Posted by: graemebird | January 11, 2009

Why Don’t The Electrons Fall To The Nucleus/Why Doesn’t The Nucleus Blow Itself Apart.

All mainstream views of physics would have it that the atom consists of (relatively) tightly packed  Protons and Neutrons in the nucleus of the atom.  The Protons are held to be 1840 or so times as massive as the electrons and they are held to be positively charged. The Neutrons are just a little bit heavier then that. Any kid can see that the Neutron, under the above wrong theory, ought to be merely an electron and a proton combined to form one entity. But oddly enough this is strenuously denied, for no real reason but never mind. 

It is not possible to deny that this is the mainstream view of the PHYSICAL STRUCTURE of the atom without giving an alternative view. Now I was won over with unstoppable international phenomenon, Bill Gaedas alternative view. Particularly as it is market-tested. In his view the electrons are big fat things that engulf the atom in a similiar way to some of those Molecular Model Sets that the oldtime chemists used to use.

 

These sort of “macrami sets” as it were, had genuine and real  predictive power. Some of them were of the sort where if you could fit them together you could predict that the molecule was a viable molecule. I shit you not. These things were marvellous. They were a valid research tool still in the days of black and white TV. I don’t know where things stand as now. 

 

Now when we say the nucleus is tightly packed in the mainstream model we only mean so in relation to the alleged volumeous nothing that the electrons fly around in. 

Unscientist Ian Fisk attempted to bullshit me that this above model is NOT the mainstream model. This is a lie. It is in fact the mainstream model of the atom. And I can prove it. The mainstreamers will not PHYSICALLY DESCRIBE an alternative.  They will say all sorts of crap but none of it being an alternative PHYSICAL model of the atom that the mainstream will all get behind. 

Now this is the mainstream model. And anyone who pretends otherwise is lying. But nonetheless I’m happy to be given an alternative PHYSICAL model of the atom and then you might try and convince me that it is a mainstream model. Thats not going to happen. Since the mainstream model is as described above. And anyone saying otherwise is lying and will likely refuse to describe an alternative physicality to the atom as I’ve described it. 

 

It doesn’t matter what you say about the atom that is NON-PHYSICAL. That cannot change the fact that the mainstream model is as I’ve described. Only proving that I’ve described its physical character incorrectly is relevant here. 

I’ll give you an example of a non-physical shitrain of crap that was used to try and show that my rendering of the mainstream model is wrong:

“An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of an electron in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom’s nucleus. The term “orbital” has become known as either the “mathematical function” or the “region” generated with the function.[1] Specifically, atomic orbitals are the possible quantum states of an individual electron in the electron cloud around a single atom, as described by the function.

The idea that electrons moved in an orbit-like way inside an atom, was first suggested in 1904. From about 1913 to 1926 the electrons were thought to orbit the atomic nucleus much like the planets around the Sun. Explaining the behavior of the electron “orbits” was one of the driving forces behind the development of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, atomic orbitals are described as wave functions over space, indexed by the n, l, and m quantum numbers of the orbital or by the names as used in electron configurations, as shown on the right. As electrons cannot be described as solid particles (like a planet), a more accurate analogy to the electron would be that of a large and often oddly-shaped atmosphere, the electron, distributed around a relatively tiny planet, which is the atomic nucleus. Because of the difference from classical mechanical orbits, the term “orbit” for electrons in atoms, has been replaced with the term orbital.

The orbital names (s, p, d, f) are derived from the characteristics of their spectroscopic lines: sharp, principal, diffuse, and fundamental, the rest being named in alphabetical order….”

 

Now I challenge any of you to show how this is a PHYSICAL description that differs from mine. It doesn’t differ. It doesn’t show that I have it wrong. Because its not a physical description.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OK. So now that I’ve proved that I have the mainstreams model of the atom correct I shall now prove that it is wrong. And that Gadea’s  model is more likely to be closer to the truth.

You see the mainstream model is untenable. In that the positively charged nucleus would blow itself apart, and if it didn’t the electrons would all wind up falling into the nucleus. Not necessarily their own but nucleus’ all around them.

 

 

 

We are still stuck with the same physical model. But now the dumb bastards have taken matters mystical, non-physical and formless. See Ian Fisks bullshit jibber-jabber above.  So the idea is not to stop talking about the reality of how the atom is structured and start jabbering away about probability and other voodoo. The idea is to go back and figure out what its actual structure is. 

Now here are some silocon atoms in array. Look at the triangles. Where are the moving electrons? Where is all this dead space? Where is the dense inner core?  For that matter does this look like a bunch of wave functions and probability clouds? 

Chemistry is sound. Organic chemistry is righteous. But  modern non-commercial physics is just a crock. So lets get the mainstreamers to just admit they were wrong and start again. 

If you wish to see the Fisk filibuster on the other threads well fine. Be aware that I wiped a lot of his stuff because I didn’t want him creating a wall of sound that would confuse people. Naturally I’m still interested in his alternative PHYSICAL model of the atom that he reckons is mainstream. But he’s not going to hand it over because he’s bullshitting.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Look you stupid cunt liar Ian Fisk. Stop fucking lying. And admit I am describing the mainstream model accurately or give me a different physical interpretation. Its really quite simple.

    Any of you third parties considering that this stupidity and dishonesty is somehow atypical here’s Gaeda link proving he’s been subject to this same charlatan abuse as I was. And its not just Fisk.

    http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/11Blog/1Math/M0008Clark.html

    The stupid cunt Fisk keeps telling me my model is 70 years out of date, which is a lie. But he refuses to post an alternative physicality.

  2. Stupid un-scientist Fisk, just came back and made four posts, none of which were a physical description of the atom. All of which were attempts to filibuster.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    He’s a Big Banger and a velocity-absolutist. These are evil bastards I tell you. Lets have a look at their disastrous anti-science behaviour in the past:

    http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/01/ngc-4319-and-markarian-205.html

    Above: Galaxy NGC 4319 and it’s associated newborn quasar with higher redshift Markarian 205 connected by a plasma umbillical chord.

    Sulentic, J.W., and Arp, H.C., The galaxy-quasar connection – NGC 4319 and Markarian 205. I – Direct imagery. II – Spectroscopy, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, Volume 319, Pages 687-708, Aug 1987

    New direct-imaging data are presented for the disturbed spiral galaxy NGC 4319 (z = 0.005) and the apparently connected quasar-like object Markarian 205 (z = 0.072). Image processing of this CCD data reveals (1) an almost continuous luminous connection extending from Mrk 205 into the nucleus of the spiral galaxy; (2) a corresponding feature on the opposite side of the disk, appearing to link a bright UV knot with the nucleus; and (3) extensive morphological peculiarities in NGC 4319 that are consistent with hypothesized explosive nuclear activity. These data support the conclusion that NGC 4319 is an active spiral galaxy that recently ejected Mrk 205 from its nucleus.
    Arp, H.C., NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 – Why Hide a Cosmic Bridge?

    In 1971 with the 5 meter telescope on Mt. Palomar a luminous bridge was discovered between the low redshift galaxy NGC 4319 and the much higher redshift quasar, Markarian 205. Because this contradicted the assumption that redshift was invariably a measure of velocity and distance, it invalidated the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Conventional astronomers fiercely resisted this evidence but as it accumulated for this and numerous other similar examples the results were increasingly suppressed and ignored.

  3. “It is said that an electron in an antenna (say, a copper wire) moves only a few cm when it is driven (by an alternating current) at, say, 10MHz.

