the shortage. The reason is that electrons stop the electrons. Or electrons repel electrons. That is how insulators and diodes stop electricity/electrons. They create a gradient or a ramp of an abundance of electrons to a shortage of electrons. That does not allow the flow of electrons.
    Then explain to me why exposed wires in a vacuum, or near vacuum, do not lose their conductivity?

    And why diodes conduct in one direction only?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Look at our planet, and the atmosphere around it. You can see that it gets thinner and thinner as you move upwards. That is another gradient, or a ramping of pressure. That keeps the high pressure down low. And does not let it fly off into space.
    But you see, without a force of attraction there is nothing keeping any of that in the atmosphere. Look at simple diffusion experiments - substances move along the concentration gradient from high to low concentrations, so the natural result of pressure without attractive forces would be for matter to spread out.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    We know out in space there is fractionally small amounts of air pressure. Slowly and surely the pressure increases. Each layer adding to the one under it. Until we have about fifteen pounds per square inch upon us. Yet there is no tank, no vessel containing this pressure. Just the ramping of minute pressure, to a greater pressure.
    Yes. And since there is no tank to contain it, we can only assume that the pressure is caused by gravity, yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Now we know we are in a huge universe. It was taught to me that at the edges exist pure free electrons, and that is why we cannot see beyond the edges of the universe. Because these none structural, subatomic particles block all communications. Because it was also taught to me that we need atoms, the structures created by the protons (balls of electrons) to allow the radiations that communicate all things a path to travel through.
    Like electricity needs a wire or substance to travel through.
    In other words nothing communicates without, matter to communicate through. A radiation would just be turned away from any solid object if it was in a total vacuum. We cannot produce a total vacuum within the universe.
    Nice thought for once, actually. But EM waves, which you are referring to, do not require a medium to pass through. Sound waves, however, could not travel past the edge of the universe because they rely on matter as a medium.

    The reason we cannot see beyond the edge of the universe, is it is too far away.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I was also taught that the electron was the only subatomic particle in the Universe. It repelled all things. Even the structures that are created by it, atoms the proton.
    The electron is indestructible, and never actually touches another electron. I was taught that I had never actually touched another human being before. And it rang true with my understanding. Comical but it rings true.
    Sorry, simply not true.

    1) Even if you think protons and neutrons are made of electrons (idiot javascript:emoticon('') ), and presumably their constituent quarks too, then what about W bosons, Z bosons, photons, muons, tau particles, neutrinos (all types)...

    Before judging the standard model of particle physics, please try reading and understanding it.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    My point was the size of the Universe. Could such a vast area, create the gradient necessary to cause the incredible pressure matter is under? I say everyday.
    This is meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    We are in an electrical effect. Matter can be hurled from zero to infinity, electrically. Often without damaging the structure.
    This too.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The really great scientists admitted we will never see an electron. And they stated that it was because, in order to see an electron, it would take in infinite number of electrons to carry the vision of the single electron in question, through and past huge atoms, to bring a picture of it to you. So it is just a scientific impossibility to ever see one.
    ?!

    Electrons are tiny, that is why we can't see them. They also act as waves much of the time. Please don't try to deny it, because I know you don't understand it to start with. If you want to know what I'm talking about, research the photoelectric effect, and wave-particle duality.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am not getting off the subject here at all. I am just offering you what I have been taught by those that, thought everyone should understand the atom and the Universe. They were very good scientists. And they were the individuals that put us on the moon. With these missing details it might become more apparent how things really work. And what the law makers did to hide the atom.
    Your theories will not show us how anything works. They completely lack understanding of fundamental concepts, and are based around a false assumption about the natures of pressure, charge and gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    As I said you might have to let this roll around for a while. I am not saying believe me. I am saying take a good look at the basics I claim exist. And try to dispute them.
    One of your basics appears to be that pressure holds things together. In fact, by definition, pressure is a force which pushes things apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am telling you it is all pressure in the Universe. And I am not alone on this point. Many do know what I know. They just do not wish to keep slamming into the disrespectful sorts, fighting it, just to share it with them.
    Show me some evidence and I will take it seriously. Your rambling ideas, I will not.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Ok, you seem to keep bringing up, that a vacuum, or a lack of pressure is the force at work in any situation.

