Socrates vision of kvarton universe

[Salonis]

Skipping the misrepresentation of particle physics:

 

Except for all of the evidence that has been given over and over through the years. QED is, quite literally, one of the most exactly confirmed theories in all of science. You don't think of that as evidence?

=Uncool-

 

For your reply, adding some thoughts of teorist Lee Smolin from his book, Physics in trouble: "The problem of the foundations of quantum mechanics can be Considered as the second major problem of modern physics, it is Necessary to address the issues of quantum theory Either finding clear and Interpretation of the present theory, or finding a new theory" (.. .) "Quantum mechanics, at least in the form in Which it was Formulated Originally, it is difficult to Reconcile with realism" (...) "One way to remedy is: Discovering a Deeper theory that will Provide a better understanding of nature Than quantum mechanics. The fact is the problem That Remains Unsolved! It is not enough just to find a new way to understand quantum theory. Those who Formulated Originally it, They were not Realists. "(...)" Just as the Apparent smoothness of the surface of the water surface conceals the FACT That Matter is Composed of discrete atoms, and the smoothness of space is probably not realistic . Arises as an approximation of something Deeper That is Composed of basic units ... Some Approaches That simply assume space is made up of discrete elements. "

 

I may be a fool, but Lee Smolin perhaps can not be said.

 

If you would read mine theory it would be clear why this happens:

 

(electric charge in Standard Model - divide above by 3)

 

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hypothesis. Just a little note to your fragment of text: (electric charge in Standard Model - divide by 3 above).

The smallest electric charge is experimentally validated 1.6021 .10^-19 C. In no experimentally verified interactions has never been reported to spread a smaller charge than this unit.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Salonis

[swansont]

Lee Smolin is entitled to his opinion. However, citing his opinion as fact is argument from authority, another logical fallacy.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hypothesis. Just a little note to your fragment of text: (electric charge in Standard Model - divide by 3 above).

The smallest electric charge is experimentally validated 1.6021 .10^-19 C. In no experimentally verified interactions has never been reported to spread a smaller charge than this unit.

 

 

Answered by PM.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Bignose]

 

For your reply, adding some thoughts of teorist Lee Smolin from his book, Physics in trouble: "The problem of the foundations of quantum mechanics can be Considered as the second major problem of modern physics, it is Necessary to address the issues of quantum theory Either finding clear and Interpretation of the present theory, or finding a new theory" (.. .) "Quantum mechanics, at least in the form in Which it was Formulated Originally, it is difficult to Reconcile with realism" (...) "One way to remedy is: Discovering a Deeper theory that will Provide a better understanding of nature Than quantum mechanics. The fact is the problem That Remains Unsolved! It is not enough just to find a new way to understand quantum theory. Those who Formulated Originally it, They were not Realists. "(...)" Just as the Apparent smoothness of the surface of the water surface conceals the FACT That Matter is Composed of discrete atoms, and the smoothness of space is probably not realistic . Arises as an approximation of something Deeper That is Composed of basic units ... Some Approaches That simply assume space is made up of discrete elements.

 

Smolin's book is entitled The Trouble With Physics; you really should do your utmost to accurately cite your quotes.

 

And, ultimately, whatever that 'deeper theory' will be, it will not just wave away the current successes of quantum mechanics. That deeper theory will include the current successful predictions that quantum mechanics makes. No matter what form the next theory takes on, the current successful results are still successful.

 

Smolin's book has got a fair number of good points. The main one of his book being: the promises of string theory have not been realized. But, Smolin is still a physicist, and he isn't going to back any theory that doesn't make accurate predictions. And, if some proposed theory is to replace QED, it damn well make the same currently supremely successful predictions QED do. I have literally zero doubt that Smolin or any other decent physicist would agree with that.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Bignose

[uncool]

 