    Yet, we also know that if we apply a charge to a copper wire at point x1, a current moves at nearly the speed of light down the wire (a “net drift” of electrons) to point x2 (say, 10 meters from x1)…….”

    This is a question asked in science forum to remind people that electrons don’t behave as advertised Here its almost impossible to imagine anything but big fat electrons pushing each-other along the wire. Rather then tiny electrons orbiting. Which one would imagine was a wrenching process if true. Electrons exchanging nuclei

    If they were orbiting as suggested and it was just some sort of net flow effect it is utterly implausible that electrons, moving down a wire at a couple of inches per hour, would wind up sending signals at close to the speed of light. So the idea of tiny orbiting electrons must be sent to the fires.

    So they don’t fall into the nucleus. This is because they are big bastards. Bigger then the nucleus. And they aren’t oribiting. Thats bullshit too. And it is likely the case that they really do push eachother along the wire.

  4. Right so more bullshit from Fisk. His comments with my comments thrown in:

    Modern science does have a current physical model of an atom.

    * An atom consists of a tiny positive nucleus surrounded by electrons.
    * The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons.
    BUT WAIT A MINUTE.THATS MY DESCRIPTION EXACTLY YOU LYING CUNT. YOU SAID I HAD IT WRONG. AND ORBITALS ARE A VOLUME YOU SAY? YOU MEAN A REGION AROUND THE NUCLEUS RIGHT? SHELLS IF YOU LIKE RIGHT? THEN WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL THEM ORBITS THEN YOU STUPID CUNT?

    * The electrons exist in volumes called orbitals.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This is what happens. You clarify the modern mainstream position on the structure of the atom as I did so above. I did it accurately. Then Fisk comes along and lies constantly that my model was 70 years out of date. When finally harassed into describing an alternate physicality to the atom he confirms my initial description. Without apologizing for lying in the first place.

  5. Right. Here is the experiment that Fisk is referring to. Also known as the Rutherford experiment. Lets see what Mr Elliots uncle had to say about it:

    “It was quite the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life. It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you. On consideration, I realized that this scattering backward must be the result of a single collision, and when I made calculations I saw that it was impossible to get anything of that order of magnitude unless you took a system in which the greater part of the mass of the atom was concentrated in a minute nucleus. It was then that I had the idea of an atom with a minute massive centre, carrying a charge. [3]”

    You see that? Good science. Great fucking science. A rational explanation. An idea of the physicality of things. You just don’t get scientists like that about the place no more.

  6. Right. Fisk has come up with some lame excuse. He says that the protons don’t blow eachother apart on account of the mysterious STRONG NUCLEAR FORCES. Yeah right.

    From his link:

    “The nuclear force (or nucleon-nucleon interaction or residual strong force) is the force between two or more nucleons. It is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei. To a large extent, this force can be understood in terms of the exchange of virtual light mesons, such as the pions. ”

    What a load of shit. Thats obviously no explanation at all. Thats not an explanation. Rather its a bunch of jive as substitute for an explanation. Mostly I mean about excanges of virtual light mesons carrying force with them in tiny paper bags marked “registered quantum-jive force on demand”.

    Fisk then goes on to explain why the electrons don’t fall into the nucleus and totally fails. He doesn’t even try. He simply restates the standard model as if the restatement will magically keep the electrons in their shells. Note that the shell isn’t physical. Hence there is no reason to believe it would stop the electrons from falling to the nucleus.

  7. “…snip…You see that? Good science. Great fucking science. A rational explanation. An idea of the physicality of things. You just don’t get scientists like that about the place no more.”

    I agree. WELL WHY DON’T YOU FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE FOR A FUCKING CHANGE.

    Do you agree with the good science (great fucking science?) that took Rutherfords experiment further into probing the nucleus itself?

    I VERY MUCH DOUBT IT. BUT THE PROBLEM ISN’T ALWAYS WITH THE FIRST BLOKE WHO COMES UP WITH AN IDEA THAT HAPPENS TO BE WRONG. THE PROBLEM IS THIS CONSTANT BUILDING ON BAD IDEAS AND USING BLATANT IRRATIONALITY AND MATHS-MYSTICISM TO MAKE THIS DYSFUNCTIONAL METHODOLOGY FLY.

  8. Keep going.

  9. You like Rutherford’s experiment. ME LIKING IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. BUT IT WAS A GREAT EXPERIMENT AND A REASONED INFERENCE.

    If it was wrong then nuclei do not exist.

    NO THATS TOTAL CRAP. THE STATUS OF NUCLEI IS INDEPENDENT OF THE RUTHERFORD EXPERIMENT. RUTHERFORD COULD HAVE HAD AN EXCELLENT EXPERIMENT, FANTASTICALLY WELL-REASONED INFERENCES, AND HE COULD STILL GET IT WRONG. ITS LATER ON WHEN PEOPLE BUILD ON THE STUFF WHICH BY THEN OUGHT TO BE RECOGNISED IS WRONG…. THATS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. INSUFFICIENT CIRCLING BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES.

    Since it was correct then nuclei exist.

    NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH IT. THIS IS OCCULT EPISTEMOLOGY THAT YOUR IRRATIONALISM IS COMING UP WITH.

    The modern mainstream explanation for this is the strong nuclear force.

    RIGHT. BUT THAT EXPLAINS NOTHING AT ALL. THATS CIRCULAR REASONING AND A FUDGE FACTOR. HERE IS WHERE MATTERS COME OFF THE RAIL.

    WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER LINK. WE JUST NEED THE REASONING. AND IT CANNOT BE BASED PURELY ON THE FACT THAT THE PROTONS DON’T BLOW APART AND THEREFORE SOMETHING MUST BE HOLDING THEM TOGETHER. YOU NEED TWO OR THREE LINES OF CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. NOT JUST THAT ONE. THE IDEA THAT THE ELECTRON WAS HUGE WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE. AND WE HAVE CONVERGENT EVIDENCE FOR THAT AND NOT JUST THE IDEA THAT THE PROTONS DON’T EXPLODE APART. SO YOU SEE THAT ITS JUST UNACCEPTABLE TO LOCK SOME IDEA IN IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE LINE OF EVIDENCE. AS IT GOES FOR RED-SHIFT, SO IT GOES IN THIS CASE. THREE CONVERGENT LINES OF EVIDENCE IS ABOUT THE MINIMUM YOU’D WANT TO TELL YOU YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

  10. Do you want a course in quantum chromodymanics then?

    WELL ITS LUDICROUS BULLSHIT. SO ITS NOT WORTH LEARNING. RATHER YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THE REASONING BEHIND IT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.

    Lets start with the history of the strong nuclear force. Tomorrow I will go onto the Chadwicks discovery of the neuton.

    The nuclear force has been at the heart of nuclear physics ever since the field was born in 1932 with the discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick.

    SO FAR SO GOOD. BUT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DISCOVERY OF THE NEUTRON. THEN LIKE A STUPID CUNT YOU CHARGE AHEAD AND START TALKING ABOUT NUCLEONS. JUST SAY PROTONS AND NEUTRONS UNLESS YOU’VE GOT SOME REASON NOT TO.

    The traditional goal of nuclear physics is to understand the properties of atomic nuclei in terms of the ‘bare’ interaction between pairs of nucleons, or nucleon-nucleon forces (NN forces).