    And on a very wordy kind of game like, play of words. You could construe that darkness does not exist without light. No one would be fat if no one was skinny. And things like that. But none of that is science.

    However if you actually observe real things at work up close. You can see what actually makes things go. I work with hydraulics and refrigeration on a daily basis.

    The maximum a vacuum will create for you on earth, is fifteen pounds per square inch.

    To create all the pressures and movements you see, around you we resort to pressure. Not vacuum.

    A vacuum does not suck anything anywhere. In fact what we do to create a vacuum is wait for the pressure still left in the vessel we are evacuating, to push some of the air into the rather empty pump veins, so it can be physically moved to another place. We displace air, to reduce the pressure in a vessel. We cannot suck it or pull it out with beams.

    After this air is removed, the air that is left can expand a bit more and fill the nearly empty cavity in the pump. But you can never totally evacuate a cavity.

    The way a pump ejects the fluid is either by centrifuge, or compression depending upon the pump. Both require pressure to work.


    I do not know if you know about well pumps, and water pumps. But if you ever try to pull water up with an empty hose, more then about 40 feet, the pump will only bring it up about 31 feet.

    Why because there is no more pressure on the water you are trying to raise. To force it up that high. The water will start to boil off in the hose on its way up to the pump.

    But if you increase the pressure on the water you are pumping, you can raise water hundreds of feet.
    A pump placed at the bottom, pushing water under pressure, upwards, can raise water hundreds of feet. A pump at the top creating a vacuum will only raise the water to the height, of the pressure the water is under from the atmosphere. About 36 feet.

    Each 27.67936 inches of water height, you wish to lift requires one pound per square inch.

    I have used a string of garden hoses to go up six stories and supply water to a core drill, on a new building going up. From a house across the street from the site. So we know that pressure works well for lifting water.


    You mentioned wires in a vacuum. Wires in the best vacuum we can create in this universe, are still surrounded by a lot of air. I mean an infinite amount of air molecules. So there is still dielectric air present.

    However in a vacuum wires, even insulated wires can send strange lightning bolt like rays and energy. To other objects of different polarity. Much like a cathode sends rays in a television tube.

    You mention gravity holding air to the earth. I say gravity pushes it to earth. You say it is sucked to earth.
    But we know that air cannot be held to the earth at 15 psi, unless we pack layer upon layer of it, miles high. So the effect of 15 psi is not just from gravity. But of the gradient effect of packing miles of air up. Creating a structure, and an effect.

    It is like diving in the bay, I can dive to the bottom, and come back up. No problem. But if I go into 180 feet of water, and come right back up I might die. Huge pressure difference. Same water, same gravity.

    So we know it is not the gravity creating two very different scenarios. It is the structure.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Drowsy Turtle

    You are claiming that EM waves can travel through a perfect vacuum. There is a problem with that.

    There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

    But we can through experimentation, show that if there was no material, to travel through, your communication would never get to another solid object. Because it would be repelled before it got there.

    That we can demonstrate. That is basic electricity.

    If we can jam a radio signal, or step on a radio signal. We can prove, that without matter, for the signal to travel through, you cannot send your signal.

    When you send radio through a vacuum, you are polarizing light gases. You are not just magically sending a beam or a ray, through nothing. You are using a conductor, the light gases of space. This is provable. And really should be known.

    I wanted to add that the same is true of light. You need a conductor for light to transmit.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Drowsy Turtle

    You are claiming that EM waves can travel through a perfect vacuum. There is a problem with that.