For your reply, adding some thoughts of teorist Lee Smolin from his book, Physics in trouble: "The problem of the foundations of quantum mechanics can be Considered as the second major problem of modern physics, it is Necessary to address the issues of quantum theory Either finding clear and Interpretation of the present theory, or finding a new theory" (.. .) "Quantum mechanics, at least in the form in Which it was Formulated Originally, it is difficult to Reconcile with realism" (...) "One way to remedy is: Discovering a Deeper theory that will Provide a better understanding of nature Than quantum mechanics. The fact is the problem That Remains Unsolved! It is not enough just to find a new way to understand quantum theory. Those who Formulated Originally it, They were not Realists. "(...)" Just as the Apparent smoothness of the surface of the water surface conceals the FACT That Matter is Composed of discrete atoms, and the smoothness of space is probably not realistic . Arises as an approximation of something Deeper That is Composed of basic units ... Some Approaches That simply assume space is made up of discrete elements. "

 

I may be a fool, but Lee Smolin perhaps can not be said.

It's clear that you don't understand what realism is; this entire quote has nothing to do with evidence, and doesn't address all of the evidence that makes quantum physics one of the best tested theories we have nowadays.

=Uncool-

[Salonis]

Smolin's book is entitled The Trouble With Physics; you really should do your utmost to accurately cite your quotes.

 

And, ultimately, whatever that 'deeper theory' will be, it will not just wave away the current successes of quantum mechanics. That deeper theory will include the current successful predictions that quantum mechanics makes. No matter what form the next theory takes on, the current successful results are still successful.

I have literally zero doubt that Smolin or any other decent physicist would agree with that

Certainly that Lee Smolin is entitled to their opinion. I have the right to quote his opinion. This is not, of course experimental evidence that QED is defective, it is the idea that her interpretation is faulty. And because it's not just the view spoken by someone in beer, And since Lee Smolin is a PHYSICIST, his opinion certainly has its indisputable weight. No need to be a "great" physicist to make it clear that the official interpretation of interference particles is, to say the least, full of holes. Of course, it also knows Smolin. Just not causal, ie anti physical interpretation of the wave function collapse or the likelihood of the occurrence of particles in motion.That official physics of convenience remains with the mathematical form QED interpretation is not unique in the history of physics. When you come to a relativistic equation of infinite values of mass and charge, figured out that fyzmatici his way: mathematically. Introduced into the equations further infinity, then the solution both subtracted and drove away. In vain on this kind of "solution" claimed PA Dirac, it's ugly. Also Faraday's discoveries (yaw plane of polarized light in a magnetic field or central idea of ​​real, ie physical electric and magnetic fields) have long been ignored. Theory of electricity has gone a long "stroll" through mechanistic notions of immediate action at a distance, and the intermediate space between the interacting bodies, Faraday material field, then physicists ignored. Faraday rehabilitated to Maxwell.But I did not come to argue about opinions of Lee Smolin, but to highlight the opinions Socrates.Smolin's concept of "vacuum particles" are common. Socrates are already very concrete.

Time solves everything

 

Lee Smolin is entitled to his opinion. However, citing his opinion as fact is argument from authority, another logical fallacy.

 

Dr. Swansont, I have already used to your attacks on my texts and I take it with a smile. It is refill your moderator job.

 

It's clear that you don't understand what realism is; this entire quote has nothing to do with evidence, and doesn't address all of the evidence that makes quantum physics one of the best tested theories we have nowadays.

=Uncool-

 

Well in this together not agree. It's not a tragedy.

[Bignose]

Certainly that Lee Smolin is entitled to their opinion. I have the right to quote his opinion. This is not, of course experimental evidence that QED is defective, it is the idea that her interpretation is faulty. And because it's not just the view spoken by someone in beer, And since Lee Smolin is a PHYSICIST, his opinion certainly has its indisputable weight. No need to be a "great" physicist to make it clear that the official interpretation of interference particles is, to say the least, full of holes. Of course, it also knows Smolin. Just not causal, ie anti physical interpretation of the wave function collapse or the likelihood of the occurrence of particles in motion.That official physics of convenience remains with the mathematical form QED interpretation is not unique in the history of physics. When you come to a relativistic equation of infinite values of mass and charge, figured out that fyzmatici his way: mathematically. Introduced into the equations further infinity, then the solution both subtracted and drove away. In vain on this kind of "solution" claimed PA Dirac, it's ugly. Also Faraday's discoveries (yaw plane of polarized light in a magnetic field or central idea of ​​real, ie physical electric and magnetic fields) have long been ignored. Theory of electricity has gone a long "stroll" through mechanistic notions of immediate action at a distance, and the intermediate space between the interacting bodies, Faraday material field, then physicists ignored. Faraday rehabilitated to Maxwell.But I did not come to argue about opinions of Lee Smolin, but to highlight the opinions Socrates.Smolin's concept of "vacuum particles" are common. Socrates are already very concrete.

