Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 159 of 159
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: Electrons and energy

  1. #101  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    To Meteor Wayne.
    I will provide this answer to your post of the 30th June and that is, you should make the knowledge you possess available to NASA because judging from their reports, it appear to be perplexing to them regarding the out-gassing from those vents; especially from an asteroid that was photographed venting from an area facing away from the sun. In that regard, you may be more successful than I was when attempting to warn them regarding the expensive and futile attempt to detect reoccurring gravitationally induced Waves. Also, and possessing such knowledge then perhaps you may consider stating a thread on the subject and sharing the knowledge with others because this subject is well outside the discussion on Electrons and Energy.
    With regards to my knowledge and long time interest in asteroids and comets, then being only an interested person and not involved with the professional investigation of such bodies, I can only rely on the PhD who report on behalf of NASA.
    Are you aware that cometary nuclei/asteroids rotate? And that it takes time for the heat to flow in to the interior? Or is such a basic fact unknown to you?

    There is no mystery unless you can show me some, so this is my second request for you to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    .
    Last edited by GWN; July 2nd, 2012 at 12:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Hello again to John Galt.In reply to your belief that I was deliberately misunderstanding Meteor Wayne; then given the circumstances of his statement regarding my knowledge of comets and asteroids, then my reply was reasonable and relatively courteous. When I stated that and I quote; you should make the knowledge you possess available to NASA, end of quote; that statement was derived from his remarks concerning my and his knowledge of comets and asteroids; most of such knowledge would have been gleaned from NASA reports. Those reports from NASA indicated that the out-gassing from the central interior was not well understood. I refrained from a further extension of this thread at that time by introducing argument. It has become unfortunately apparent that there will be no evaluation of my paper based on the physical accuracy and probability of the conceptual explanations contained therein. However, some of the remainder of the content of the paper titled Matter and Associated Mysteries is provided so that it may stimulate a spark of curiosity and interest amongst the viewers and so perhaps enter into the discussion. .
    §5. 5 …. A Short Review of this Chapter – pp 73
    §5. 6 …. The Two Parts of Inertial Mass – pp 73
    Chapter 6 ……………………............. page 79

    Acceleration of an Electron
    §6. 1 …. Introduction – pp 79
    §6. 2 …. Examining Two Types of Acceleration Processes – pp 79
    §6. 3 …. The Affects of Acceleration on an Electron – pp 80
    §6. 4 …. A More Detailed Consideration of the Acceleration Process – pp 81
    §6. 5 …. More on The Rebalancing of Particle
    Force – pp 84
    Chapter 7…………………………….. page 91

    The Shape and Local Influence of an Electron.
    §7. 1 … Introduction – pp 91
    §7. 2 … Behavior at High Acceleration – pp 91
    Chapter 8…………………………….. page 97

    The Relationship Between Mass, Force, Acceleration,
    Velocity, Kinetic Energy and Time.
    §8. 1 …. Introduction – pp 97
    §8. 2 …. The Fundamentals of an Electron’s Acceleration – pp 97
    §8. 3 … P E, Particle Force and the Electron’s Acceleration. – pp 98
    §8. 4 …. A Comparison With an Accelerating Mass – pp 100

    §8. 5 … Changing the Balance of the Particle
    Force – pp 101
    Chapter 9…………………………….. page 105
    Coulomb Interaction – Another Test of the P E Concept

    §9. 1 … Introduction – pp 105
    §9. 2 …Coulomb Interaction – pp 105
    §9. 3 …Lines of Force – pp 106
    §9. 4 …The Interaction of the Dissimilar
    Electrons – pp 106
    §9. 5 …Description of a collision between
    Opposite Electrons – pp 108
    §9. 6 …Prior to the Collision – pp 111
    §9. 7 …The Residual Mass – pp 112
    §9. 8 …The Survival of Remnant Mass – pp 114
    §9. 9 …Pair Creation – pp 115
    §9. 10...The Trailing Inertial Field on a
    Non-spinning Negatron – pp 118
    Chapter 10…………………………… page 119
    Nucleons, Nuclear Force and Subsequent Mass Defect

    §10. 1 …. Introduction – p 119
    §10. 2 …. Formation of a Nucleon – p 119
    §10. 3…. Strong Nuclear Force – p 120
    §10. 4….Nuclear Force and the Extremes of the Gravitational Effect. – p 121
    §10. 5….The Transformation of a Neutron – p 122

    §10. 6 …. The Antibody of a Neutron – p 123
    §10. 7 …. The Embedded Positron – p 124
    §10. 8 …. The Rest Mass of Negatrons – p 125
    §10. 9 …. The Forbidden Molecular Ion – p 126
    §10. 10.... The Rest Mass of Nucleons Forming a
    Nucleus – p 128

    Chapter 11…………………………… Page 129
    Gravitation With Regards to the Earth and the Sun

    §11. 1 .... Introduction – p 129
    §11. 2 .... Modeling the Earth as a Gigantic
    Particle – p 129
    §11. 3 .... Cyclic Effect on Planetary Orbits – p 129
    §11. 4 ...The Solar System’s Galactic Orbit – p 130
    §11. 5 .... Support for the Proposed Mass

    Changes – p 133


    The paper titled Matter and Associated Mysteries is available for free download from the General Science Journal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    "What Universities are studying it? A cause other than solar radiation, that is. Which comets?
    BTW, I insist on an answer to this question.

    I've been studying comets for decades, and my knowledge of them, and their progeny, meteor showers, is quite thorough.