    In 1935, Hideki Yukawa made the earliest attempt to explain the nature of the ALLEGED nuclear force.

    YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THIS SHIT IS TRUE. STOP BULLSHITTING AND CHANGE YOUR WORDING ACCORDINGLY.

    According to his theory THATS BETTER massive bosons (mesons) mediate the interaction between two nucleons. Although, in light of QCD OH RIGHT NOW HERE YOU GO. STARTING TO SHORTEN WORDS GETTING READY FOR SOME SORT OF SLEIGHT OF HAND. QUANTUM THEORY IS BULLSHIT. HENCE ITS NOT NECESSARY TO REFER TO IT AT ALL. , meson theory is no longer perceived as fundamental, the meson-exchange concept (where hadrons are treated as elementary particles) continues to represent the best working model for a quantitative NN potential.

    ALREADY YOU’VE FUCKED IT UP. YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN ANY NEED TO BRING IN A MESON-EXCHANGE THEORY IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU’VE CHARACTERISED IT AS THE BEST WORKING MODEL AS IF YOU’D FUCKING KNOW. BACKTRACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES. YOU’VE GOT THESE PROTONS. THEY OUGHT TO FLY APART. SOMETHING IS HOLDING THEM IN YOU ARE SAYING. ARBITRARILY THERE IS A CLAIM IN FAVOUR OF STRONG NUCLEAR FORCES. SO FAR THIS IS A FUDGE FACTOR SINCE THE PROTONS OUGHT TO FLY APART WITH THE SETUP THEY HAD.

    Historically, it was a formidable task to describe the nuclear force WHAT NUCLEAR FORCE. YOU ARE ASSUMING ITS REAL ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE OR THE PROTONS WOULD FLY APART. BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER REASONS… phenomenologically, and the first semi-empirical quantitative models came in the mid-1950s. There has been substantial progress in experiment and theory related to the nuclear force. RIGHT SEE HERE YOU ARE WAFFLING. THESE GUYS ARE IDIOTS AND GIVEN A FEW DECADES COULD EASILY HAVE MADE ALL THEIR THINKING CIRCULAR AND RUTHLESSLY QUASHED DISSENT Most basic questions were settled in the 1960s and 1970s. RIGHT THATS ENOUGH. START PROVING ALL THESE WILD CLAIMS YOU ARE MAKING STEP BY STEP.

  11. P.S. A link to where you got the image of the “silocon atoms in array” would be good so that we can see the context.
    I would be very interested in a technique that you claim should be able to image moveing electrons.

    WHY NOT STATIONARY ELECTRONS? NOTICE YOU SAW THE PICTURE YET DOGMATICALLY ASSUMED THAT YOUR PARADIGM WAS CORRECT.

  12. I know that you do not like links but here is one about atomic orbitals:

    DON’T BULLSHIT PEOPLE ABOUT ORBITALS. EITHER ITS AN ORBIT OR IT ISN’T. AND AS THINGS STAND IT DOESN’T REALLY LOOK LIKE THERE IS MUCH REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ELECTRONS ARE ORBITING AT ALL. WE’VE ESTABLISHED THAT THE MAINSTREAM BELIEVES IN ORBITS, BY ANY OTHER NAME. NOW IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE ARE THESE ORBITS. WHERE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE IS THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT LOCKS THESE ORBITS IN. IT REALLY DOES APPEAR LIKE IT WAS BUILDING ON MISTAKES. THE INITIAL MISTAKES MAY HAVE BEEN FOR SOUND REASONS. THE LATER BUILDING IS WHERE I THINK THE PROBLEM IS.

    If you want I will copy the text instead.

  13. I have had second thoughts about running a course on a subject that I am rusty on. My thesis was on theoretical solid state physics so I know a lot about atoms from the electrons outward. But the nuclear physics that I learnt was mostly undergraduate courses.

    I can give a couple of the lines of reasoning behind the existence of the strong nuclear force from memory. For the rest you will have to do your own research.
    1. The atomic nucleus has a structure. When the number of nucleons (either protons or neutrons) are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 or 126 then the isotope is more stable against nuclear decay than a nearby isotope. When neutron number and proton number are both equal to one of the magic numbers the isotope is especially stable against decay. We have seen this situation before: the electron configuration is also more stable (elements are inert) at certain numbers. We can calculate the electron configuration using quantum mechanics and match the experimental data. So we do the same thing for an atomic nucleus and find that we can match the experimental nuclear configuration. In order to do this we have to plug a potential well into Schrodinger’s equation. A potential well represents a central force.

    This is a repeat of the original reason without the circular logic:
    2. Atomic nuclei exist (the Rutherfors experiment and thousands more experiments since). They have protons (and neutrons) in them. The positive charge on the protons has to be countered somehow so that atomic nuclei can exist. the options seem to be:
    a) There is a force pushing the protons together.
    b) There is a force pulling the protons together.
    c) Both a and b.
    d) None of the above.

    WHAT ABOUT BIG FAT ELECTRONS PUSHING THE PROTONS TOGETHER. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? YOU SEE YOU ARE TRYING TO IMAGINE IT AS IF THE ELECTRONS ARE TINY AND FOLLOWING ORBITS. BUT THEY COULD BE BIG FAT SHEILAS SURROUNDING THE LITTLE BLOKES IN THE CENTRE AND CRUSHING UP AGAINST THEM. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHERE YOUR ORBITS (DON’T TRY AND BULLSHIT PEOPLE AGAIN WITH THIS WORD-GAME OF ORBITALS) ARE COMING FROM.

    Mainstream science has opted for option b. RIGHT. WELL MAYBE THEY’VE COME OFF THE BEAM. I THINK THEY HAVE. SO WHY DON’T THEY GO BACK AND INVESTIGATE OTHER OPTIONS. HERE YOU HAVE THIS IMMENSELY ATTRACTIVE FORCE BETWEEN ELECTRONS AND PROTONS AND THE ASSERTION IS THAT IT IS TO HAVE NO EFFECT. AND YOU HAVE THE ELECTRONS WHIZZING ABOUT LIKE MIGHTY MOUSE IN THESE VARYING ORBITS AND THEY DON’T DO JACK.

    CLEARLY WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IS THAT THE FORCE IS COMING FROM THE PRESS OF THE BIG FAT ELECTRONS. WELL NO THATS GOING TOO FAR. BUT AT LEAST THATS ONE ASSUMPTION LESS. WHY INVENT A NEW FORCE WHEN AN OLD ONE WILL DO?

    I do not know all of the reasons for taking that option.

    ITS NOT TAKING THE OPTION THAT IS BAD. ITS DROPPING THE OTHER OPTIONS WHEN THE FACT IS THEY DON’T KNOW BETTER.

  14. I have also found some experimental evidence for the strong force. The experiment below was first done found by Ernest Rutherford’s laboratory in 1919 and repeated several times. By 1921 the experimental data was convincing evidence for forces which were other than simple coulomb repulsive forces were at work in close

    nuclear interactions.

    [Eisberg, R. M. and Porter, C. E., Rev. Mod. Phys. 33, 190 (1961)]
    In 1961 Eisberg and Porter repeated Rutherford’s experiment with a range of alpha particle energies. The higher the energy of the alpha particles the closer they got to the nucleus before bouncing away.

    HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? THAT CONTENTION WOULD HAVE TO BE AUDITED.