    There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
    How about between atoms?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But we can through experimentation, show that if there was no material, to travel through, your communication would never get to another solid object. Because it would be repelled before it got there.
    By what? And how is this demonstrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That we can demonstrate. That is basic electricity.
    Er.... As above.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If we can jam a radio signal, or step on a radio signal. We can prove, that without matter, for the signal to travel through, you cannot send your signal.
    Radio signals are jammed by filling the frequency with meaningless static, so the original message cannot be distinguished from the static. What does this have to do with EM waves and vacuums?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When you send radio through a vacuum, you are polarizing light gases. You are not just magically sending a beam or a ray, through nothing. You are using a conductor, the light gases of space. This is provable. And really should be known.
    Then you will be able to show me some absorbtion spectra for these 'light gases'? Unless they absorb all frequencies of EM waves, clearly they are not acting as a medium for the waves.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I wanted to add that the same is true of light. You need a conductor for light to transmit.
    Not so. Light can pass between atoms. Incidentally, light is an EM wave.


    Still waiting to see sources and evidence.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Stop this charade Billy!!! I've read several of your posts here and in other threads and 98% of it is utter nonsense. If Harold can't reason with you in matters of engineering, then you are hopeless.

    Drowsy Turtle- 152638387, William McCormick- 0
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    I second that motion! If I see Wild Willy as the post I just go on to the next one.
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Drowsy Turtle

    You are claiming that EM waves can travel through a perfect vacuum. There is a problem with that.

    There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
    How about between atoms?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But we can through experimentation, show that if there was no material, to travel through, your communication would never get to another solid object. Because it would be repelled before it got there.
    By what? And how is this demonstrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That we can demonstrate. That is basic electricity.
    Er.... As above.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If we can jam a radio signal, or step on a radio signal. We can prove, that without matter, for the signal to travel through, you cannot send your signal.
    Radio signals are jammed by filling the frequency with meaningless static, so the original message cannot be distinguished from the static. What does this have to do with EM waves and vacuums?

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When you send radio through a vacuum, you are polarizing light gases. You are not just magically sending a beam or a ray, through nothing. You are using a conductor, the light gases of space. This is provable. And really should be known.
    Then you will be able to show me some absorbtion spectra for these 'light gases'? Unless they absorb all frequencies of EM waves, clearly they are not acting as a medium for the waves.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I wanted to add that the same is true of light. You need a conductor for light to transmit.
    Not so. Light can pass between atoms. Incidentally, light is an EM wave.


    Still waiting to see sources and evidence.

    Between the atoms you have repulsion and you have the radiation that transmits all communications and effects we perceive. There is very little area between the atoms. This area is under the influence of the atoms and the high speed electrons communicating effects.

    We can show that if you take away atoms, the path for electrons. The atoms that create the channel that perpetuates their travel, by repulsion. That a void would allow an electron no force, to enter into matter if its path came across it.

    We know that electrons instantly can change direction, without applying any force to an object changing their direction.

    The truth is that matter decays in a very powerful vacuum. No matter, can just exist in a perfect vacuum. It would boil off, fly off. Anything to get away from the other matter.

    Corning Ware, one time was making a giant lens for a military project. They had it in a kiln, baking it. We actually were in a room with it.

    Well, the lens went parabolic during the baking. Those that watched it happen. Recounted that there were forces that they had never seen before in the kiln, that warped the lens. As the lens warped, it created an area, so hot at the focal point of the lens, that a ray was created in the kiln that took out a two block long kiln. It was part of the tour you got while going through Corning Wares plant.

    My point here is that if you create an area, so sparse in matter, you get horrific effects. Well the same is true of a vacuum. If you created a perfect vacuum, matter would just boil, beam, bake, explode into the vacuum. Nullifying the effect.

    Within the Universe there is really no area where a total vacuum exists. Even where atoms are sparse. There still exists the, rays of electrons. The ambient radiation that powers our Universe. And keeps it under pressure.

    I was told that the Universe is a target from all around, of a giant electron gun, created by the structure of the Universe. This effect is passing electrons into the Universe from every angle.
    Because of there speed they just harmlessly pass one another. Not enough time to effect one another. However just enough time for them to effect the atoms. The protons.