Time solves everything:-)

Sure, sure. You and Lee and anyone can have any opinion about it you want. I can think it smells like wet dog hair.

 

Ultimately, however, I think that discussing opinions on theories is pretty much a waste of time. Simply because, unlike in days bygone, there is no scientific capital in opinions. The singular determiner about the value of an idea is how good of agreement with measurement its predictions make. That's it. Period.

 

So, again, I think it is a waste of time to voice an opinion when if someone really has such an intense dislike for an idea, they should use that time to create new ideas that make demonstrably better predictions. Because demonstrably better predictions are scientific capital. Better predictions will mean that the idea that you don't like will fall out of favor.

 

So, here we are 30+ posts into this thread. We've established your opinion that you don't like the current theory. As above, opinions carry zero scientific weight. Why don't you post something that does carry scientific weight, like a prediction made from your idea? If you really want to earn a lot of scientific capital, post a prediction made that is more accurate than the prediction made by the current theory.

 

(What is really funny is that the above is almost entirely what Smolin's book is about. That he thinks string theory and the people who believe in string theory have too much sway in physics today, considering the limited results string theory has produced. The lack of successful predictions from string theory is the reason Smolin expressed his opinion that there is something that has been missed -- his so-called 'deeper theory'. In other words, overall, Smolin isn't expressing support for any particular theory and is saying that really, he would only support theories that produce results. So, live up to the spirit Smolin emphasizes in the book, and demonstrate good predictions. Otherwise, your citing him seems disingenuous at best.)

[Salonis]

So, here we are 30+ posts into this thread. We've established your opinion that you don't like the current theory. As above, opinions carry zero scientific weight. Why don't you post something that does carry scientific weight, like a prediction made from your idea? If you really want to earn a lot of scientific capital, post a prediction made that is more accurate than the prediction made by the current theory.

Statements of physicists

Chad Orzel: Most of the philosophical problems of quantum mechanics related to its "interpretation". It is a problem that is inherent only in a quantum theory.

V.I. Rydnik: "There is no more powerful than quantum theory. Stronger theory yet, but no doubt that will have to be created. Scientists work hard and try to rejuvenate either quantum theory with new ideas, or want to fundamentally overhaul "(Smolin requires what else?). More and more physicists tend to think that the new theory will be even more unusual, "insane". Every fundamentally new theory hints at its birth the harsh reaction of conservatives. Indeed, quantum mechanics appeared also at its inception "mad".

 

Attempts to search element, primitive matter

Fermi and Yang - pi meson composed of nucleon and anti-nucleon,

Morris Goldhaber - primary particle consists of nucleon + K meson

Septi Sakata - all particles composed of nucleons + Lambda

Luis de Broglie - photon = 2 neutrino

M.A. Markov - all known particles are composed of nucleons and anti-nucleon

R. Oppenheimer reduced the number of primary particles per 6

Those attempts TOE still growing.

 

Recently became a buzzword among physicists the grid. It's another attempt to smuggle space filling (ether) in physics in the new design. Socrates his "filler" called kvarton's universe. It has to do with the ether only that it also fills the space. While ether is heterogeneous environment of elementary particles has a lot in common and just bothers them, (apart push him?), Socrates universum is symbiotically homogeneous as elementary particles. More precisely: particles are structural anomalies in kvarton's universe. And as a structural anomaly with this "ocean kvartons" also move. Of course, if you're not interested yet unknown causal relation between body weight leptons and nucleons, Socrates' hypothesis required. If you do not know the universal principle of motion of particles in general and in the gravitational field, beat Socrates! You do not know where to wear particles, the mass-market mechanism nor their generous emissions but also greedy absorption. Never mind. If you do not care why they spontaneously decay neutrons and protons not, do not read Socrates! Surely you're not know the nature of the nuclear force between nucleons without embarrassing aids such as "untraceable" quarks, gluons and every virtual vermin, fragrant and colorful. Never minde. But many others want to know and there is why I here publishes fragments and links. Let them choose what they want.

