A MAJOR Discovery

[New Science]

Evidence?

 

It's trivial to show that the mass of U-235 is larger than the fission products you get, so good luck with that.

 

When the individual components are added up, they are portrayed to weigh MORE than the compacted heavier fused elements.

However, these mass discrepancies are the result of the method of weighing the particles and fused elements. This is because these are INERTIAL masses as weighed by their trajectories through a FIXED magnetic field.

So these particles are surrounded by there individual magnetic field patterns that creates an interaction with the FIXED field to cause these disdcrenencies.

 

Sorry, but you have to use the same definitions as everyone else. What a photon is is already defined. It has a frequency, it has an energy, and we observe the effects of them being absorbed by atoms/molecules with well-defined energy differences.

 

I am posting NEW SCIENCE as a free thinker. I will not be a programmed

parrot of the establishment indoctrination.

I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr. Thank you for allowing this freedom.

 

NS

[Sayonara]

I am posting NEW SCIENCE as a free thinker. I will not be a programmed parrot of the establishment indoctrination.

I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr. Thank you for allowing this freedom.

 

That's all well and good, but making baseless proclamations under the self-aggrandising pretext of being a visionary thinker confers no scientific merit whatsoever.

[Klaynos]

When the individual components are added up, they are portrayed to weigh MORE than the compacted heavier fused elements.

However, these mass discrepancies are the result of the method of weighing the particles and fused elements. This is because these are INERTIAL masses as weighed by their trajectories through a FIXED magnetic field.

So these particles are surrounded by there individual magnetic field patterns that creates an interaction with the FIXED field to cause these disdcrenencies.

 

 

 

I am posting NEW SCIENCE as a free thinker. I will not be a programmed

parrot of the establishment indoctrination.

I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr. Thank you for allowing this freedom.

 

NS

 

The difference between them and you is that they applied the scientific method, you need to make falsifiable predictions, and agree with all the current evidence, and an intersting thing about all new science is that it agrees with all the old science, take special relativity, if you plug in normal everyday velocities you get out exactly the same answers as you get with classical mechanics....

[D H]

That's all well and good, but making baseless proclamations under the self-aggrandising pretext of being a visionary thinker confers no scientific merit whatsoever.

OTOH it certainly does confer points on this scale. That last short post (#76) pinged the psychoceramometer off-scale high and then blew all the circuitry.

 

NS, why are you ducking the dimensionality problem?

[Mr Skeptic]

I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr. Thank you for allowing this freedom.

 

You plan to explain the world in terms of mathematical equations more accurate than the current equations, even if you need to invent a whole new branch of mathematics to do it? Man, you're awesome.

[Reaper]

When the individual components are added up, they are portrayed to weigh MORE than the compacted heavier fused elements.

However, these mass discrepancies are the result of the method of weighing the particles and fused elements. This is because these are INERTIAL masses as weighed by their trajectories through a FIXED magnetic field.

So these particles are surrounded by there individual magnetic field patterns that creates an interaction with the FIXED field to cause these disdcrenencies.

 

No, you are just simply so wrong here.

 

 

I am posting NEW SCIENCE as a free thinker. I will not be a programmed

parrot of the establishment indoctrination.

I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr. Thank you for allowing this freedom.

 

NS

 

 

Yeah, you and all the other crackpots. We've heard it all before, and just like all the others before you, you too will be smitten and burned at the stake .

 

OTOH it certainly does confer points on this scale. That last short post (#76) pinged the psychoceramometer off-scale high and then blew all the circuitry.

 

NS, why are you ducking the dimensionality problem?

 

 

IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!111/one/111!

Edited June 27, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Could you back off on the attitude some? You are no more productive when you insult your opponent than when you debate him coolly.

[Reaper]

Oh, fine! I'll be a little more civil next time. It's, well, just a habit I tend to have. Or rather, you always seem to ruin the fun....

[New Science]

That's all well and good, but making baseless proclamations under the self-aggrandising pretext of being a visionary thinker confers no scientific merit whatsoever.

 

You mean that string of scientists above is baseless and without merit?

Those scientists relied on OBSERVATIONs of the planets to format their opinions.

Keplers math followed to resolve the eccentricity of their movements.

Again, here math plays a secondary role.

 

I also rely on the Conservation Laws, proven experiments and credible observations.

 

Of course, the BBT discards all that as irrelavent, Ha ha.

 

NS

 

The difference between them and you is that they applied the scientific method, you need to make falsifiable predictions, and agree with all the current evidence, and an intersting thing about all new science is that it agrees with all the old science, take special relativity, if you plug in normal everyday velocities you get out exactly the same answers as you get with classical mechanics....

 

You mean like Copernicuses falsification of the 'geocentric' theory?

 

Or Einsteins falsification of his own 'static' universe that he tried to save with his cosmological constant? The fallaceous BBT saved it for him.

 

SR did what?

From what I remenber, it diivided gravity into two factions. Newtons based on the Sun and planets and Einsteins version based on 'elevator' gravity.

This type of gravity is explained by Newtons 1st and 3rd Law of Motion that

states that there is an 'equal and opposite reaction (inertial resistence) to all other actions (forces).

Another example is the linear momentum of the orbitting bodies that resist Newtonian gravity.

This is the action that resists collapse in a Flat Space universe.

Einstein overlooked this in his static state universe.

 

NS

[D H]

You mean that string of scientists above is baseless and without merit?

Sayonara was delicately saying that your association of yourself with these scientists has no merit.

[Klaynos]

You mean like Copernicuses falsification of the 'geocentric' theory?

 

Or Einsteins falsification of his own 'static' universe that he tried to save with his cosmological constant? The fallaceous BBT saved it for him.

 

SR did what?

From what I remenber, it diivided gravity into two factions. Newtons based on the Sun and planets and Einsteins version based on 'elevator' gravity.

This type of gravity is explained by Newtons 1st and 3rd Law of Motion that

states that there is an 'equal and opposite reaction (inertial resistence) to all other actions (forces).

Another example is the linear momentum of the orbitting bodies that resist Newtonian gravity.

This is the action that resists collapse in a Flat Space universe.

Einstein overlooked this in his static state universe.

 

NS

 

On the first point they all used maths...

 

SR says nothing about gravity, that shows fundamental misunderstandings of what should be to someone trying to do what you want to do trivial knowledge.

[Sayonara]

I think we are done with this now.