    I was taught as you create an area of free electrons in our universe, that ambient radiation is slowed, to create all the effects we know. In other words in the darkness of space lies the most powerful potential energy. And at the surface of the sun the least potential energy. Because the rays or better put, the abundance of free electrons near the sun, have slowed the ambient radiation down already, to the point to create the rays of the sun.
    Normally the high speed radiation just passes right through objects and you never know it happened.

    Again you do not have to believe this. But give it a chance. Many I know in real life are taken back by it. Because it does explain certain things that have no answer.

    The Universal Scientists really did use this understanding of ambient radiation to isolate the elements. Many specialists in electricity, radio, rays, also knew and understood the universe like this. For whatever reason the education system went with another set of ideas. To many individuals, these government funded ideas were not proven.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Stop this charade Billy!!! I've read several of your posts here and in other threads and 98% of it is utter nonsense. If Harold can't reason with you in matters of engineering, then you are hopeless.

    Drowsy Turtle- 152638387, William McCormick- 0
    Harold will sometimes side with me. Because I dredge up enough of the stuff he learned to corroborate what I am saying.

    I admit my stuff is not sanctioned by United States government. However you will note that the United States government promised to keep the secret of the atom from you. You have their word on that.

    You have my word on the fact that I will share the secret of the atom and the Universe with you.

    I get a lot of "67.8 percent of what you say Bill is wrong" or "99.999 percent of what you say Bill is wrong".

    Yet rarely will anyone take a chance at debating me on the fact alone. Because it starts to switch the burden of proof from the books they have read in school. To them actually exposing their beliefs and understanding.

    What I note is kind of funny, that often I get side arguments between others, showing that nobody knew to much about anything. Or that even the modern scientists have conflicting ideas about what someone is trying to bash me with as "iron clad science".

    I do not do what I do, to be a comedian. Or knock someone down to stand on them to look two inches taller. I am tired at the end of the day. I would though like for my friends, family and myself, to have a country that is once again science only. A truth for all kind of place.

    As it is now some adults holding a lot of responsibility. Are gauging the future on the success or failure of ponzi schemes. Some are building ponzi meters and ponzi graphs as we speak. I am sure it all seems very real and important to them. I just know better.

    I am suggesting that science is in a similar disarray, by all historic data we have about science during times of fraudulent, failing and untruthful governments.

    During these times there are pockets of truly amazing scientists. That are often bought off, silenced by laws, or loopholes in contracts.
    Sometimes there achievements are held high, and then suddenly they disappear for fifty years or more.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    I second that motion! If I see Wild Willy as the post I just go on to the next one.
    What is your thought about, orbiting electrons around an atom, you claim they are held there by attraction forces, somehow these attraction forces are able to give a small object made of steel, the ability to create repulsive forces, against hundreds of thousands of pounds of crushing force.

    I imagine a Satellite around the earth, and you claiming that if we brought another earth and another satellite together, that they would somehow repel one another, with attraction forces, you claim exist.


    I was taught as an honors student that matter was repulsive in nature. This was in accordance with Benjamin Franklin's teachings. I am stating that I believe protons are filled with electrons that are repulsing one another. I was taught that electrons cannot touch one another, because of there repulsive nature.
    And that the structure of the proton is what causes the protons to be different then electrons. Much like a tree is not like a wooden ship. Or a lump of coal is not a diamond.

    Same substances different structures, different properties.

    What are your thoughts on the subject here? A subject that will get back to isotopes if we get through it.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Drowsy Turtle.

    You mentioned light being electromagnetic in nature. To a Universal Scientist, all rays were electromagnetic.

    So I agree that light is electromagnetic. However light cannot, without atoms, as a conductor, move anywhere. It will stop cold.

    Between the atoms are traveling electrons. So it is not a perfect vacuum between the atoms.