    The Rutherford scattering formula gives the number of particles per unit area striking a detector for a detector at a specific

    angle with respect to the incident beam. The formula is derived by considering the Coulomb force exerted on the alpha particles by the positive nucleus.
    If the Coulomb force is the only force involved then the experiment results should fit the formula at all energies.

    NOT AT ALL. NATURE DOESN’T WORK LIKE THIS. THE MATHS IS THERE TO DESCRIBE AND NOT PREDICT THE PHENOMENON.

    What Eisberg and Porter found was that over an energy of about 27.5 MeV the experimental results dipped below the theoretical curve. It was not a small dip. At 35 MeV they were expecting a relative intensity of ~70 but measured a relative intensity of ~8.

    I’M AFRAID THATS VERY WEAK EVIDENCE AND NOT ANYTHING AT ALL TO GET EXCITED ABOUT. THE CONTENTION THAT IT OUGHT TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN PRE-ORDAINED FORMULA ITSELF IS NOT PROVEN. NOR DO WE KNOW THE EFFECT OF THE NEED FOR THESE TINY HELIUM NUCLEUS’ WHEN PENENTRATING THESE BIG FAT MOMMA ELECTRONS, IF THEY ARE IN FACT BIG AND FAT.

    The conclusion is that there is something else affecting the alpha particles at high energies,

    WAY TOO WEAK. IT OUGHT NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SERIOUS EVIDENCE. AND LOOK HOW THE EXPERIMENT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED WITH 3 OR MORE HYPOTHESES IN MIND. THESE GUYS ARE FINDING OUT WHAT THEY WANT TO KNOW.

    .i.e. when they get close to the nucleus.
    It is not the Columb force since it is catered for in the formula.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    THE MAGICAL FORMULA GETS PUT FORWARD IN PREFERENCE TO REALITY.

    It is not gravity since gravity is too weak for the effect.

    WELL YES THATS RIGHT.

    It is thus another unknown force. The modern name for this force is the “nuclear force” or sometimes “residual strong force”.

    GET OUTTA HERE. YOU’LL HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT.

    • OK. So in summary. Protons have a strong positive charge. Electrons have a strong negative charge. They will attract the other presumably and repel like. So if the electrons are big fat mommas a compromise must be made with their attraction to the protons and their being repelled by the other electrons.

      Hence we already have a known force that can be pushing against the protons and be helping them stay in the nucleus. Why invent a new force when we have one already? And at least if you do invent it how about taking the old one into account? And if you invent it be prepared to backtrack and rake over the old stuff all the time. Because there is nothing so foolish as building on the quicksand of assumptions that may be wrong.

      The problem with government funded science is not that the original guys that came up with the ideas are stupid. The problem is that there is too much building on the old stuff and too little reworking of first principles.

      The Big Bang would seem to be the ultimate in this linear building.

  15. Electrons are neagtive, protins are positive, Unlike charges attract. They do not repel.

    EXACTLY. HENCE THE BIG ELECTRONS CAN HOLD THE PROTONS IN THE NUCLEUS. WHEREAS IN THE ALTERNATIVE SITUATION THE NUCLEUS MUST BLOW ITSELF APART AND/OR THE ELECTRONS MUST FALL INTO A NUCLEUS, NOT NECESSARILY ITS OWN.

    If you want we can forget about the mainstream model and instead go onto the many problems with the fat electron picture.

    WE DON’T WANT TO FORGET ABOUT ANYTHING. WE DON’T WANT TO BE HANGING IT ON BILL. BUT ASSUME THE BIG FACT ELECTRON PICTURE. RIGHT AWAY A WHOLE STRING OF PROBLEMS ARE ELIMINATED AND A WHOLE LOT OF VOODOO AND EVASIVE BEHAVIOUR BECOMES LESS NECESSARY.

  16. We wouldn’t want to discount the idea of having a nucleus of compressed eletrons within the nucleus. That would provide an attraction force to the outer layer of protons. And may be what a lot of these neutrons are being mistaken for. There is no real reason for me to believe this from the getgo. But on first principles you want to be attempting to knock out extra assumptions. So the attempt ought to be made to knock out the extra forces as a matter of methodological habit.

    Its a problem if one thinks that Rutherford is so great that we lock in his maths formulas as the word of nature. This experiment of yours has to be considered as close to no evidence at all. Unless what is going on is surpassingly outrageously strange.

    And also its a problem if Bohr cleverness leads people to just go on building and any contradiction is heresy. The fact is that having these orbits (they are ORBITS, don’t screw around) either in shells or otherwise, cannot prevent the electrons from immediately falling in to the various nucleus’. So it really ought to go as a theory.

  17. I have also found some experimental evidence for the strong force. The experiment below was first done found by Ernest Rutherford’s laboratory in 1919 and repeated several times. By 1921 the experimental data was convincing evidence for forces which were other than simple coulomb repulsive forces were at work in close

    nuclear interactions.

    [Eisberg, R. M. and Porter, C. E., Rev. Mod. Phys. 33, 190 (1961)]
    In 1961 Eisberg and Porter repeated Rutherford’s experiment with a range of alpha particle energies. The higher the energy of the alpha particles the closer they got to the nucleus before bouncing away.

    HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? THAT CONTENTION WOULD HAVE TO BE AUDITED.
    Who is going to audit them?
    If you mean checked then it is simple physics. You have 2 positive particles colliding. if you add more energy then the separation between them decreases. Just consider the case of a head on collision. Then extend it to glancing collisions.
    This is what Rutherford did to get the Rutherford scattering formula.

    The Rutherford scattering formula gives the number of particles per unit area striking a detector for a detector at a specific angle with respect to the incident beam. The formula is derived by considering the Coulomb force exerted on the alpha particles by the positive nucleus.
    If the Coulomb force is the only force involved then the experiment results should fit the formula at all energies.

    NOT AT ALL. NATURE DOESN’T WORK LIKE THIS. THE MATHS IS THERE TO DESCRIBE AND NOT PREDICT THE PHENOMENON.
    Are you being serious?
    I will assume you missed out a big 😉
    I see – no scientist has ever predicted anything using mathematics 🙂 🙂
    * Nobody has any idea where the planets will be tomorrow!
    * No first year student has ever used Newton’s laws of motion to predict what will when 2 bodies collide on an air table!
    * Tide tables are made up out of thin air!
    * etc.

    What Eisberg and Porter found was that over an energy of about 27.5 MeV the experimental results dipped below the theoretical curve. It was not a small dip. At 35 MeV they were expecting a relative intensity of ~70 but measured a relative intensity of ~8.

    I’M AFRAID THATS VERY WEAK EVIDENCE AND NOT ANYTHING AT ALL TO GET EXCITED ABOUT. THE CONTENTION THAT IT OUGHT TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN PRE-ORDAINED FORMULA ITSELF IS NOT PROVEN. NOR DO WE KNOW THE EFFECT OF THE NEED FOR THESE TINY HELIUM NUCLEUS’ WHEN

    PENENTRATING THESE BIG FAT MOMMA ELECTRONS, IF THEY ARE IN FACT BIG AND FAT.
    The problem with “BIG FAT MOMMA ELECTRONS” is that electrons are in fact neither BIG or FAT. If they were then we could see them. As you know we can image atoms. We can image electrons that are as big and fat as atoms.

    The conclusion is that there is something else affecting the alpha particles at high energies, .i.e. when they get close to the nucleus.
    It is not the Columb force since it is catered for in the formula.