    Of course comets outgas more the closer they are to the sun, there is more solar radiation. Of course the gas is ejected from vents, you certainly wouldn't expect the ices that sublimate to be on the surface would you? That's just silly (except possibly for a comet making it's first trip in from the Oort cloud; they do tend to brighten at great distances from the sun as that surface layer disappates near the orbit of Jupiter) "

    So once again, when challenged to support your statement, you are unable to do so and move on to an unrelated subject. Very gutsy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Please excuse the empty post above that resulted from being instructed to shorten my post.
    Last edited by GWN; July 2nd, 2012 at 12:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    To Meteor Wayne.
    Regarding your post requiring am answer to your statement on infrared radiation from binary star groups; then if you go to Google and type; - binary star systems and infrared radiation - you will find references to the unsolved mysteries concerning the unknown source of their infrared radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    To Meteor Wayne and others.
    Only two persons supplying answers to my posts have viewed copies of my work and did not bother to read it before declaring an adverse reaction regarding its physical value.
    Others have required me to calculate infrared conditions on binary pulsars in an attempt to discredit the concept GTE; this is done without any knowledge of the information in the paper referred to. With regards to guts, I challenge all to read the complete paper then challenge the accuracy of the physics on which it is predicated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    To Meteor Wayne.
    Regarding your post requiring am answer to your statement on infrared radiation from binary star groups; then if you go to Google and type; - binary star systems and infrared radiation - you will find references to the unsolved mysteries concerning the unknown source of their infrared radiation.
    As usual, you ignore my question, and bring up something else. For the fourth time, what universities are studying causes other than solar radiation for the internal heating of comets? You said universities, so there must be more than one, yet you haven't answered in almost a week now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Others have required me to calculate infrared conditions on binary pulsars in an attempt to discredit the concept GTE; this is done without any knowledge of the information in the paper referred to.
    I did not require you to calculate anything. Your model predicts that infrared radiation is emitted from non-stationary gravitational fields; I merely asked you to explain why no such radiation has been detected from any of the binary systems we know of ( and there are plenty of them ). This observational fact invalidates your GTE.
    You still have not answered this very simple question.

    With regards to guts, I challenge all to read the complete paper then challenge the accuracy of the physics on which it is predicated.
    I challenged the accuracy of your physics by posing the above simple question. You chose not to reply, instead rambling on about people having required you to do maths. So what is it you want ?
    But since we're already at it, here's another challenge for you - where does the energy from your supposed GTE come from ? If GTE existed, then energy would be lost from aforementioned binary systems via infrared radiation, and their orbits would decay much more rapidly than is observed. Explain please ?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    To Meteor Wayne.
    Regarding your post requiring am answer to your statement on infrared radiation from binary star groups; then if you go to Google and type; - binary star systems and infrared radiation - you will find references to the unsolved mysteries concerning the unknown source of their infrared radiation.
    Please provide such a reference. I could not find any. All the sources of infrared radiation in binary systems that we know of are well understood and perfectly explained. There is no "unexplained" infrared signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    To Markus Hanke.
    Try typing: The Astrophysical Journal, Vol 190 p 339-347. And another at The Astrophysical Journal, Vol 187, p L75

    It would appear that there is mystery regarding wherefrom and from what the magnitude of measured infrared radiation originates.

    And no, you may not have asked for a mathematical estimation regarding infrared radiation from pulsar binaries, however there was such a demand in a post earlier in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post

    Try typing: The Astrophysical Journal, Vol 190 p 339-347. And another at The Astrophysical Journal, Vol 187, p L75
    It would appear that there is mystery regarding wherefrom and from what the magnitude of measured infrared radiation originates.
    I quote the article ( which is, by the way, from 1973 ! ) :

    "More energy is radiated in the infrared than by the visible star. We suggest that the infrared energy is produced by an M supergiant companion (...)"

    Later research made it clear that this is in fact a post-AGB type star, and there is nothing at all mysterious about the infrared radiation present. It was mysterious back in 1973 though ! Here is the explanation :

    1 Introduction

    The other one is the same, once again perfectly explainable by a supergiant companion star :

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19740049194

    It would appear you haven't done your research properly - I am still waiting for a reference of a source of unexplained infrared radiation in binary systems. Since your GTE is a general phenomenon connected to non-static gravitational fields, this radiation must be present in all binary systems. Please show us the observational evidence for that.

    And no, you may not have asked for a mathematical estimation regarding infrared radiation from pulsar binaries, however there was such a demand in a post earlier in this thread.
    And it is a perfectly reasonable demand. You propose this "theory", so you must deliver the maths that go with it.
    Do you see now why nobody is taking you seriously ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You have not responded to my question regarding where the extra energy for your infrared radiation / GTE is supposed to be coming from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    And you are still ignoring mine (I don'r blame you, because there is no answer to support your position, but be a man and admit it).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    And no, you may not have asked for a mathematical estimation regarding infrared radiation from pulsar binaries, however there was such a demand in a post earlier in this thread.
    While you ponder your answers to the various questions that have been asked, add the following to your list: Do you have any quantitative predictions at all? Do you have an actual theory (in the scientific, not colloquial, sense of the word), from which quantitative predictions can come, even in principle? If so, please present such quantitative predictions.

    If your theory can't make actual quantitative predictions, then it isn't actually a theory. It's just a fairy tale, indistinguishable experimentally from an infinity of other fairy tales. From the many handwaving posts you've made in this thread, one is led inevitably to the supposition that you don't have a theory. It's long past time for you to refute that supposition (and I don't mean by more handwaving; that will be taken as confirmation of the fairy tale charge).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    To Markus Hanke posts of the 6th July.And to Meteor Wayne post of the 6th July.
    Yes, Markus Hanke, you are correct regarding the later information removing the mystery involved with the earlier belief regarding that star having a companion; and yes my half hour spent researching was not sufficient. That was because of a lack of interest in events 300 light-years distant from earth. Even so, there was concern with regards the origin of infrared radiation that appeared to be origination from that star and therefore now is accepted as originating from a companion. Even so, and unless there is an ability to accurately measure the radiation originating from each star, there is a possibly of a masking of infrared radiation. I had a look at the reference you provided and don’t remember there being an estimation of the data required to show how much infrared radiation each star is supposed to generate. From my brief reading of the latest records concerning binary stars, there is predominance to finding infrared radiation that is referred to as anomalous and there are ongoing attempts to explain such cause.
    The experiment that was referred to regarding infrared radiation resulting from the GTE would be generated by the daily gravitational tidal actions of the moon that also gradually reduce the earth’s angular momentum; also, the annual effect expected from the earth’s small distance approaching and retreating from the sun has both a heating or cooling affect. Such a superimposed daily and annual effect small as it will be, would have a substantial affect because every particle of earth’s matter is simultaneously affected by the constantly changing gravitational effect of the moon and sun. The gravitational effect of the Great Planets is being disregarded in this reply, even so, their small affect would impose slight annual changes to the GTE. My paper supplies all answers that may arise from this post.

    In the paper and posts I have only referred to wavelength increases or decreases because regarding radiation expected from differing circumstances, the more violent events such as close but eccentric orbiting binary stars with mass-density as implied for neutron stars, would according to GTE result in intense short wave length radiation, and that referred to above and involving the GTE would produce only long but varying wavelength radiation.
    I would also refer you both to my reply to tk421 below.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Meteor Wayne, there is nothing manliness about admitting ones mistakes, that only involve common decency and a concern for the feelings of others that appear to be missing here judging from the unsubstantiated remarks provided near the beginning of this thread concerning myself and paper as this thread progressed.

