John Cuthber

That's not a problem. Now, please demonstrate how your formula does a better job than the conventional one.

The experiment has been done. Lots of isotope powered generators have been launched into space, some of them towards and more of them away from the sun. The effect of neutron on decay rates which this new idea predicts would have been noticed. Not least, because space craft designers are very careful to monitor power available. Since no such effect was found we can rule out this idea. If someone's idea does not agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

It's a bit like ancient Egypt: people write on walls and worship cats.

Figure two shows how the refractive index (n) of three different sample varies with wavelength. Near 550nm the refractive index varies from about 1.6 to 1.9 for the 3 samples. So you don't know what value to put into the equation Griffon has provided. This sort of problem is usually solved empirically.

Good luck accelerating neutrons. They have no charge so they are unaffected by electric or magnetic fields.

This sort of thing http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/style_a/consem.html which, whether you like it or not, provides a reason for the existence of the metastable states. Might I make a suggestion? Your definition is very unclear. Part of that problem may be linguistic. There are people here whose first language isn't English and who might be better able to understand your suggestion if you wrote it in your first language. How would you write this "Any physical process - basically ready to start - will be halted as long as more than one of exact equal and choose able values of a parameter for the process exist." in your first language?

I was particularly amused by "Greetings from Florida (but no greetings to germany)", even more so, given the circumstances. But my intent is just to put forward the reasons why these outlandish ideas are plainly wrong. For example this idea was proved wrong by Cavendish hundreds of years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Paschen so, when you say "I made my research 1966 - Mr. Paschen was obviously later - or?" It's obviously not true. So it's clear that you have not studied the subject in any depth "You may investigate the angular momentum. My theory opens up an entire field of new research." It wouldn't be new research: the effect of angular momentum on the lifetime of excited states is already known. Again, it is clear that you have not done the research. "..and why are there "no allowed first-order transitions" ?" usually, the conservation of angular momentum "This definition explains not why are there metastable states!" Yes it does- as long as you understand it. "That is the point - everything else you mention is something else." is meaningless "I have found an explanation why metastable states exist – who else?" For a start, no you have not because (as has been pointed out) it is meaningless. But in answer to the "who else?" it was a bunch of people roughly a hundred years ago. "You could actually use my definition - test it." No we couldn't use it because it isn't clear. Even if it were, what would we gain? There's already a known working answer.

There isn't enough information to answer that question. Was any other information given?

I rather doubt that. You are expected to give a meaningful reply to valid questions. You have not answered Swansont's question (which I essentially restated). Nor have you answered mine about the prediction of the E^3 relation for the decay constant. You can't keep sabotaging the forum and expect to get away with it.

That's not necessarily to do with nuclear physics, but anyway. Why must we teach you basic logic? At the time when the atom "decides" to emit a photon there in not yet a photon. So, at that time the photon (which doesn't exist) can not have a direction in space. So the direction can't be the " choosable parameter in an atomic de-excitation?"

I'd also like to see how this idea leads to the experimentally verified relationship between excitation energy and radiative half life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission#Rate_of_spontaneous_emission

It is perfectly common to be able to separate isotopically substituted chemicals by chromatography. For example The deuterium labelled versions of chemicals (things like C6D6 or C10D8 the "heavy" versions of benzene and naphthalene) are used as standards in analytical chemistry. You might imagine that the "heavy" compounds would stick to the column better and come off after the normal versions, but it's often the other way round. The effect arises from the way the electrons behave- the nuclei are not involved. The differences are small, but they are measurable.

It is possible to make stainless steel type alloys using Pt group elements. I can't find a reference which says how much Pt is needed (I guess Ir would also work). http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed008p2430

That's anything but clear, and a contradiction in terms. If it's ready then it isn't waiting for something to be right. Also you have not explained who or what decides that it's "ready" nor what parameters it's waiting for. At best you have reinvented the "hidden variables" idea. But the point is that, while you ignore basic physics, your posts will not mean anything and will be written off as mumbo jumbo. (By which I mean very obscure and not meaningful or not true).

"Magic is just the use of a High Level of Technology that we have not yet obtained yet." No, it's made up stuff. There's a difference.

"One discovery of mine was telepathy, and how it actually exists (you can't argue this with me, my mind is set, I've witnessed it many times)." Well, that's the end of the thread then.

Or it is time to do to a different site.

The short answer is that chemtrails are a conspiracy theorists' myth.

"I havent observed or seen any evidence to the contrary of my claims" Yes you have, you just didn't realise. For example, have you noticed that it's easier to ride a bike down hill than up? That's because gravity is a conservative field. "As far as I know, no one has even looked for an atmospheric ridge." Shows how little you know. Atmospheric tides are well enough known to those who study such thing. "The only reason I am aware of that someone could accuse me of being wrong is that I am speaking out of my field of expertise. Even then, it's arguable. " trust me, there's no real argument. You are wrong because you are wrong. "I research, think, and watch the science channel everyday. I let it run while I sleep." try watching it while awake; you might learn something.

"Gravity can have a fricative effect on the surrounding environment." No it can't. Gravity is a conservative field, friction isn't. BTW, everything in the observable universe is within the gravitational field of Jupiter "We haven't made a bowling ball go the speed of light yet so technically I'm not wrong" Oh yes you are. Repeatedly.

I don't understand, why do you think he's "trying to have a sensible scientific discussion" when he's refusing to answer a simple question? If you don't answer people, it's not a discussion, it's preaching.

How fortunate then, that I gave an explanation for my assertion. There is already an accepted explanation of metastable states, backed up by evidence. I'm not sure why you think your age has anything to do with it. By the way, refusal to answer a question is also a breach of the rules. Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?

Teachers often ask students questions. Do you know why?