    WAY TOO WEAK. IT OUGHT NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SERIOUS EVIDENCE. AND LOOK HOW THE EXPERIMENT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED WITH 3 OR MORE HYPOTHESES IN MIND. THESE GUYS ARE FINDING OUT WHAT THEY WANT TO KNOW.
    Actually way too strong a deviation from predicted behaviour. These guys and the many others including Rutherford between 1911 and 1961 are finding out that what they expect is wrong.

    If you want 3 or more hypotheses for the experimentally observed scattering then
    1. Lewis model of the atom (cubic model).
    2. Plum pudding model.
    3. Rutherford model.
    4. Bohr model.
    5. Bohr-Sommerfeld model.
    6. Big fat electron model.
    7. The modern quantum model
    Remember that this experiment just adds a range of energy for the alpha particles to the original Rutherford experiment.
    This experiment rules out 1 and 2 since it shows that the nucleus is small and positive just as the original Rutherford experiment with just 1 energy for alpha particles did .
    6 is ruled out because the alpha particles do not bounce off the big fat electron. Actually hypothesis 6 is just a version of the plum pudding model that Rutherford’s 1909 experiment that you like so much had already ruled out.
    That leaves us 3, 4, 5 and 7 which all have small nuclei.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    THE MAGICAL FORMULA GETS PUT FORWARD IN PREFERENCE TO REALITY.
    Rutherford’s formula that describes and predicts reality at low energies is violated by the experiment at high energies.

    It is not gravity since gravity is too weak for the effect.

    WELL YES THATS RIGHT.

    It is thus another unknown force. The modern name for this force is the “nuclear force” or sometimes “residual strong force”.

    GET OUTTA HERE. YOU’LL HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT.
    I do not. You have to do much better than the plum pudding model resurrected from the scrapyard by Bill Geade.
    I could give you better descriptions and even a fuller list of experiments. But you do not allow links.

  18. “We wouldn’t want to discount the idea of having a nucleus of compressed eletrons within the nucleus. That would provide an attraction force to the outer layer of protons. And may be what a lot of these neutrons are being mistaken for. There is no real reason for me to believe this from the getgo. But on first principles you want to be attempting to knock out extra assumptions. So the attempt ought to be made to knock out the extra forces as a matter of methodological habit.

    Its a problem if one thinks that Rutherford is so great that we lock in his maths formulas as the word of nature. This experiment of yours has to be considered as close to no evidence at all. Unless what is going on is surpassingly outrageously strange.

    And also its a problem if Bohr cleverness leads people to just go on building and any contradiction is heresy. The fact is that having these orbits (they are ORBITS, don’t screw around) either in shells or otherwise, cannot prevent the electrons from immediately falling in to the various nucleus’. So it really ought to go as a theory.”
    But more electrons means more protons to balance the charge! So now you do not have the original atom. And what about hydrogen which just has 1 proton and 1 electron! Where does the “nucleus of compressed eletrons within the nucleus” go?
    Neutrons are not being mistaken for electrons. They are neutral. Electrons have charge.

    BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BLOCK EACHOTHERS CHARGES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHIELD THE CHARGES. SO IF AN ELECTRON IS ENCIRCLED IT IS PROVIDING A PULL FACTOR BUT ITS ENTIRE CHARGE NEED NOT BE EXPRESSED OUTSIDE OF THAT.

    HENCE IT OUGHT NOT BE THOUGHT THE WORD OF GOD THAT THE CHARGES MUST ADD UP TO BE EQUAL. AN ELECTRON COULD BE HIDDEN IN THE INNER SANCTUM OF THE NUCLEUS AND IT MAY NOT AFFECT MUCH THE WAY THAT THE ATOM REACTS TO THE REST OF THE ATOMS AROUND IT.

    TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE NEUTRON. YOU CAN HAVE A BUNCH OF EXTRA NEUTRONS AND YET THE PROPERTIES OF THE ATOM ARE ALMOST ECLUSIVELY THE PROVINCE OF THE PROTON ALONE. THE NEUTRON ONLY CONTRIBUTES MASS.

    NOW THIS COULD WELL MEAN THAT NEUTRONS ARE ON THE INSIDE. THAT THE PROTONS ARE ON THE OUTER LAYER OF THE NUCLEUS. AND THAT ONLY THEY DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE ATOM.

  19. P.S. Any contradiction is not heresy – it just needs a lot of supporting evidence (big claims need big evidence).

    NOT THATS NOT RIGHT. BECAUSE THE WORD “BIG” IS ARBITRARY. THE STATUS QUO GETS NO HANDICAP NO MATTER HOW DESPERATELY IT NEEDS ONE.
    That was the case with plate techtonics, quark theory, evolution and other theories.

    MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. WE SHALL NOT CONFUSE THE HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE WITH THE BETTER SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.

    If you want we will call atomic orbitals ORBITS then we will do so for the purposes of this blog. But the orbits are really strange, e.g an electron in a 2p ORBIT (a double sphere) traverses 1 sphere, jumps through instantaneously to the other sphere, traverses it and then jumps back to the sphere it started from!

    RRRRRIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT. WELL FIRST THING YOU’VE GOT TO DO IS CUT ANY JIVE THAT YOU CANNOT DERIVE UP FROM THE GROUND. SO MAGICALLY JUMPING ELECTRONS MUST BE SENT TO THE FIRE. AND AN ORBIT IS JUST AN ORBIT. ITS NO MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION OR ANYTHING ELSE.

    Of course the quantum mechanical description is different but it is not “physical”, uses weird mathematics, is counter-intuative and so is obviously wrong. Pity that it predicts the results of so many experiments (but they must be lies).

    ITS NOT A PITY. BUT WE DIDN’T NEED WRONG THEORY TO MAKE PREDICTIONS. WHEN THE PREDICTIONS WERE REALLY JUST CALLED THUSLY AFTER THE FACT.

    THE GUYS WHO COULD REALLY MAKE PREDICTIONS WERE THE CHEMISTS WITH THEIR MACRAMI SETS WITH BIG FAT ELECTRONS. THATS THE MODEL THAT REALLY HAS PASSED THE PREDICTION TEST TIME AND AGAIN.

  20. By the way here is your opinion of Rutherford’s experiment:
    “You see that? Good science. Great fucking science. A rational explanation. An idea of the physicality of things. You just don’t get scientists like that about the place no more.”

    I wonder what changes when Rutherford just uses the energy of alpha particles that he uses.

  21. Right. The Rutherford experiment was good and his inferences were appropriate. He then found a mathematical formula that approximated the reality of what he tested. But such approximations can only ever confidently be followed through a certain range. Rutherford wasn’t there to tell these people that they weren’t to abuse his formula so roundly nor jump to the conclusions that they jumped to.

  22. Perhaps you can tell me what range the Rutherford scattering formula is valid for and how you derived that range.

    “Rutherford wasn’t there to tell these people that they weren’t to abuse his formula so roundly nor jump to the conclusions that they jumped to.”
    He was. It was his labs that first did the experiment in 1911 and got the same departure from his formula. The 1961 experiment was repeating his experiment.
    Scientists tend to do that – verify that previous experiments are correct and try to get better data.

  23. “But more electrons means more protons to balance the charge! So now you do not have the original atom. And what about hydrogen which just has 1 proton and 1 electron! Where does the “nucleus of compressed eletrons within the nucleus” go?
    Neutrons are not being mistaken for electrons. They are neutral. Electrons have charge.”

    Yeah you do. If there a lot of the electron/protons in the nucleus, and supposing some of them are mistaken for neutrons, this could account for alleged strong nuclear forces. Notice that as the atom gets larger it gets to have disproportionately more neutrons. So already with Helium you have two neutrons and two protons. An only two electrons in the outer part of the atom. The extra two neutrons could be shielding the protons in some way. Stopping them from blowing eachother apart. And so it goes. As the number of protons increase so do the number of neutrons. And isn’t it the case that the neutrons grow somewhat dissproportionately?

  24. Helium has 2 neutrons in the nucleus. Whch one is an electron being mistaken for a neutron. Where does all the mass that an electron does not have go?

    • WE DON’T REALLY KNOW IF HELIUM HAS THE SAME ARRANGEMENT AS GOLD DO WE? HOW HAS THAT BEEN DETERMINED? IT MAY WELL BE MORE OF A PUDDING ARRANGEMENT. WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT?

  25. “And isn’t it the case that the neutrons grow somewhat dissproportionately?”
    The problem is how do you define disproportionately without a atomic model to provide a baseline.
    But yes we see that there are more neutrons than protons for common isotopes of elements as the number of protons grow. This is one of the experimental matches with the predictions of modern nuclear physics.

    BULLSHIT. THEY JUST RECOGNIZE IT AFTER THE FACT AND THEN CALL IT A PREDICTION. NOW HOW DOES MODERN PHYSICS SUGGEST THERE WILL BE MORE OF THESE NEUTRONS? IS THIS A POWERFULLY STRONG INFERENCE OR RECOGNIZED AFTER THE FACT WITH ALL SORTS OF PROBABILITY AND VOODOO THROWN IN.

    NOTHINGS LOCKED IN IF YOU CANNOT DERIVE IT FROM AUTHENTIC REASONED ARGUMENT.

    SO FAR WE’VE DETERMINED ONLY THAT THE GOLD NUCLEUS IS POSITIVELY CHARGED AND TAKES UP A SMALL AMOUNT OF VOLUME IN COMPARISON TO THE ATOM-PROPER. AND THATS IT. THATS ALL THATS BEEN PROVED AND THAT CAN SAFELY BE LOCKED IN. SOMEWHERE WE ARE GOING TO FIND WHERE THESE GUYS WENT WRONG. BECAUSE THEY MOST CERTAINLY DID GO WRONG.

    • “HOW DOES MODERN PHYSICS SUGGEST THERE WILL BE MORE OF THESE NEUTRONS?”

      The coulomb term in the semi-empirical mass formula (SEMF) suggests this. The coulomb repulsion between protons makes it more energetically favourable to have more neutrons than protons in a nucleus. Taking this effect in isolation it actually says that it is most energetically favourable to have just one proton or only neutrons in an atom. This explanation completely explains the relationship between this term and the number of protons and the total number of neutrons in the atom.

  26. I think we have found a controversy that can reveal where people are going wrong. Clearly the neutron is somehow a combination of the two. That would be ones first assumption. Why would anyone think otherwise?

    I remember reading this book when I was little. And when they would shoot a neutron into the nucleus of an atom they would wind up with an extra proton. And when they would shoot a proton in they would wind up with an extra neutron. If thats true they appear to be interchangeable by some process or other.

    So where is this ideological opposition to the idea coming from. If we can track down the cause of this part of the doctrine we may see part of where things are going wrong.

  27. Keep your wits about you Fisk. Obviously the Hydrogen atom provides no problems for the strong nuclear forces to solve. Since you have a proton on its own. And you don’t have two protons to explode away from eachother.

  28. “I remember reading this book when I was little. And when they would shoot a neutron into the nucleus of an atom they would wind up with an extra proton. And when they would shoot a proton in they would wind up with an extra neutron. If thats true they appear to be interchangeable by some process or other.”
    They are in a sense. They both consist of 3 quarks (the 3 particles found by good old Rutherford-style scattering experiments).

    DON’T COME THE QUARK JIVE WITH ME. WE HAVEN’T EVEN GOT PAST RUTHERFORD YET AND HUGE LEAPS OVER VERY LOW PROOF-BARS ARE BEING PERFORMED AND LOCKED IN. THIS IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE.

    N-N and N-P collision can produce protons and pi-mesons. WHERE WAS THIS HERE MESON PROVED. ITS INFERRED ISN’T IT? YOU ARE JUMPING WAY AHEAD.

    NOW WHERE IS THIS IDEOLOGICAL INSISTENCE THAT A NEUTRON CANNOT BE A PROTON AND AN ELECTRON COMING FROM. AND JUST WHAT ARE THESE NEUTRON STARS ANYWAYS.

    There is scientific opposition to the idea since the proton and neutron consist of 3 particles as shown by Rutherford-style scattering experiments.

    I DON’T THINK THAT YOU’VE SHOWN THAT AT ALL. AND THE RUTHERFORD TALISMAN IS NOT DOING YOU ANY GOOD SINCE RUTHERFORD WASN’T AROUND TO CALL BOLLOCKS TO WHAT WAS BEING DONE IN HIS NAME.

    Other little problems with the neutron as a proton and electron picture:
    (* A neutron has a measured spin of 1/2. A proton has a measured spin of 1/2. An electron has a measured spin of 1/2. There is no way to construct a particle with a spin of 1/2 from 2 particles with spins of 1/2.)

    WHERE IS ALL THIS JIVE-ASS SPIN COMING FROM? YOU HAVEN’T DERIVED THIS AT ALL. THIS IS BLOOD-SUCKER-CENTRAL PUTTING THE EVIDENCE BAR DOWN LOW FOR ITSELF AND FORCING EVERY FUCKING TO JUMP OVER A BUILDING.

    NO GOOD. YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN ANY OF THIS.

  29. I should point out that the mystery of why the electrons don’t fall to the nucleus hasn’t been resolved yet. Calling an orbit and “orbital” and saying its a maths function cannot change that fact except for the very dimwitted. So we have to really figure that one out.

  30. Bird you kook. The device that produced that image relies on the “voodoo” view of atomic physics you don’t ascribe to.

    The image means nothing in your world view. It might as well just be an artists impression as it is the result of interpretation of theory you reject.

    The bumps you are seeing are indeed the election cloud.

    By the way how are the Obama lawsuits going?

  31. Right. Tell me more about this image-production. I very much did wonder about it.

  32. They are generally done with a scanning tunneling microscope.

    TUNNELLING!!!!

    RRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTT

    You can probably get a more precise description elsewhere, however. It relies on setting up a tiny gap between the single atom probe end and the surface being scanned. as it moves across the surface, the probability of an electron tunneling between the atom on the surface a nd the probe tip changes. Depending on how close you are to the atom.

    YOU CANNOT TAKE PICTURES OF PROBABILITIES YOU STUPID CUNT. THE PROBABILITY IS A CONCEPT THAT IS ON THE PAGE, IN THE MIND OR ON THE COMPUTER ALONE. STOP BEING A FUCKHEAD.

    The surface you see as I understand it is some transistion probability (or really rate) of electrons tunneling across the gap.

    YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SHIT. THIS REMINDS ME OF NIMITZ. NO-ONES SHOWN HOW HIS LIGHT-SPEED BEATING EXPERIMENTS HAVE FAILED. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR LIGHT TO BE A SPEED LIMIT EVER IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT HIS EFFORTS APPEAR TO BE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED FROM THE INTERNET AND NOW WHENEVER YOU HERE ABOUT HIS LIGHT-BEATING EFFORTS HE HAS TO JIVE US THAT ITS WORMHOLE TUNNELLING.

    I DON’T WHEN YOU CUNTS ARE GOING TO GET OFF OUR BACKS BUT IT WON’T BE UNTIL SOMETIME AFTER THE FUNDS ARE CUT OFF.

  33. A WASTED POST. YOU REFUSE TO PROVE THE STRUCTURE YOU MERELY STATE THAT IT IS PROVED. WORST OF ALL YOU POINT TO NEUTRON STARS AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT NEUTRONS ARE PROTONS AND ELECTRONS COMBINED IN SOME WAY. ONE DAY YOU HAVE PROTONS NEUTRONS AND ELECTRONS. NEXT YOU JUST HAVE NEUTRONS. THATS AN OWN GOAL ON YOUR PART.

    BY THE WAY. COMMENTS WITH TWO LINKS OR MORE TEND TO GET UNAPPROVED FOR SOME REASON.

  34. “I should point out that the mystery of why the electrons don’t fall to the nucleus hasn’t been resolved yet. Calling an orbit an “orbital” and saying its a maths function cannot change that fact except for the very dimwitted. So we have to really figure that one out.”

    THERE IS NO GETTING AROUND THAT AND YOU REFUSE TO TRY.

  35. * A neutron in free space decays with a half-life of 10.2 minutes to a proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino.

    THAT’S THE END OF YOUR THEORY RIGHT THERE.

    IT VERY MUCH LOOKS LIKE THE PROTON AND ELECTRON ARE BEING HELD TOGETHER BY THE GRAVE PRESSURES INSIDE THE NUCLEUS OF THE ATOM. IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE CASE THE THE NEUTRONS ARE ON THE INSIDE OF THE NUCLEUS. THE PROPERTIES OF AN ATOM WOULD COME FROM HOW IT RELATES TO THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE EXTERNALLY. AND ITS THE PROTONS THAT DETERMINE WHICH ELEMENT THE ATOM BELONGS TO. HENCE WE OUGHT TO ASSUME THE PROTONS ARE ON THE OUTSIDE LAYER OF THE NUCLEUS.

    FROM THERE ITS EASY TO SEE THAT THE NEUTRON OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED A PROTON THAT HAS FUSED WITH A COMPRESSED ELECTRON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THAT THERE IS EXTRA ELECTRONS IN THE HEART OF ATOMS THAT HOLD THE ATOMS TOGETHER. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ALL CHARGES HAVE TO ADD UP TO ZERO. SINCE A SURROUNDED CHARGED PARTICLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO EXPRESS ITS CHARGE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.

    WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT GOLD ATOMS HAVE A TINY NUCLEUS WITH POSITIVE CHARGES. BUT WHO IS TO SAY THAT VERY SMALL ATOMS HAVE THE SAME SETUP?

    A HYDROGEN ATOM MAY BE LIKE A FAT LADY FULL OF LURV AND CHOCOLATE. AND EVERY PART OF HER LOVES THE PROTON SO VERY MUCH THAT THERE MAY BE A RAPAROUND EFFECT.

    AS THE ELEMENTS GET HEAVIER WE MIGHT THINK OF THE NEED FOR NEUTRONS AND EXTRA ELECTRONS TO STOP THE PROTONS FROM EXPLODING APART AND IN THE CASE OF INNER ELECTRONS TO HOLD THE NUCLEUS IN TIGHT. WITH THE ELECTRONS NOT IN THE NUCLEUS ALSO PACKING THE WHOLE LOT IN FROM THE OUTSIDE.

    IN FACT SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT MAY COME SIMPLY FROM THE FACT THAT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS ATTRACT EACHOTHER AND REPEL THEMSELVES. THE SITUATION RESOLVING ITSELF AS MATTER ON THE GROUNDS SIMPLY THAT THE ELECTRON IS BIGGER, MORE POUROUS, AND WITH NOTHING TO BLOCK ITS EFFECTS, LEADING TO MANY OF THEM BEING FOUND ON THE OUTSIDE, RATHER THAN THE INSIDE OF ATOMS.

  36. Well today Fisk is in no good shape at all. I’ve had to edit all his posts since he merely assumes his voodoo ideology and refuses to derive it. We cannot seem to get past the initial Rutherford inference which proved that a gold atom nucleus is far smaller then the atom proper.

    So the theory goes that you have these protons and neutrons in the centre and these tiny electrons orbiting. Yet if electrons and protons attract there is nothing to stop the electrons from falling into eachothers nucleus in very short order.

    Fisk hopes to get around this via idiocy. But idiocy leaves the matter still unresolved.

  37. DON’T “TELL” ME STUFF. PROVE IT. VIA INFERENCES AS STRONG AS THE ONE MADE BY RUTHERFORD.

    HOW IS IT THAT ELECTRONS DON’T FALL INTO THE NUCLEUS?

    AN ANTI-NEUTRINO IS ZERO PER CENT OF FUCK ALL AND DOESN’T DETRACT FROM THE NEUTRON AS POTENTIALLY BEING AN ELECTRON AND PROTON TOGETHER.

  38. You cannot say that the first experiments detecting the strong nuclear force…. blah blah blah unless you can prove that this is what these experiments did.

    So forget about it. Its bullshit unless the strong inference is there. Try again.

  39. I guess you want the actual analytical solution of Schrödinger equation.

    Start with this and ask me questions.
    The solution of the Schrödinger equation (wave equations) for the hydrogen atom uses the fact that the Coulomb potential produced by the nucleus is isotropic (it is radially symmetric in space and only depends on the distance to the nucleus). Although the resulting energy eigenfunctions (the “orbitals”) are not necessarily isotropic themselves…………….

    STOP RIGHT THERE. YOU JUST LEAPED INTO WILD SPECULATION WITHOUT ANY DISCLAIMER-WORDING TO SHOW THAT YOU KNEW YOU HAD DONE SO.

  40. “DON’T “TELL” ME STUFF. PROVE IT. VIA INFERENCES AS STRONG AS THE ONE MADE BY RUTHERFORD.

    HOW IS IT THAT ELECTRONS DON’T FALL INTO THE NUCLEUS?

    AN ANTI-NEUTRINO IS ZERO PER CENT OF FUCK ALL AND DOESN’T DETRACT FROM THE NEUTRON AS POTENTIALLY BEING AN ELECTRON AND PROTON TOGETHER.”
    “POTENTIALLY”
    I though that you were serious an bout this as a scientific theory.

    DON’T FUCKING JUDGE ME BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS OF LUNACY MATE. YOU ARE THE MORON WHO THINKS HE KNOWS SHIT HE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW, EVEN WHEN THAT SHIT IS IMPOSSIBLE. I’M WONDERING WHAT THE HERESY IS ABOUT. LIKE I SAID. THE NEUTRINO AND ITS DOPPLEGANGER ARE A BYWORD IN FUCK-ALL-NESS. SO OBVIOUSLY THE ALLEGED APPEARANCE OF THE ANTI-NEUTRINO NEITHER ADDS NOR DETRACTS FROM THIS FINE SPECULATION.

    CLEARLY THIS IS A THEOLOGICAL ISSUE FOR STUPID-TOWN.

  41. By the way we can discard Rutherford’s great experiment about the size of the nucleus. I did not prove it. So it is obviously wrong.