    Re. Your demand to be informed of the university providing a grant to allow the study of out-gassing from asteroids or comets; my memory of that event is approximately two years old, however I believe it was the University of Adelaide. With regards to other Universities and if you reread my post, that statement was made on reasonable probability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    tk421The paper you so obviously despise according to your unsubstantiated statement concerning its lack of value to the knowledge and advancement of physics, and that has resulted in on interest regarding my paper (there has not been one down load) despite 1398 viewings. You must be quite proud of your achievement.Now let us examine your statements regarding the lack of worth of concepts that pertain to the fundamental dynamic nature of physical phenomena, such lack according to you resulting from the lack of parallel mathematical explanation.

    A woman sits at the controls of a radio-telescope at night in England; suddenly the telescope picks up identical signals that are coming in short intervals of time. The question then becomes what is producing these identical packets of electromagnetic energy? Little green men are not involved, therefore there is a need for a conceptual physical explanation. Much concern until the idea comes that because the signal appears to be originating from the Crab Nebula then perhaps they should submit the light originating from that nebula to stroboscopic analysis. A concept leading to an experiment that established the fact that the light signal from the Crab Nebular was pulsing at a similar rate, and so the concept of pulsars originated whilst not involving mathematics. The question then requiring answering was what physical phenomenon could account for such circumstances? Unfortunately there was a decision that the signal resulted from a rotating electromagnetic effect and so the lighthouse idea originated. It was then and only then that there was a need to involve mathematics to arrive at mass density and diameter of such a body. Concepts correct or otherwise involving physical phenomena are generally the catalyst that generates the interest to provide the mathematics pertaining thereto, such mathematics can be provided by those who have an interest in the phenomena conceptually explained.

    With regards to your question concerning my concepts presented in the Paper you were so quick to disparage and refer to as fairy stories, then if you have had the decency to quickly read all of the paper, then you would know the answer to the questions you demand to be answered.Even so and for the benefit of viewers, I will state that you would not have know that there is a difference between gravity and gravitation, and that difference is large. Also, you would not know approximately the magnitude of that difference or how gravity originates. Each of those concepts you call fairy stories lead to the next concept and all are interconnected and interdependent despite extending to and eventually providing a fundamental dynamic (the dynamics requiring reader imagination) concept of nuclear force and mass defect. By the way, mathematics is not required to provide the magnitude of gravity because that is presently unwittingly and indirectly known. Also I will cease waving my hands in your direction so slumber on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    tk421The paper you so obviously despise according to your unsubstantiated statement concerning its lack of value to the knowledge and advancement of physics, and that has resulted in on interest regarding my paper (there has not been one down load) despite 1398 viewings.


    So, advances in science are measured by the number of internet viewings, according to you, eh? Shall we compare 1398 viewings to the number of hits for articles about Lady Gaga?

    You must be quite proud of your achievement.
    I have no idea where you are getting this idea.

    Now let us examine your statements regarding the lack of worth of concepts that pertain to the fundamental dynamic nature of physical phenomena, such lack according to you resulting from the lack of parallel mathematical explanation.

    A woman sits at the controls of a radio-telescope at night in England; suddenly the telescope picks up identical signals that are coming in short intervals of time. The question then becomes what is producing these identical packets of electromagnetic energy?


    Good -- this tale starts with an experimental observation.

    Little green men are not involved, therefore there is a need for a conceptual physical explanation.
    Again, good.

    Much concern until the idea comes that because the signal appears to be originating from the Crab Nebula then perhaps they should submit the light originating from that nebula to stroboscopic analysis. A concept leading to an experiment that established the fact that the light signal from the Crab Nebular was pulsing at a similar rate, and so the concept of pulsars originated whilst not involving mathematics. The question then requiring answering was what physical phenomenon could account for such circumstances? Unfortunately there was a decision that the signal resulted from a rotating electromagnetic effect and so the lighthouse idea originated. It was then and only then that there was a need to involve mathematics to arrive at mass density and diameter of such a body.
    Almost, but not quite. A much better -- and relevant -- statement would have been as follows: Since many different "conceptual physical explanations" can generate a range of qualitative predictions with seemingly similar appeal, the "explanations" have to be developed further until they are able to make quantitative predictions that can be compared with the observations. Then the comparison would lead us to discard a number (perhaps all) of hypotheses. Prior to such quantitative comparisons, the conceptual physical explanations are, effectively, fairy tales. You persist in failing to understand that simple, fundamental point. You feel insulted when I and others point that out, but all we are telling you is how the scientific method works. All you have -- really, all you have -- are stories that satisfy you personally, but they do not rise to the level of science. You complain that I lack the "decency" to consider what you've written, but I have actually added to the "1398" count by actually skimming your writing in a vain effort to find anything in it that rises above the level of fairy tales. And despite repeated pleas for you to give us something quantitative, you steadfastly refuse. It is long past painfully clear that you have nothing quantitative. It's a fairy tale. Sorry if you consider that characterization pejorative, but it is simply a succinct and accurate description.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Meteor Wayne, there is nothing manliness about admitting ones mistakes, that only involve common decency and a concern for the feelings of others that appear to be missing here judging from the unsubstantiated remarks provided near the beginning of this thread concerning myself and paper as this thread progressed.

    Re. Your demand to be informed of the university providing a grant to allow the study of out-gassing from asteroids or comets; my memory of that event is approximately two years old, however I believe it was the University of Adelaide. With regards to other Universities and if you reread my post, that statement was made on reasonable probability.
    So in other words, you can not support your assertion, as I knew you could not, because it makes no sense. There's no shame in admitting that you can't back up what you said if you retract it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    From my brief reading of the latest records concerning binary stars, there is predominance to finding infrared radiation that is referred to as anomalous and there are ongoing attempts to explain such cause.
    Oh ya ? Perhaps you would care to substantiate your claim with some references, because I am not aware of any such anomaly.

    I had a look at the reference you provided and don’t remember there being an estimation of the data required to show how much infrared radiation each star is supposed to generate.
    You are missing the point. The issue at stake is that binary systems must generate more infrared radiation than the sum of their respective components in isolation, because of your GTE effect connected to the gravitational changes in the binary. And this must apply to every binary system.
    So where's the data to show that ?

    The experiment that was referred to regarding infrared radiation resulting from the GTE would be generated by the daily gravitational tidal actions of the moon that also gradually reduce the earth’s angular momentum;
    If this GTE was even remotely measurable in the earth-moon system, then its effect within a binary star system would be huge. By your logic every binary system out there would have to be literally blazing with infrared radiation over and above what the stars themselves produce.
    So where is the data to show that this is the case ?

    In the paper and posts I have only referred to wavelength increases or decreases because regarding radiation expected from differing circumstances, the more violent events such as close but eccentric orbiting binary stars with mass-density as implied for neutron stars, would according to GTE result in intense short wave length radiation, and that referred to above and involving the GTE would produce only long but varying wavelength radiation.
    Which brings us back to the aforementioned Taylor-Hulse-Binary, which is precisely such a system. So where is the surplus radiation ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Markus Hanke.
    Due to your insistence on demanding that the GTE should pertain equally to binary stars as to Jupiter’s moon Io or the Earth, I have spent time searching the internet for information and whilst it appears that the GTE can account for variation in brightness due to orbital characteristics; there is no way I am going to attempt any calculations regarding the magnitude or wavelength of expected radiation from stars forming binaries even if I had the ability to do so.

    As stated earlier, the GTE experiment would be inexpensive and simple to perform and the rubbish stated earlier in this thread concerning the reliability of the results being in doubt would not occur because the changes to the GTE experimental thermal results would be in coordination with and varying according to the phases of the moon and Earth’s position relative to the Sun; all from an insulated location deep underground.

    Unfortunately, it has become apparent that there is nobody on this forum prepared to read and attempt to understand my work and therefore be in a position to honestly criticise the fundamental physics on which it is based, therefore it is useless to continue. However, I have reread the posts and will defend some charges previously ignored mainly because it was my belief that common decency dictated that a critic should be conversant with that being criticised. The paper is the results of 68 years of effort to provide explanations of the various anomalies pertaining to the dynamic realities concerning an electron at the fundamental level, and therefore cannot be fairly criticised unless the paper is read and understood. If the work when read was not understood, I would have attempted to provide an explanation.

    I can understand why Strange does not easily suffer what he terms Crackpots; he stated whilst working for a boss he was required to let them down gently; he now enjoys his revenge. And you Markus Hanke, you have stated that you will not now read any work that is not conventional because you have read too many such attempts before now. Without knowing what parameters and conditions are necessary and involved to activate a GTE, you attempt to invalidate my work by invoking obscure exotic phenomena from many light years distant from earth.

    With regards to the opinions of my work stated by tk421 following his so-called skim read, his statements regarding no quantitative predictions is not correct as any fair minded reader would find; it would appear that my attempt to shine some light onto the unknown is too confronting for him and so rather than making an attempt to understand by the use of imagination (to transform words to represent their dynamic intent) he lazily refers to such work as a collection of fairy stories. Imagination is more important than knowledge. One of Professor Albert Einstein’s statements.
    As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Another of Professor Albert Einstein’s statements.

    The following is a quote from Strange’s June 12th post.
    So we have an undefined amount of energy from an undefined volume "condensed" (whatever that means) to another undefined volume producing energy of c2. But as nothing is defined and c2 does not have units of energy or mass it is hard to know what it is supposed to mean. Unquote.
    Strange, C2 equals the energy contained in one unit of virtual mass (or matter if you prefer the latter) that is located in a unit volume of space.Put simply, it means as explained in the many pages of explanation in the paper that; if you are referring to one unit of virtual (virtual because there is no possibility of generating the abilities of matter) matter or mass if you prefer, then the energy density content occupying (condensed, amassed, conglomerated, or whatever you prefer) that unit volume of space equals C2. Although presently it may appear that C2 have no units to represent force, never the less those units are there in a roundabout way and embodied in a newton.
    The volumes referred to was a schematic attempt to suggest a dynamic version of the transformation of energy to virtual matter density.

    Emc (Energy equals mass times the
    square of the speed of light.) Originalstatement If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminshes by Lc. Statement by Professor Albert Einstein.
    Last edited by GWN; July 13th, 2012 at 11:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    I have spent time searching the internet for information and whilst it appears that the GTE can account for variation in brightness due to orbital characteristics;
    No one was talking about variations in brightness; we were talking about infrared radiation. Are you starting to mix up your own assertions ?

    there is no way I am going to attempt any calculations regarding the magnitude or wavelength of expected radiation from stars forming binaries even if I had the ability to do so.
    Let me get this straight - you would be refusing to do those calculation even if you were able to do so ? I think that pretty much says it all !

    Unfortunately, it has become apparent that there is nobody on this forum prepared to read and attempt to understand my work and therefore be in a position to honestly criticise the fundamental physics on which it is based
    That's precisely the problem here - it isn't based on any valid physics, for all the reasons already presented to you in the course of this thread.

    The paper is the results of 68 years of effort to provide explanations of the various anomalies pertaining to the dynamic realities concerning an electron at the fundamental level,
    You see, here's the thing - there are no anomalies so far as electrons are concerned. You might think there are, but that is only because you don't understand much about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

    Without knowing what parameters and conditions are necessary and involved to activate a GTE, you attempt to invalidate my work by invoking obscure exotic phenomena from many light years distant from earth.
    My criticism was based on your simple assertion that changes in the gravitational field lead to the emission of infrared radiation, i.e. changes in temperature. I do not need to read an entire paper to take you up on that claim.
    And how simple binary star systems are "obscure exotic phenomena" is beyond me. Can you not grasp the concept of two stars orbiting a common center of gravity ? A very substantial percentage of the stars in our galaxy are binaries - in fact, come to think of it, by your claims we should be literally flooded with infrared radiation because of this !

    The rest of that post are the usual quotations to try and discredit the value of mathematics in physics models. Nothing new there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am still waiting on the following from you :

    1. References as to your claim that there are unexplained infrared sources in binary systems
    2. An explanation as to where the energy for your GTE comes from - is it the gravitational field itself ? Kinetic energy of the bodies ? Or what is it ?
    3. An explanation as to the absence of a surplus of infrared radiation in all binaries, as well as an explanation as to why the orbits of those binaries do not rapidly decay
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Marcus Hanke.
    You were referring to brightness, lots of brightness, excessive amounts of brightness. In this case you now choose to imply that there cannot be variations in infrared brightness.

    No, I would not attempt such a task without the required information derivable from the GTE experiment.

    It is not my fault that you choose not to acquaint yourself with the physical realities of my work and choose to adhere strictly to attempting to establish a dissenting argument by your imagined concepts as to how the GTE would affect binary connected stars.

    You state that there are no anomalies regarding the electron then perhaps you may care to instruct us as to how an electron generates its charge, how is charge conserved and electric field maintained. That would suffice for a start.

    If you are prepared to deviate away from adherence to GR and accept that gravitation is not an illusion, then perhaps you may enlighten me as to how you imagine that my concept of gravity arises and how it is affected by changes to gravitation and so result in your version of the GTE, especially with regards to the direction component. Remember my earlier posts referring to both heating and cooling. Then again I should just suggest you read and attempt to understand the information contained in the paper.

    Whilst attempting to obtain details of binaries that you claim are fully understood, I find that the super dense matter of rapidly rotating Pulsars is held against the centrifugal effect by gravity. The coherence of matter on earth is due to the Coulomb effect and gravity is declared to be by far the weakest force in the universe. In space and with regards the super dense matter of Pulsars and Black Holes, gravity becomes the most powerful. Whilst you were attempting to disprove the GTE to me by referring to binary stars, you have directed me to another reason to believe the information provided by the paper is correct because its explanations concerning matter etceteras is in complete agreement to that stated immediate above except for gravity being the weakest force. Presently there is much confusion regarding gravity and gravitation extant in the scientific community because rarely is there any distinction made concerning those differing phenomenon’s.

    With regards to your statement that I am attempting to discredit the value of mathematics with regards to the understanding of physics is not even near correct, I am well aware of the value of mathematics, but I also am aware that factual concepts pertaining to physics have at least an equal value because most mathematical analysis ends by the statement of the physical concept that the mathematics is supposed to have proven. Mathematics is most valuable when designing new technology but can go expensively astray when the concepts it is supposed to support are not correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    shucking and jiving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Marcus Hanke.
    You were referring to brightness, lots of brightness, excessive amounts of brightness. In this case you now choose to imply that there cannot be variations in infrared brightness.
    Can you give us the exact number of the post in which I used the term "infrared brightness" ?

    It is not my fault that you choose not to acquaint yourself with the physical realities of my work and choose to adhere strictly to attempting to establish a dissenting argument by your imagined concepts as to how the GTE would affect binary connected stars.
    No, I am establishing a way to test your theory through observation, by using your own assertion that non-static gravitational fields lead to the emission of infrared radiation through the proposed GTE mechanism.
    So far your model has failed quite miserably in that regard.

    You state that there are no anomalies regarding the electron then perhaps you may care to instruct us as to how an electron generates its charge, how is charge conserved and electric field maintained. That would suffice for a start.
    The electron does not "generate" or "conserve" anything. It is reactions between particles which lead to the emission or absorption of electrons. During those reactions the basic quantities like charge, spin, energy etc are always conserved.
    Your question is thus meaningless, which is precisely my point. You see "anomalies" where absolutely nothing mysterious is going on; this is due to your ignorance of the basic physics involved.

    If you are prepared to deviate away from adherence to GR and accept that gravitation is not an illusion
    No one ever said that gravity is an illusion. It is quite real ( jump off the next bridge if you don't believe ). GR simply provides a mechanism as to why we experience what we perceive as "gravity".
    And no, I am most certainly not prepared to deviate from GR. Why ? Because I know it works...

    then perhaps you may enlighten me as to how you imagine that my concept of gravity arises and how it is affected by changes to gravitation and so result in your version of the GTE, especially with regards to the direction component.
    I have no idea how your concept of gravity arises; I don't even know what your concept of gravity is, because you haven't presented it here.
    All you have presented is an assertion that changes in gravity lead to changes in ambient temperature ( = infrared radiation ).

    Presently there is much confusion regarding gravity and gravitation extant in the scientific community because rarely is there any distinction made concerning those differing phenomenon’s.
    There is no confusion. GR is very clear about what gravity/gravitation is, how it arises, and what its effects are.

    Mathematics is most valuable when designing new technology but can go expensively astray when the concepts it is supposed to support are not correct.
    Precisely. That is why no mainstream scientist will deviate from GR, because both maths and the concepts behind it are in agreement with observation and evidence.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    See post 124. I am still waiting. Are you going to be forthcoming with some answers, or not ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Imagination is more important than knowledge.


    One of the most common quotations used by desperate crackpots is the one you supplied above. "Imagination is more important than knowledge"? Really? In all things? Really?? So you'd go to a brain surgeon who has never actually learned anything about brain surgery, but has only imagined how to do it?

    Argument by authority is bad enough, but argument by an irrelevant quotation from an authority is spectacularly vapid.
    It's the last, sad and desperate act by someone who has nothing of scientific value to offer.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Hello again to Markus Hanke, you are beginning to remind me of the artful dodger.
    You refuse to read my work and I am not going to attempt to duplicate it on this thread.
    Whilst you remain ignorant of how or why the GTE (gravitational thermal effect) is activated then you are only attacking for attack sake.
    Your knowledge of gravitation (not gravity) is confined within the restrictive bounds dictated by GR, and you are prepared to ignore a paper that provides a detailed instant by instant description of the fundamental physical dynamic nature of gravity. As stated on several occasions on this thread, your cherished concept of GR gravitation is simply interference to particles or a bulk body’s gravity and has nothing to do with the curvature of space/time. It is the gravity field of a body that causes the so called warping and not as stated by GR; and yes, the effect on light of a particle’s gravity field is not only explained, it is demanded by the manner of propagation of a photon and the dynamic nature of the gravity field.

    Because you state emphatically that all is known concerning an electron then perhaps you may be prepared to provide us with an explanation or idea of the following; how do electrons originate? How does an electron generate its gravity field? How does an electron generate its precise charge and electric field? How is the magnitude of the electron’s rest mass so precisely controlled? How does the acceleration of an electron result in or change its inertial mass, its relativistic mass, and how is inertial mass or relativistic mass generated and please explain the fundamental dynamic nature of such phenomena. How is it possible for an electron to appear in either a particle or have a wave nature? Explain time relative to an electron. Describe all the fundamental physical dynamics that are changing when an electron is being accelerated. Etceteras and so on.
    All of the above explanations are attempted in the paper you refuse to read and therefore attempt to understand. Perhaps because you are aware that the work provides reasons why the search for reoccurring gravitational induced waves will never succeed because there is no such phenomenon and the continuing search is a huge wast of scarce finances.