 

[Bignose]

Statements of physicists

<blah blah blah>

Great. All interesting reading. How any of that construes any kind of evidence in support of your idea is well beyond me. Plus, you know, that whole part I wrote above about discussing opinions? WASTE O' TIME.

 

Fulfill the spirit of those great names you're invoking up there and actually present some evidence. Those guys may have thoughts about different ideas on particles, but they all would only have pursued them when presented with actual evidence, and vice versa dropped the ideas if presented with conflicting evidence.

 

Do you see the common theme here?!? EVIDENCE! Evidence is what actually means anything! Not opinions by Fermi, any of the popes, or Bill Clinton. Evidence!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Bignose

[Salonis]

 

 

Do you see the common theme here?!? EVIDENCE! Evidence is what actually means anything! Not opinions by Fermi, any of the popes, or Bill Clinton. Evidence!

 

The injured citizen in court by a heavy cudgel to prove his injury from a neighbor. The judge will call an expert and ask him: what is the evidence? The expert will also visit the cudgel under the microscope and say: "it's macrofile of organic molecules". What is a molecule asks judge and ask another expert. Accede chemist and says: "it's macrofile atoms of several elements". So called physics, the electron microscope scans the sample cudgel and says: "it set of electrons, protons and neutrons". It then performs higher magnification of the sample and emphatically declare: "it is definitively a huge macrofile is quite elusive tiny particles of quarks and gluons. Greater resolution, unfortunately I do not". The judge asks: " Can these microparticles cause minor injuries?" The physicist says: "it's impossible, Your Honor". Evidence is dismissed, sad the judge and closes the hearing.

 

That's yours evidence

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The rules of the speculations section require that you present evidence or some other support for your proposal. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, the thread will be closed.

[Salonis]

!

Moderator Note

The http://qarton.sweb.cz where they will be progressively i other accompanying articles to the main treatise (Socrates wonderful universe) translated from the original in to English. I thank all the visitors to this thread for their interest on the remarkable ideas of Socrates, the wise monk from the island of Corfu.

Salonis

 

Please open the attachment where is the whole third part of Socrates' model

Part III.doc

Edited January 15, 2013 by Salonis

[Bignose]

 

Proof 1

Charge uniformity of elementary particle

All experimentally confirmed elementary particles, no matter how exotic and unstable, have either zero, or a positive or negative electric charge Q = ± 1,602 .10^{-19 C.} Official physics this Charged uniformity already knows, but she do not know the cause and nature! It is obvious from the structure of elementary particles according to Socrates' model: In the micro-foundation (vakant) of all real particles with non-zero electric charge is always one protoel group P, as a unit of electrical charge carrier Q_P = ± 1,602 .10^{-19 C}. Massfield of elementary particles with one protoel group P in its vakant is electrically polarized radially. Because of this mass radial polarization field, have all elementary particles, either positive or negative, but always the same size, the unit of elementary electrostatic charge of ± 1,602 .10^{-19. C.}

Even with the alleged hypothetical quarks with fractional charge in all their interactions (decay) they transmit always the compact unit size of charge 1,602 .10^{-19 C.}

Socrates' model of elementary particles thus causally explains the charge-uniformity of all elementary particles.

This fact alone would be in the impartial physical environment considered as a sufficient argument for Socrates model. So far, no physical model of "world" this no solved. All Theory using experimentally measured values

 

Did I miss something? Because all I see here is you renaming one thing to another -- from the current unit charge to something you call 'protoel'. This isn't a proof. Any more than "I call bananas tubefruit. Therefore I have proven tubefruit exist and are the reason for rainbows."

[Salonis]

 

 

Did I miss something? Because all I see here is you renaming one thing to another -- from the current unit charge to something you call 'protoel'. This isn't a proof. Any more than "I call bananas tubefruit. Therefore I have proven tubefruit exist and are the reason for rainbows."

 

 

Yes, I understand you, what isn't written in Nature or Science, simply does not exist. Also worldview. Protoel is the short name for four the basic material elements of the world - protoelements.

If you would like to learn more, please open attachement where is complete Part 3, with the attached images of interactions and transformations

 

 

Lee Smolin is entitled to his opinion. However, citing his opinion as fact is argument from authority, another logical fallacy.

 

 

 

I did not quote Lee Smolin as fact, but as the opinion of physicist-theorist who is very, very close to those of Socrates. May be Lee Smolin is the first of spring swallow. Nothing more, nothing less. Shame you did not take so

Edited January 16, 2013 by Salonis

[swansont]

Yes, I understand you, what isn't written in Nature or Science, simply does not exist.

 

That's not understanding.

[Bignose]

Yes, I understand you, what isn't written in Nature or Science, simply does not exist.

Hey, thanks for clarifying, buddy.

 

No, really, I was just asking what exactly your 'proof 1' says, because, as I summarized, it doesn't actually proove anything. It defines one of your terms, in terms of a currently defined one, and then claims that means something. That isn't a proof. That isn't anything but a translation.

 

It doesn't matter if I write 'eine katze', 'uno gato', or 'one cat'... in the end it is all just 1 cat. I can't then claim that by translating 'eine katze' to 'one cat' I have proven anything about the phases of the moon.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Bignose

[Salonis]

Hey, thanks for clarifying, buddy.

 

No, really, I was just asking what exactly your 'proof 1' says, because, as I summarized, it doesn't actually proove anything. It defines one of your terms, in terms of a currently defined one, and then claims that means something. That isn't a proof. That isn't anything but a translation.

 

It doesn't matter if I write 'eine katze', 'uno gato', or 'one cat'... in the end it is all just 1 cat. I can't then claim that by translating 'eine katze' to 'one cat' I have proven anything about the phases of the moon.

 

 

The charge-uniformity of particle racked their heads like Einstein, Born, Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman, de Broglie, Pauli, Planck, Glashow, Wilson, Yukawa Gell-Mann, Rubia. Fermi ... All these and many more was (are) really trying to uncover the essence of pellet uniformity of elementary particles. Vain! Read all of encyclopedia of the world and you would learn the same thing: all particles with charge have absolutely the same size, they like around the magnetic field, maintaining compliance, generates an electric current, are useful in the household, etc.etc. Perhaps even you will learn what they like for lunch , but the essentials: what is the cause of the charge uniformity you will not know. All types of elementary particles have many differences: different rest mass, a different life, spin, but why have exactly the same value el. charge is nowhere nedočtete. When Socrates to you offer his model it is not enough to you. You want something tangible, you can bring at your hand, zum Beispiel eine Katze. So sorry I can not you help with them: elementary particles are too small.

[swansont]

I think the point was that your post doesn't actually explain what you are claiming it explains.

[Bignose]

ya, what swansont said. Redefining a term does not constitute a proof. If you think what you've posted there does constitute a proof, either you're completely wrong or you need to provide a lot more info. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you the opportunity to provide a lot more info, like maybe a real proof. Any chance of that happening? (I suspect I will just get more of the same vagaries and unsubstantial wordiness.)

[swansont]

I'm also not seeing any way to check this to see if it's true. What testable predictions can you make, that aren't covered by existing theory?

[Salonis]

ya, what swansont said. Redefining a term does not constitute a proof. If you think what you've posted there does constitute a proof, either you're completely wrong or you need to provide a lot more info. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you the opportunity to provide a lot more info, like maybe a real proof. Any chance of that happening? (I suspect I will just get more of the same vagaries and unsubstantial wordiness.)

 

 

Gentlemen physicists, about your impartiality and notobjectivity in the assessment of Socrates' model of elementary particles, it witness this undeniable fact: Not one of you did not bother to open the attachment by my article 9 Jan. 17:38, where it is published systematics structure of elementary particles and particular scheme of interaction transmutation of particles according to Socrates model. How do you want to be objective, even if you do not read the opponent's mind?! .In a tolerant society, it is usual that critic before court first acquainted with the contents of the views and arguments that he criticize. Unfortunately, in your case it did not : Two entries in attachment was realized by myself to be convinced of its functionality.

 

Existence charge's uniformity elementary particles of which no doubt to physicists brings this message: all charged particle in itself contain one element common of their structure, which is "responsible" for their elementary charge. KMV declares that this common element are two antipodean protoels of group P , who are bearers the elementary unit of electric charge. What explanation of charge uniformity offers academic physicists? What explanation you offer, gentlemans? Neither the world, nor one of you, gentlemans, wasn't yet discovered the for entire universe unifying element, common for nucleons, leptons, mesons and resonance of all kinds, as well as a herd of unseen virtuals . Socrates did.

..

[swansont]

That's because this is a discussion site, not a vehicle to drive traffic to your web page. If you can't be bothered to explain things here, why should anyone else be bothered to review your material?

 

It looks like all you've done is move the problem down a level, by saying that the "bearers [of] the elementary unit of electric charge" are some new system you've named. How do you test this, to see if it's true?

[Salonis]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also not seeing any way to check this to see if it's true. What testable predictions can you make, that aren't covered by existing theory?

 

 

Nobody has seen how the quarks in exactly the same time (how often? Exchanged between his "colorful" outfits as they are in your imagination framed playful physicists. Nobody saw how furiously among quarks flying again "color" gluons. Nobody seen as the mouse-quark bare bear-W boson, when he wanted to turn into another quark. And yet physicists believe. Yes, believe, otherwise it can not be called. Someone asks them some evidence, Doctor? Nobody! He's a question of faith in authority.

No one saw and no virtual particles not count how many particles of all types so there is every point in space. Nobody not count density of this vacuum electrolyte, but everyone believes there is! You do not mind, Doctor? Just to remind you that Socrates KMV no virtuals need!

A. Einstein for example, argued that in a gravitational field, the clock slows down. Generally all hours. Exactly: slow growth with the intensity of the gravitational field. And yet it is not true. As the intensity is just slow clock frequency controlled atoms, such as cesium. Conversely controlled mechanical pendulum clock (hourglass ) and with the intensity of gravitational field is exactly faster: On the way out of the gravitational field of the pendulum clock (even those hourglass) slow down, but only "atomic" are accelerating! Socrates proposes to examine fe.experiment physicists Pound and Rebka broadcast frequency electromagnetic technology. waves into electromagnetic two counters waves located at high altitude above the other (in the valley and on the mountain) Experiment took place a long time and can then easily compare the number of incoming waves in the lower and the upper counter. Socrates concludes that under KMV, number of waves will be exactly the same. Gentlemen P + R claim that up (for long periods of time) is less than the waves in the lower counter (photons are said to glow). It will be totally transparent!

Another, proposed by Socrates (unfortunately so far only thought, but in principle feasible) is the twin paradox but without turning spaceship. In detail and the calculations described in Socrates' KMV. Socrates suggests how to examine the thesis of reciprocal contraction of solids, new arrangement of the well-known experiment train and station, but not with a number of photographers along the train station and train windows, but direct contact measurement of long track line, with arrangement attached to the train.

Lepton mass by KMV is derived from the mass of nucleons (and their antipodes), while the official physical theory has no adequate explanation for the lepton mass. That KMV logically explains what the official theory does not know you is not an argument for the usefulness of KMV?

[swansont]

Nobody has seen how the quarks in exactly the same time (how often? Exchanged between his "colorful" outfits as they are in your imagination framed playful physicists. Nobody saw how furiously among quarks flying again "color" gluons. Nobody seen as the mouse-quark bare bear-W boson, when he wanted to turn into another quark. And yet physicists believe. Yes, believe, otherwise it can not be called. Someone asks them some evidence, Doctor? Nobody! He's a question of faith in authority.

 

Bollocks. Direct observation is not required to test a theory. You have never seen air. Do you conclude that it does not exist? Or is the thought that it exists merely a belief? No, of course not. There are a multitude of tests that let you test for the existence of air. Questioning the validity of quarks is more indicative of not being familiar with the experiments that show their existence and the standard model in general.

 

 

No one saw and no virtual particles not count how many particles of all types so there is every point in space. Nobody not count density of this vacuum electrolyte, but everyone believes there is! You do not mind, Doctor? Just to remind you that Socrates KMV no virtuals need!

 

Good for you. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that your model works, by formulating testable hypotheses. Which is what you've been asked to do a few times already.

 

A. Einstein for example, argued that in a gravitational field, the clock slows down. Generally all hours. Exactly: slow growth with the intensity of the gravitational field. And yet it is not true. As the intensity is just slow clock frequency controlled atoms, such as cesium. Conversely controlled mechanical pendulum clock (hourglass ) and with the intensity of gravitational field is exactly faster: On the way out of the gravitational field of the pendulum clock (even those hourglass) slow down, but only "atomic" are accelerating!

 

I can't parse most of this, other than the slowing varies with gravitational potential, not "intensity" (which is a common mistake). Pendulum clocks have a frequency that is expressly dependent on g, which is separate from any relativistic effects. Which is moot because pendulum clocks are simply not precise enough to measure any relativistic effects we could hope to measure, so there's really no point in using them as an example.

 

Socrates proposes to examine fe.experiment physicists Pound and Rebka broadcast frequency electromagnetic technology. waves into electromagnetic two counters waves located at high altitude above the other (in the valley and on the mountain) Experiment took place a long time and can then easily compare the number of incoming waves in the lower and the upper counter. Socrates concludes that under KMV, number of waves will be exactly the same. Gentlemen P + R claim that up (for long periods of time) is less than the waves in the lower counter (photons are said to glow). It will be totally transparent!

 

Knock yourself out doing this. It's not clear to me what you are doing, but don't let that stop you.

 

Lepton mass by KMV is derived from the mass of nucleons (and their antipodes), while the official physical theory has no adequate explanation for the lepton mass. That KMV logically explains what the official theory does not know you is not an argument for the usefulness of KMV?

 

Which leptons? You can derive the mass of the electron from the mass of a proton and the mass of a neutron? Do tell!

[Salonis]

 

 

Good for you. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that your model works, by formulating testable hypotheses. Which is what you've been asked to do a few times already.

I've already offered two test experiments. Others are described in KMV. Einstein, if I know, thought experiments also used. Einstein described in his books the behavior of these objects moving near the speed of light, which will never be reached and physicists still believed him

Bollocks. Direct observation is not required to test a theory. You have never seen air. Do you conclude that it does not exist? Or is the thought that it exists merely a belief? No, of course not. There are a multitude of tests that let you test for the existence of air. Questioning the validity of quarks is more indicative of not being familiar with the experiments that show their existence and the standard model in general.

There are also color gases if you do not see, I regret. Of course the human senses are extended devise. But even those devices have not exeperienced the current exchange of "colors" between quarks or gluons flitting between them! There are still only hypothéses! But we believe it.

 

Good for you. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that your model works, by formulating testable hypotheses. Which is what you've been asked to do a few times already.

I presented here 5 arguments for the usefulness of KMV. Not one you factually refute

 

I can't parse most of this, other than the slowing varies with gravitational potential, not "intensity" (which is a common mistake). Pendulum clocks have a frequency that is expressly dependent on g, which is separate from any relativistic effects. Which is moot because pendulum clocks are simply not precise enough to measure any relativistic effects we could hope to measure, so there's really no point in using them as an example.

Slow cesium clock also depends on g

 

Knock yourself out doing this. It's not clear to me what you are doing, but don't let that stop you.

It is described in detail in the accompanying article KMV. I admire your method :: criticize the idea, that you do not intend to or read

 

Which leptons? You can derive the mass of the electron from the mass of a proton and the mass of a neutron? Do tell!

Leptons are a class of elementary particles of light (duons): some of them have a charge and thus have non-zero mass (weight difference from protoel (p') and (n), others are without charge since they are two vakants perfect antipodes of group P and group N. I really do not know why you might write for the tenth?

More and more is described in detail in the KMV. Simply open an attachment stored above about "core" of KMV

Edited January 20, 2013 by swansont
fix quote tags