    Benjamin Franklin ripped the English scientists apart with his observations about static electricity. And that it must be traveling between the atoms.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Drowsy Turtle,

    Diodes only conduct in one direction because, in one direction a pyramid type of abundance of electrons to a shortage of electrons is created. The base of the pyramid being the abundant with electron side of the diode, with the diode setup to stop the flow. And the top of the pyramid being the short of electron side of the power source or loop. One electron can slow or stop two, two electrons can slow or stop four. That is the principle of the diode and the insulator.

    Most people are killed by dielectrics not conductors, even if only by fright, fall or related injury.


    If this diode is reversed to the same loop, the electrons just conduct.

    It is something like little tiny mercury diodes setup inside.

    There are vacuum breaks and substances next to the vacuum, that in one direction let the electrons move through. In the other direction, a voltage is created internally that over distance blocks the flow of electricity.

    You have to understand that only electricity can stop electricity.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    William, is there any chance that one day you could provide some empirical evidence for any of your assertions? Something we could attempt to replicate? Scans from textbooks are worthless. Stories of your adventures are not compelling at all.

    Design an experiment that has the capacity to disprove one of your assertions. Do the experiment and detail your full methods and results here. Then we can (if practical) try to replicate it.

    Unless you prefer to continue making posts that amount to little more than "modern science is wrong" over and over again...
     

  31. #30  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Drowsy Turtle.

    You mentioned light being electromagnetic in nature. To a Universal Scientist, all rays were electromagnetic.

    So I agree that light is electromagnetic. However light cannot, without atoms, as a conductor, move anywhere. It will stop cold.

    Between the atoms are traveling electrons. So it is not a perfect vacuum between the atoms.
    This is true according to the more commonly accepted model, yes. But by your own theories, electrons are held within protons.

    But anyway, I won't try to prove anything using your theory. I'll just provide examples again (you are welcome to do the same).

    OK, how about de-excitation of electrons in an atom? Regardless of where they are, electrons move to lower energy levels and release photons corresponding to the energy they have lost. This is how matter cools down. My question for you is (and I know you won't actually answer this, or not satisfactarily) what matter acts as a medium when the photons leave the electrons?

    Or, from a physics point of view; diffraction - light diffracts in our atmosphere, red light more so than blue because of it's larger wavelength. Diffraction occurs when waves pass through a gap which is slightly larger than the wavelength of the wave (for transverse waves). Assuming that the waves are passing from atom to atom according to your theory, there is no gap for the waves to diffract through.

    You can, no doubt, provide some crazy idea to explain this. But you won't provide evidence, will you?

    Untill you can, you won't convince anyone.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  32. #31  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Drowsy Turtle,

    Diodes only conduct in one direction because, in one direction a pyramid type of abundance of electrons to a shortage of electrons is created. The base of the pyramid being the abundant with electron side of the diode, with the diode setup to stop the flow. And the top of the pyramid being the short of electron side of the power source or loop. One electron can slow or stop two, two electrons can slow or stop four. That is the principle of the diode and the insulator.

    Most people are killed by dielectrics not conductors, even if only by fright, fall or related injury.


    If this diode is reversed to the same loop, the electrons just conduct.

    It is something like little tiny mercury diodes setup inside.

    There are vacuum breaks and substances next to the vacuum, that in one direction let the electrons move through. In the other direction, a voltage is created internally that over distance blocks the flow of electricity.

    You have to understand that only electricity can stop electricity.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    "a voltage is created internally that over distance blocks the flow of electricity"

    ???

    Voltage is work potential (energy) per unit flow of electrons (current).

    A voltage of 5000000000000V is meaningless if electrons are not moving.

    You have failed to make a point at all regarding electricity in a vacuum. The majority of the flow of electrons occurs at or around the edge of the metal. Excluding electrostatic attraction, this would mean that electrons from a wire would diffuse at low atmospheric pressure. Since you say protons are made of electrons, thos would mean that anything you take into space would spread out instantly. I can assure you this is not so.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  33. #32 DEar Drowsy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    Hey you are wasing you time with this BS. Anchient Chinees Proverb: never argue with a fool for soon no one knows which is which.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •