elas

They might know what they are talking about but as the book makes clear one side was always completely wrong! I will have another try at falsification meanwhile: There is a possible development found by inserting a line (thick red) showing the number of isotopes and nuclear isomers as given by Emsley. Section A is the region where the internal force is the dominant force. Section C is the region where the external force is the dominant force. By extending the line for section C to match the line for section A (i.e. to create a 'balanced field') then it can be predicted that the largest possible atomic structure lies at the bottom of the red dash line D (element 136). It is also worth noting the similarity of lines A, B, and D with the line that would be created by the joining of particle and anti-particle radii. In both cases we are observing how the interaction of internal and external vacuum forces coupled with the elasticity of matter, creates a balanced field.

Anyone who has read any one of the books that details how scientists ‘crush’ each other will quickly realise that this is the pot calling the kettle black. (Currently reading mc^2, it contains several classic accounts of professional [crushing] behaviour). At no point do I ‘crush’ the work of professionals; my work sets out to answer the question not answered by the Standard model that is the question of how and why. I do this by interpreting the results of modern experiments in a way that leads to the development of two proposals made by Newton coupled with the strict application of the Law of Economy. Falsification might be relatively simple to those who know how to do it, but this is my retirement hobby, next month I shall celebrate my 80th birthday; it is a bit too late to even begin to think about becoming a professional. Take the mathematics used to construct the Table of Element Structure mentioned on this forum, how do I carry out a relatively simple falsification? (I have looked at ‘Falsification’ on Wikipedia, but still cannot grasp how ‘falsification’ should be applied to my work). This work does not ‘crush’ the work of others; but it does explain how the interaction of internal and external forces controls the internal development of atomic structure; the internal development itself has already been described by professionals.

Baby Astronaut But can you predict what types of elements the next discoveries will be, in advance? I'm not sure if you're claiming that, but if so, why not give us a list? Something we're able to check/verify in the future? Unless I'm wrong about the purpose of your Structural Table of Elements to begin with. The table can be used to predict the build up of shell structure. The class of the first two and last six elements on each shell are predictable; the class of those in between are not predictable. Just because it appears elegant doesn't mean it's correct. Agreed. What I'd like to know for sure: does your claim reduce/ignore the other scientifically established theories, or does it build upon it? I understand you're sort of branching into unexplored areas, rather than challenging modern understanding. Am I correct in that? It builds upon it. Current theory tells us the order in which electrons are added, my work shows how the interaction of the nuclear force and the external force play a part in determining (i.e. controlling) the total shell structure. Most of the Standard model theories are well proven and I am not qualified to disprove them. My case is that there is, as Newton stated; an underlying simplicity. Swansont expects me to do my work at the professional level, for someone with my background and education that is impossible; that is why I am here and not in some journal. The most I can hope for is to raise some interest in ‘the pursuit of simplicity’ and hope others will eventually take up the banner. The fact that Swansont is prepared to spend some time on my work shows that he does not see any reason to dismiss it out of hand. If the past is any guide, Swansont will find something to criticise and I will set about finding a solution; sometimes the final outcome is something of interest; that is usually the best I can achieve. To conclude, I now intend to try and put the various proposals together in one article; previous attempts to do so have never reached a conclusion. I still have difficulty deciding on an order of presentation, and at times something more interesting (like 122) crops up; added to which my private life has been subject to serious upheavals for several years past. Currently things are looking brighter and there is a possibility that a determined effort will see the work assembled in one article in so far as I have gone, but it will not be complete, that will require someone of greater ability than me (Most modern theories are the work of more than one person).

No one has criticised the mathematics (or table) of my particle structure equation (mr =G/2), one expert describe it as a testable theory. With regard to my field nuclei equation (m/r = G/2) Swansont ceased replying when I produced a graph showing that my equation produced the same result as the current SM equations. With regard to my proposal for composite particles (in particular the neutron) Swansont dismissed my proposal as ridiculous, but was unable to show any error in the mathematics or reasoning. Swansont has not commented on my proposed ‘Structural Table of Elements’, but to my knowledge, one post graduate student reading for a masters degree, consulted his tutor about my table and his/her comment was that “I should show where I am coming from”; hardly an outright dismissal. Swansont did challenge me to explain the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, but made no comment on my reply. However a scientist who had worked at Havard said my reply might solve a problem related to protons. None of my submissions dealing with these proposals has been locked. Anytime you are prepared to submit some constructive criticism I am sure we would all like to read it. Blanket dismissal does not add anything to the debate. I will write a considered reply to Baby Astronaut later today. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is a side issue to my main work. Newton suggested that the universe is corpuscular in nature and that the fundamental structure of the universe is a structure of ‘great simplicity’. I have taken both of these statements and searched for that great simplicity. Spread over several submissions I have attempted to show that what we know about the force, matter, volume (radii) and wavelength of particles can be explained using vacuum force and the elasticity of matter. The conclusion is that there is only one elementary particle and only one elementary force. To do this I have used balanced partial vacuum fields (vacuum force and elasticity of matter) where stability requires that the internal and external forces to be equal at the point of contact. There is insufficient particle radii data available to make anything more than a partial case; so when I ran out of data on particles I decide to examine atomic structure: the Table of Element Structure is the result of that examination. The electron shells of each atom are divided either side of the peak of the atomic partial vacuum field and the result is shown in graph form. The discovery of element 122 has made it possible to extend the graph and tables so that they now become a complete prediction theory as shown by the table at bottom right on the graph. I am pleased to read that I am not alone in thinking the result is elegant, but I am most excited in being able to point out that it is as Newton wrote, a matter of ‘great simplicity’.

Yes, there should be 24 elements with electrons on an eigth shell. given that the first known stable element is 122 then there is some hope that stability will continue up to element 137 or 138. Most of these 24 elements should be Actinides, but 141 should be an unstable Halogen and 142 should be an unstable Nobel gas. Of course, there is always the possibility that a totally new and unpredictable class of element will put in an appearance, only the first two and the last six on any new shell can be predicted with any confidence.

They are unstable, a few have been created in an ionic form, in most only the nucleus has been created; but theorist have predicted (I have yet to find an expanation of how) that another batch of stable elements exist higher in the order of elements; of which element 122 is the first to be discovered.(Element 122 was discovered [i.e. not created in a colider]). The stability of atoms of any element is determined by the number of neutrons, but this far there is no complete explanation of how the number of neutrons is determined and therefore, no method of predicting the number of neutrons required for stability.

I have added in the graph below the new element 122 and elements 119, 120, and 121. Inserted at the top left is the continuation of the table used to construct the original graph. Inserted at the bottom right is a new table showing in the left hand column, the number of inner electrons; the centre and right hand columns show the mathematical progression that can be used for prediction. Element 119 is an Alkali and element 120 is an Alkaline metal.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 The above forum explains my proposal for a Structural Table of the Elements to this I have added in the graph below, the new element 122 and elements 119, 120, and 121. Inserted at the top left is the continuation of the table used to construct the original graph. Inserted at the bottom right is a new table showing in the left hand column, the number of inner electrons; the centre and right hand columns show the mathematical progression that can be used for prediction.

Science or Philosophy Many years ago when SF was undergoing a change of leadership we had a major debate on this subject. The administrators finally conceded (with some reluctance) that Physics is correctly defined as a Philosophy and that Quantum Physics is correctly defined as a Mathematical Prediction Theory. The last time I tried to recover that forum from the archives there was no trace of the main article, only a few of the before and after comments. There is a whole group of leading scientists who, while acknowledging the accuracy of QT prediction; nonetheless are dissatisfied with its lack of a pure scientific base. There are also many examples that show how the attitude of some leading scientists leaves much to be desired; read e=mc^2 by David Bodanis for just a few examples. The great thing about all this is that to a greater extent than any other 'science', there is ample room in physics for the amateur speculator, make the most of it because common sense is bound to prevail eventually.

"……… the problem of elementary particle masses remains unsolved ". Malcolm H MacGregor 'The power of Alpha' Here, the acclaimed physicist Lee Smolin provides the first concise and clear overview of current attempts to reconcile these two theories (Relativity and Quantum theory) in a final ‘theory of everything’. Introduction to ‘Three roads to Quantum Gravity’ by Lee Smolin. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46235&page=4 On the above forum I submitted the following: The most misleading practice of physicists lies in the use of the negative sign. If two forces act in opposite directions they are referred to (for purely mathematical reasons) as positive and negative when in reality they are two positive quantities opposing each other. As a result of using the negative symbol, we observe the interaction of two positive forces (apparent force) not the sum of two positive forces. Construct a table showing the above and it will be seen that dark matter is the difference between actual force and apparent force. For example where body A has greater mass than body B: force of body A minus force of body B =apparent force (plus quantity) force of body B minus force of body A =apparent anti-force (negative quantity) The same argument explains the cause of pos. And neg. charge. In reality there are no negative quantities. The only reply was: insane alien (Genius) Its not misleading at all. it is an appropriate use of vector mathematics. any confusion over the matter comes from people not understanding the mathematics. Clearly the appropriate use of vector mathematics does not solve the problem of the missing mass or explain the cause of positive and negative charge. The use of positive and negative symbol to indicate the opposing directions in which forces act is a perfectly sound method of explaining actions, but using direction symbols to imply that the force itself actually exists in minus quantities is misleading. Only by considering force (vacuum) and anti-force (the effect of vacuum force on the elasticity of matter) as positive quantity forces can we theorise on the interaction between the two entities (vacuum and matter) that exist in reality. In so doing we find the missing mass, the cause of charge and the cause of the equality of opposite charge in particles that are in all other respects, the same. The graphs below show the two positive quantities in graphs A and B and the interaction of the two positive quantities are shown in graphs B and C. The values on the right are the sum of the force acting on each line measured at regular intervals. Deducting the smaller value from the larger value of graphs A and B reveals the observed values shown in graphs C and D. That is to say that we observe the interaction of forces. Note that interaction does not change the mass value (left hand scale), but it does change the linear force and charge. The linear force values are shown on the right, in graphs A and B the values (red and blue) differ; but interaction produces two equal values (green) in figs C and D hence we observe e+ and e- as having equal, but opposite, charge values.

This is the first time I have come across LeSage. The idea originates from Newton who suggested that the universe is corpuscular in nature. This is the concept that I am working on, and like happy snapper, I thought I was doing original work. LeSage is right; all that is necessary is to consider the fundamental particle as a partial vacuum field caused by existence of infinity (not the universe). Infinity does not have a centre, therefore nature regards the zero point at the centre of each particle as the centre of infinity; Plank's constants being the minimum values of field structure; matter and energy exists between zero points. That is to mean that matter and energy owe their existence to the fact that absolute nothing (zero points) are non-dimensional. There is no such thing as a volume of absolute vacuum. (my reply to insane alien will be given in a new forum).

The most misleading practice of physicists lies in the use of the negative sign. If two forces act in opposite directions they are referred to (for purely mathematical reasons) as positive and negative when in reality they are two positive quantities opposing each other. As a result of using the negative symbol, we observe the interaction of two positive forces (apparent force) not the sum of two positive forces. Construct a table showing the above and it will be seen that dark matter is the difference between actual force and apparent force. For example where body A has greater mass than boby B: force of body A minus force of body B =apparent force (plus quantity) force of body B minus force of body A =apparent anti-force (negative quantity) The same argument explains the cause of pos. And neg. charge. In reality there are no negative quantities.

My complaint is not with the forum title, but with its position on the index; speculation worthy of consideration should be in the science section. Deciding what is worthy of further in the science section should be left to the moderators.

According to 'E=mc^2' by David Bodanis, Einstein did not say 'converted'; Einstein said energy and mass are the same.

At the risk of being wrong once again! I think the error is in your opening statement: I believe energy is the only thing that exists. Energy is measurement of the quantity of work an entity is capable of it is not an entity itself. If you imagine two objects frequently colliding without damage and parting at different speeds after each collision then (ignoring friction etc) the combined speed of both objects remains the same but speed, and therefore collision energy; is transferred from object to object at each collision. Changes in action are measured as changes in energy. 0 mass = 0 energy = 0 action.

I would agree and I have often wondered why it was pushed aside. The Tomorrow's World team always insisted on the correct experimental conditions and were quick to reveal any attempt at faking; this was the BBC at its educational best in the days when it was rightly considered a world leader, sadly it is no longer considered so, but you have to be in my age group to appreciate the difference. At least two other experiments first shown on Tomorrow's World are now on the market, but there are probably others. Both took years to re-appear. (I moved abroad and missed most of the programs). There are no journal articles, the establishment simple refused to accept his work, but on the other hand neither could they find any reason to remove him from office, so he stayed there in splendid isolation.

This sounds like a development of a concept demonstrated on ‘Tomorrow’s World’ a BBCTV general science programme back in the 1950/60s by a University of Cambridge professor who was ostracized for his theory which ran contrary to all acceptable views. The TV demonstration consisted of a see-saw with a weight on one end and a child standing at the other. The child was unable to press her end down. Next a device with a spinning disc was placed on the weight; the child was now able to push down her end of the see-saw using only one finger. Various other experiments were conducted, but the above was the only one to be repeated on TV as far as I can remember. The explanation is (in my opinion) quite simple. A high speed spinning disc causes the gravitons within the influence of the disc, to separate from the local field and established a separate G field that embraces the weight; they (device and weight) are then largely independent of the local G field. To the best of my memory, of all the devices used in follow on experiments by other scientists; the spinning disc was the only one that was not open to question, or proven to be false. The experiments were always referred to as G force experiments, I do not recall that electromagnetic force was ever mentioned. Although no one would speak to him, or publish his papers; the professor stayed at his post until retirement. I think he died in the 90's. I cannot recall his name (something like Braithwaite or Laithwaite?) But he did get an obituary in the national newspapers. The last time I tried to look him up on the web, I found he still has a large band of followers, but I have not time to repeat that search today.

The statement does not originate from me, I am simply restating what is on the Wiki Black Hole page.

Many times I have quoted experts who disagree with your statement, to do so again would be repetitive and straying from the subject. There also seems to be a defeatist attitude in your reply which I am sure is unintended. Newton gave the possible cause, 'infinity' can be used to explain why the cause exists. Both are speculative; I can get away with quoting speculations by Newton, Jammer and Smolin; I cannot get away with quoting speculations by 'elas' so no further comment is possible, but I have always thought that science is the pursuit of knowledge which surely must embrace all three ‘how, why’ and ‘cause’.

Observation of Black Holes shows that spin is independent of mass and presumably, therefore independent of gravity. As Swansont implies observation takes priority over 'a few axioms and/or other established laws',. But neither 'observation' nor 'a few axioms and/or other established laws', explain the 'cause' of gravity or 'how' or 'why' gravity works as observed. Max Jammar and Lee Smolin have written speculative books on mass and gravity respectively; neither reach a definitive explantion. The speculation made by Newton is (in my opinion) still the nearest anyone came to to reaching a working model. Newton's speculation came in his statement that "'perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature'". Neither 'Jammar' nor 'Smolin' developed Newton's speculation prefering instead to confine their speculations to 'Relativity' and 'Quantum Theory'. Of the three (Newton, Relativity, and QT) only Newton's speculation can be developed to explain 'how' and 'why'.

Surely where there is no significant difference between the results of equations A, B and C and all fall well within the experimental margin of error; we should use the equation with the minimum number of factors or one that uses only factors relating to the entities being observed (i.e. mass and circumference).

The three ways used to calculate the Black Hole radius are: A) From the circumference given in the List of Black Holes. B) Using the Schwarzschild radius equation. C) Replacing the 2.95 constant of Black Hole radius equation with a constant (2.980727823) that equates with: r = G/m The results show that in eleven cases B is closer to A than C and in nine cases C is close to A than B. All of the twenty results fall well inside the margin of error given in the list. The compilerof the list (Wm. Robert Johnston) does not say how the values for 'circumference' were obtained; the margin of error quoted above is that given for the mass values (converted to percentage values for use with r values).

Thanks again, Davies did indeed quotes a value of three in 'The New Physics' a popular book obviously written to mislead amateurs like me! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The following graph shows the Black Holes listed on: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/bhctable.html Red and blue lines are the main and maximum error lines respectively. Green line (second from top left) is the radius calculated from the Schwarzchild radius formula. Red dash line is the radius calculated using the G constant. The results are, unfortunately; inconclusive. But I hope everyone who contributed to this forum will think the exercise worthwhile; many thanks, elas

Thank-you for clarifying this point. As I mentioned previously, when asking the opening question I did not expect to become involved in an explanation of the work that I was only just beginning, but I will take all the advice received into account as I proceed. The result will appear in the appropiate forum in about one month.

This leaves me with a problem: The simple to derive equations are derived using constants of not greater than 2.95 (yet Paul Davies gives the value of this constant as 3) and the G constant which is probably somewhere between the gravitational constant giving by Codata as 6.67428 x 10^-11 and the Fixler et al (2007) value of, G = 6.693 × 10^−11. With what are these values consistent?