    Although I presented my work for examination with no conviction that all is correct, I have a confidence that the work contained within the paper is much closer to describing the fundamental dynamical reality of physics than does GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    tk421. The quote you refer to was one of Professor Einstein’s statements, and you choose not to know that he was referring to the value of imagination with regards our ability to acquire and understand knowledge. There are several forms of imagination and those forms also include what you refer to as fairy stories. I therefore will risk the overheating of your brain by challenging you to imagine the fundamental physical dynamics of the particle/wave duality of a photon or electron.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I recall when you first showed up with your non-mathematical speculation you complained that no journal would publish it. It is certainly no wonder, since you defend it with piles of words, and no testable predictions that are not so vague as to be worthless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Hello again to Markus Hanke, you are beginning to remind me of the artful dodger.
    You refuse to read my work and I am not going to attempt to duplicate it on this thread.
    Whilst you remain ignorant of how or why the GTE (gravitational thermal effect) is activated then you are only attacking for attack sake.
    Does this mean you are retracting your earlier assertion that changes in the gravitational field ( earth-moon, binary-binary,... ) lead to infrared radiation ?
    As for the rest - it is not my responsibility to read your lengthy paper, it is your responsibility to present its contents right here on this forum in an abbreviated form. I am active on a number of physics forums under a number of different names, and if I was to perform a detailed study of every crackpot-paper that is being thrown at me, I would do nothing else all day long. Sorry, but no.

    So then, why don't you enlighten us as to how the GTE gets activated in the Earth-Moon system, but not in binaries ? I shall be quite interested in your explanation.

    As stated on several occasions on this thread, your cherished concept of GR gravitation is simply interference to particles or a bulk body’s gravity and has nothing to do with the curvature of space/time.
    Wrong. Gravity is curvature of space-time. The evidence in that regard has already been presented - it is your own problem that you are ignoring it.

    how do electrons originate?
    Hello ?! Are you even reading the posts that people make ? Had you read my last post you would know the answer to this question. I see no reason why I should be repeating myself.

    How does an electron generate its gravity field?
    By the various form of energy which are associated with it - mass, spin, magnetic momentum, charge and kinetic energy.

    How does an electron generate its precise charge and electric field?
    And again - you didn't read my previous post. It does not 'generate' anything - it carries charge.

    How is the magnitude of the electron’s rest mass so precisely controlled?
    It is not 'controlled', in the same way the charge is not 'generated'. It gets its mass through the Higgs mechanism, so its mass is determined by its degree of interaction with the underlying Higgs field. Just like any other elementary particle.

    How does the acceleration of an electron result in or change its inertial mass, its relativistic mass, and how is inertial mass or relativistic mass generated and please explain the fundamental dynamic nature of such phenomena.
    One word - Relativity.
    I thought you didn't believe in relativity ? If so, you shouldn't believe in such things as relativistic mass either !

    How is it possible for an electron to appear in either a particle or have a wave nature?
    Because of wave-particle duality, which is a fundamental property of all quantum objects.

    Explain time relative to an electron.
    Meaningless question. An electron behaves according to the rules of special and general relativity with regards to space and time.
    Oh yeah, I forgot...you don't believe in relativity. Hm. Awkward...

    Describe all the fundamental physical dynamics that are changing when an electron is being accelerated.
    Once again, just like any other object under the laws of special and general relativity.

    Perhaps because you are aware that the work provides reasons why the search for reoccurring gravitational induced waves will never succeed because there is no such phenomenon and the continuing search is a huge wast of scarce finances.
    This is what all you crackpots said about the Higgs. It will never be found...

    Although I presented my work for examination with no conviction that all is correct, I have a confidence that the work contained within the paper is much closer to describing the fundamental dynamical reality of physics than does GR.
    You are entitled to your believes, but physical facts speak a different language...
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; July 19th, 2012 at 02:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    tk421. The quote you refer to was one of Professor Einstein’s statements, and you choose not to know that he was referring to the value of imagination with regards our ability to acquire and understand knowledge. There are several forms of imagination and those forms also include what you refer to as fairy stories. I therefore will risk the overheating of your brain by challenging you to imagine the fundamental physical dynamics of the particle/wave duality of a photon or electron.
    Word salad.

    Also, I am still waiting for the answers to my questions in post 124. They are very simple questions - why are you not answering them ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    tk421. The quote you refer to was one of Professor Einstein’s statements, and you choose not to know that he was referring to the value of imagination with regards our ability to acquire and understand knowledge. There are several forms of imagination and those forms also include what you refer to as fairy stories. I therefore will risk the overheating of your brain by challenging you to imagine the fundamental physical dynamics of the particle/wave duality of a photon or electron.
    Word salad.

    Also, I am still waiting for the answers to my questions in post 124. They are very simple questions - why are you not answering them ?
    I suspect that he's spending all of his neural capacity in search of still more quotations from Great Figures in Science(tm) that he can trot out in another attempt to divert attention away from the fact that he's got nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I suspect that he's spending all of his neural capacity in search of still more quotations from Great Figures in Science(tm) that he can trot out in another attempt to divert attention away from the fact that he's got nothing.
    Yeah, probably.
    The next post will once again be along the lines of "why are you not reading my scientific paper, all the explanations are in there" bla bla. He's just not getting it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Still waiting on answers for the questions in post 124.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    To Markus Hanke.
    Re your question: Still waiting on answers for the questions in post 124. I suggest that if you require an answer you should not go political and selectively answer my questions as you have a habit of doing. You will get an answer when you answer my previous posted question minus the implied contempt regarding my knowledge of fundamental physics.

    Because you state emphatically in one of your previous posts above that there are no unknowns concerning electrons and you replied to the questions in my post as follows, quote: The electron does not "generate" or "conserve" anything. It is reactions between particles which lead to the emission or absorption of electrons. During those reactions the basic quantities like charge, spin, energy etc are always conserved. Your question is thus meaningless, which is precisely my point. You see "anomalies" where absolutely nothing mysterious is going on; this is due to your ignorance of the basic physics involved.Unquote.

    The above was an attempted lecture on conservation, and was not an answer to the fundamental physics required by my question which I again repeat.
    Perhaps you may be prepared to provide us with an explanation or idea of the following; how do electrons originate? How is an electron’s gravity field generated? How is an electron’s charge and electric field generated? How is the magnitude of the electron’s time varied (providing a clue) rest mass so precisely controlled? How does the acceleration of an electron result in or change its inertial mass, its relativistic mass, and how is an electron’s inertial mass or relativistic mass generated and please explain the fundamental dynamic nature of all such phenomena. How does acceleration of an electron produce a magnetic field and or changes to its magnetic field? How is it possible for an electron to appear in either a particle or have a wave nature? Explain time relative to an electron. Describe all the fundamental physical dynamics that are changing when an electron is being accelerated?

    And yes I will again repeat that all of the above explanations are attempted in the paper you refuse to read and therefore do not attempt to understand.
    It was made obvious to me that there was disbelief concerning my claim of the existence of my paper and so the insistence that I post where to access it. At that Time, I stated that people who are prepared only to subscribe to the validity of GR would not be suitable as referees. It is obvious that you are not going to risk the contamination of your almost religious faith in GR, (which is valuable when needed) and I would only be wasting effort by continuing.

    On the slim chance you may change your mind, the GWN in my posts are my initials and the paper titled Matter and Associated Mysteries is available for download free at The General Science Journal by clicking on the authors button and pulling the scroll down to just above the dark blue section in that window. My name will be close to the scroll and is the only name that GWN will comply to. Click on that name and you will be taken to my work. My email address is given with the download.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    GWN, the questions asked by Marcus Hanke in post 124 seem straightforward and on-topic. I am not clear why you refuse to answer them. Meanwhile we are at an impasse with you adamant that Marcus and others should read your paper. Since this is a discussion forum we would lean towards the elements of the discussion taking place withint the forum as far as possible. On that basis your refusal to answer his questions and your insistence he read your paper seem somewhat unreasonable. I ask for your comments on these points as my inclination is, after proper discussion with other mods, to lock this thread. I should prefer not to, but if not meaningful discussion is going to occur then further to-ing and fro-ing is pointless.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    GWN,

    Don't think I( haven't noticed that you have failed to acknowledge my last few posts. I'm putting this one in now, since based on your history this thread will soon be locked.

    Have you ever read a real peer reviewed journal article such as those in Science or Nature? They are 4-5 pages long.

    It is entirely unreasonable for you to expect anyone to wade through 160 pages of your writing style, especially since:

    1. There is no math, so therefore is wordy speculation without any scientific foundation, and

    2. It makes no testable predictions...or maybe it does, but you have to make the measurements to see what the predictions should be. So it is not a theory, once again, wordy speculation with no scientific foundation.

    Why would I waste a few days of my life to read through that?

    Discuss it here, answer questions, make hard predictions, show the math. Then and only then will you be taken seriously. Here or anywhere else.

    MW
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    It was made obvious to me that there was disbelief concerning my claim of the existence of my paper and so the insistence that I post where to access it. At that Time, I stated that people who are prepared only to subscribe to the validity of GR would not be suitable as referees.
    So you are "publishing" a paper and then state that all of mainstream science is not suitable to be referees as to its validity ??
    This nonsense is just getting better and better.

    It is obvious that you are not going to risk the contamination of your almost religious faith in GR, (which is valuable when needed) and I would only be wasting effort by continuing.
    I'll stick to what I know is right and working. Thank you.

    The above was an attempted lecture on conservation, and was not an answer to the fundamental physics required by my question which I again repeat.
    All your questions were answered, even if you refuse to acknowledge that.
    So where are the answers to my questions ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Hello again to John Galt.
    This thread deviated away from on-topic – electrons and energy - a long time ago, and it became very obvious that the intent and purpose of the other posters were not directed towards an interested in my work other than an opportunity to demolish the elusions of just another crackpot. Sixty eight years of work was denounced as worthless fairy stories by tk421 following his scrolling from page to page in a hunt for complicated mathematics. Such an unreasonable denouncement before the viewers of this forum is morally more culpable than plagiarism.

    As for comments being confined to this forum, then if there had not been such a concerted attempt to attack, I would have been happy to explain or defend my work on this forum, and I will provide one example of such attacks: immediately following my answer to Jetstove, my use of the word mass was attacked by the principal posters despite that word being conveniently used on other threads by those same people without specifying which mass is being referred to. A read back over the posts would indicate who were abusive and who were not.

    AS for the unnecessary need to consistently explained physics to me it was as follows: now it isn’t, yes it is, now they don’t, yes they do, it does not conform to quantum physics, etceteras and so on but never giving explanations as to the physical realities.

    AS stated, I would have been most happy to explain or defend my work on this forum had it been properly read and questions asked from at least a partial knowledge of the paper; stymied only by the principal posters religious type belief that presently held worldwide conceptual physical beliefs are unassailable, and any person attempting to do so must be attacked for the crackpot they are. Such is the parlous state regarding the advancement of our knowledge of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Meteor Wayne. I supplied the name of the University providing the grant to study out-gassing and it was up to you to contact that university if you wanted further information. You chose to post a reply that indicated your triumph regarding your belief that I could not back my statement. That’s why you did not receive any further reply.

    I am 90 years of age and have had an intense interest in science; especially regarding physics probably long before you were born.

    You refer to my writing style; What would you know concerning my writing style (posts don’t warrant the care afforded to a paper) if you have not read even a part of the paper. The same is relevant for your other comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Markus Hanke; by your own admission your are to be congratulated on being self taught and I am quite sure judging from comments on physics previously made on this or other threads that nobody posting to this forum are custodians of all of mainstream science , let alone that of physics.
    Nonsense should not be referred to as better and better.

    And no, none of those questions were answered because you haven’t got a clue regarding the answer to any of them. The technology that has resulted from experiment and brainstorming concerning the electron is almost beyond belief, however, the fundamental dynamic nature of the electron is not known, and all I claim is that my paper makes an attempt to conceptually explain the interconnected and interdependent relationship between the fundamental nature of an electron and the nature of other mysterious phenomena pertaining to the fundamental nature of physics such as positive and negative and the exactly equal but opposite, and so on.

    Also please open your mind sufficient to understand that although I believe that GR is not the be all and end all of physics, I never the less have a high regard for the late Professor Albert Einstein and his mathematical contribution to physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    [FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Meteor Wayne. I supplied the name of the University providing the grant to study out-gassing and it was up to you to contact that university if you wanted further information.
    No you did not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Meteor Wayne. In reply to your post above I will be courteous and state only that you should check my post of July 9th 2012
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Meteor Wayne. In reply to your post above I will be courteous and state only that you should check my post of July 9th 2012
    You made no posts on July 9th.

    If you mean your post of July 8th, that is completely insufficient. I asked you for a specific citation supporting your assertion, not a vague "I think it was a few years ago at this University" That's not how science is done.

    If you can't recall what or where you recall something from, why should any of us believe what you think you recall about the facts?

    You have a lot to learn about how real science is done; this is yet another example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    It is weird that all GWN's citations seem to be of the form "search for this"; why not post proper bibliographic references or a link.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    And no, none of those questions were answered because you haven’t got a clue regarding the answer to any of them.
    I'll let the readers of this thread be the judge of that.
    Let them also be the judge of your ( allegedly superior ) understanding of these matters. I have already voiced my opinion regarding those.

    and all I claim is that my paper makes an attempt to conceptually explain the interconnected and interdependent relationship between the fundamental nature of an electron and the nature of other mysterious phenomena pertaining to the fundamental nature of physics such as positive and negative and the exactly equal but opposite, and so on.

    You are of course free to claim whatever you wish, however, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

    I never the less have a high regard for the late Professor Albert Einstein and his mathematical contribution to physics.
    You have postulated an effect ( GTE ) which is in complete contradiction to GR. The above statement is hence quite meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Still waiting on my answers from post 124...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is weird that all GWN's citations seem to be of the form "search for this"; why not post proper bibliographic references or a link.
    It's not weird at all, in fact I expect it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    As for comments being confined to this forum, then if there had not been such a concerted attempt to attack, I would have been happy to explain or defend my work on this forum, and I will provide one example of such attacks: immediately following my answer to Jetstove, my use of the word mass was attacked by the principal posters despite that word being conveniently used on other threads by those same people without specifying which mass is being referred to. A read back over the posts would indicate who were abusive and who were not.
    So you think we are being unreasonable ? Perhaps you should try and post this stuff on a few other mainstream physics forums, and see what happens.
    Good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    Also please open your mind sufficient to understand that although I believe that GR is not the be all and end all of physics, I never the less have a high regard for the late Professor Albert Einstein and his mathematical contribution to physics.
    How very magnanimous of you. I'm sure Herr Doktor Einstein would have been flattered.

    Now, as to open minds, let's compare behaviors, shall we? One party insists that he is right, despite a demonstrated inability to provide any calculations that would allow us to interpret an experimental result as in favor of, or contrary to, his theory. No amount of argument by others will persuade this party to yield.

    The other party says that evidence would modify their stance.

    Who has the open mind, and who is arrogantly claiming to know the truth without any evidence to back up the claim?

    It always strikes me as interesting that cranks insist on two different standards -- an almost infinitely high one for the theory they dislike and propose to overturn, and an almost infinitesimal one for their own pet theory.

    You, sir, behave in a manner indistinguishable from that of a crank. It matters not at all that you've been working on this for decades. Perhaps you believe that output is proportional to input, but nothing precludes the constant of proportionality being zero. I speak from experience; I have been working on a string quartet for decades, and it can wake the dead and kill the living.
    Last edited by tk421; July 26th, 2012 at 06:03 PM.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    And still waiting...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    pmb and Markus Hanke.
    I read your posts on the thread regarding The energy swirling about an electron. There appears to be doubt in your minds concerning the static or dynamic condition of E and B fields. Also you both appear to be interested in the mysterious question as to whether an electron possesses internal angular momentum; also interest regarding whether spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy, as highlighted bypmb in the article he had previously read and forgotten. According to a part of the article that pmb referred to began with the following statement: According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. The article was published June 1996, and despite the age of the article it appears still to be of interest; in that case why won’t you read my paper that provides a logical answer to the questions stated in that article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    pmb and Markus Hanke.
    I read your posts on the thread regarding The energy swirling about an electron. There appears to be doubt in your minds concerning the static or dynamic condition of E and B fields. Also you both appear to be interested in the mysterious question as to whether an electron possesses internal angular momentum; also interest regarding whether spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy, as highlighted bypmb in the article he had previously read and forgotten. According to a part of the article that pmb referred to began with the following statement: According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. The article was published June 1996, and despite the age of the article it appears still to be of interest; in that case why won’t you read my paper that provides a logical answer to the questions stated in that article.
    There is no doubt in our minds, there was only confusion over how the OP in that thread was worded.
    The concrete physical picture is clear now, and pmb has sent me the article which calculates the spin through simple vector relations in the field of the electron. Nothing mysterious there.
    Btw, those calculations were performed using QFT, which, as I understand it, is one of the things you reject
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    pmb and Markus Hanke.
    I read your posts on the thread regarding The energy swirling about an electron. There appears to be doubt in your minds concerning the static or dynamic condition of E and B fields. Also you both appear to be interested in the mysterious question as to whether an electron possesses internal angular momentum; also interest regarding whether spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy, as highlighted bypmb in the article he had previously read and forgotten. According to a part of the article that pmb referred to began with the following statement: According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. The article was published June 1996, and despite the age of the article it appears still to be of interest; in that case why won’t you read my paper that provides a logical answer to the questions stated in that article.
    And I am still waiting for my answers ! Are you going to continue ignoring these ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    Markus Hanke.
    If you and pmb are content with regards spin then OK.

    The following was cut from a part of your quote of the article in question.

    According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog.


    Markus, if you were to read my work, you would find a logical physical word picture description of how and why an electron develops a spin.

    I mainly reject statements that blatantly disregard elementary laws of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    I mainly reject statements that blatantly disregard elementary laws of physics.
    You mean such as GTE, and the assertion that protons do not generate gravity...?

    According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog.
    Yep, that's what it says...and then it goes on to provide just such a physical picture.
    But obviously you didn't read that bit of the article...funny, because a minute ago it was you accusing us of not being willing to read your paper...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Electrons discreet energy levels
    By kojax in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2011, 11:53 AM
  2. Beyond electrons
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum In the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2009, 08:08 AM
  3. Electrons energy
    By okkaoboy in forum Physics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: March 17th, 2009, 08:25 PM
  4. Energy conservation of electrons
    By scientist91 in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 14th, 2007, 07:35 PM
  5. them electrons..
    By dejawolf in forum Physics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 20th, 2007, 05:08 AM
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
  •