    NO THE INFERENCE WAS GOOD AND DERIVED FROM SOLID UNDERSTANDINGS. PERHAPS IT WASN’T GOLD. PERHAPS SOMEONE WAS JIVING WITH HIS EQUIPMENT. PERHAPS PERHAPS PERHAPS.

    BUT NO HE MADE A CLEARLY SOUND SPECULATION ON THE BASIS OF STRONG LAB EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT THE TYPE WHERE WE WOULD EXPECT PEOPLE TO MISREAD WHAT IS IS THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE SEEING.

    DON’T TELL ME THATS THE LAST SOUND INFERENCE IN PARTICLE PHYSICS EVER?

  42. I am lookig at the various resources that I have available for quantum mechanical systems with analytical solutions such as the hydrogen atom.

    I think I may have to start with a simpler system such as a particle in a box to introduce you to the mathematical concepts.

    ITS NOT MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO COME TO GRIPS WITH REALITY. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS ARE NEEDED TO DO REALITIES BOOK-KEEPING, AND NOT TO DESCRIBE ITS BUSINESS.

  43. A book you might be interested in Bird
    http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Atom-Dr-Weldon-Vlasak/dp/0965917622/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231849408&sr=1-2

    “Product Description
    The first realistic unified field theory in history. The problem with unified field theories has always been resolving the difference between the strong electrical forces of the atom and the gravitational force. Physicists have been searching for mythical particles that are believed to produce gravitational forces, but none has ever been found. Dr. Vlasak has proposed a completely new approach. He asserts that, since the gravitational force is so much lower than the electrical force, gravity is a consequence of the nonlinear electrical forces of the atom.
    Based on his first two books, “The Secret of Gravity and Other Mysteries of the Universe” and “The Electric Atom,” he adds a new radiation theory. He has solved the mystery of the barrier at the center of the atom and asserts that an “ether” is indeed present in the universe and presents compelling evidence to support the theory. The analysis is based on viewing the hydrogen atom as an electronic circuit, similar to the method of Planck, and using force variables, as was Newton’s approach. All of these theories are shown to be physically realistic and testable.

    These are new and different ideas that portray the universe as an immense sea of electricity.

    From the Publisher
    Revolutionary new scientific ideas. The material in this book provides answers to basic questions that have never before been solved. Amazingly, the results portray a universe of relative simplicity which is completely harmonius. Quite a contrast with the abstract, complex tangled mathematics of contemporary quantum physics.”

    YES THAT LOOKS RATHER PROMISING. THERE ARE PROBABLY A GREAT MANY GOOD IDEAS THAT COULD STAND IN FOR THIS QUANTUM JIVE BUT THERE IS A BIT OF A GRESHAM’S LAW GOING ON HERE.

  44. From memory he posits that
    1) gravity is due to dipole forces in the atom.
    2) Neutrons are tightly bound proton electron pairs.

  45. Bird may also be interested in “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt.
    The author also states that a neutron is physically a proton and electron, He will be impressed by the pretty pictures in it.

    I’VE SEEN IT. HE WAS SUBJECT TO AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF MINDLESS DOCTRINAIRE ABUSE BY SOL INVICTUS AND OTHERS.

    ITS VERY EASY TO SEE WHEN THE MAINSTREAM VIEW IS WRONG. MUCH HARDER TO PUT TOGETHER AN ALTERNATIVE. AND WE DON’T EXPECT THE ALTERNATIVES TO BE PERFECT IN EVERY RESPECT.

  46. Given the neutron star evidence what is the ideological opposition to it? I mean it isn’t necessarily the case. But you guys don’t appear to know the difference between time and width, between physics and geometry, or between an orbiting electron and a mathematical function. So how do you think you can take such a one-sided notion to that controversy? When surely its the sort of thing where one could have money going both ways on it. It seems that having been lost in a universe of reafication and imputed glory since undergraduate years. you clowns have lost any sense of reality at all.

    Take your lame evidence for the strong nuclear forces. Supposing you put a formula for the speed of the tennis ball moving from a wall that granny was aiming at. And you were happy that given the speed on the way in you could calculate the speed on the way out. There would be no good cause at this point to sanctify your formula, and to apply it to speeds that would test the tennis balls ability to reconvert that energy, explode the tennis ball, or dislodge a brick in the wall.

    But this is too much like reality for you to come to grips with. So the formula, gets locked in and sanctified.

    So far we haven’t had a skerrit of evidence for the strong nuclear forces at all. Just a lot of name-dropping and pretense. And its double dipping. Since it is the electrons that ought to be able to contain the protons from the outside and inside both.

  47. Fisk. Stop pre-empting my insults. This implies that you are flippant about your bad behaviour and are unwilling to change. You cannot seem to help yourself so you won’t have to wait long for the abuse.

    Acting as stupid as you do is just rude is what it is.

    Now we still haven’t got any reason why the electrons don’t fall into the nucleus.

  48. “AGW-concerned scientist Barry Brook at least sticks to his principles and spruiks for nuclear power before the ABC Unleashed crowd. You can determine at least the sincerity of those people concerned about AGW and whether there are other motives for their forebodings of doom and gloom (such as a dislike of industrial civilisation and material progress) by whether they are willing to swallow the nuclear option. By such lights, Brook, Flannery and Lovelock at least pass with flying colours. Who are the hypocrites and genuine luddites who spruik the AGW-hysteria while being strongly anti-nuclear?”

    Very good. But bear in mind that only Lovelock is really off the hook here. The others are late developers with regards to this side of things, so have to be judged as ass-coverers.

  49. Bird Given you reject tunneling why do you accept those images?

    ACCEPT? THE PICTURES WERE MADE WITHOUT THIS MAKE-BELIEVE TUNNELING. WHAT AM I GOING TO DO? REJECT THEIR PRESENCE? THEY ARE THERE. THEY CONTRADICT UTTERLY YOUR VIEW OF THE SITUATION. WE HAVE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY TELL US.

  50. How about you explain what tunneling is and how its determined? Are we saying that something jumps from one space to another without traversing the space in between!

    Thats how you make a photo rrrrrrriiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhtttt. You get something to jump from space to space via tiny wormholes without traversing the space in between (not).

  51. Whose the most stupid? The Mystic answering the question, or the dumb bastard taking the answer seriously? The sucker is trying to understand velocity-absolutism. Where no matter how fast you are going the light is supposed to catch you at the speed of light. In this fantasy you can be going .999999999c and the light will be catching you AT c.

    THE SUCKER ASKS

    But why does time change if – imho – nothing changes in the position the observer is? It is not like he suddenly is measuring from nearby a black hole.

    THE MYSTIC (SOL INVICTUS) ANSWERS.

    Suppose you are looking at a painting. You say, “the painting is straight ahead of me”. Then you turn to your left, and you say “the painting is on my right”. Had you turned to your right, you’d have said it was on your left.

    Why did the angle change?

    Einstein discovered that time is like angles in that way – not everyone sees it the same way.

    CUE: TWILIGHT ZONE MUSIC.

    Its very fucking important to realise how clever these dumb cunts think they are being with this voodoo. Its like they are the inside dopester. The young Howard Hughes figure that meets Tucker in a basement, offers him cashews, pulls some mysterious strings to get the State Governments off Tuckers back, and wonders out loud why he cannot seem to get this blood off his hands.

    The believers think of themselves as folks of deeper sensibilities then the skeptics. Yay of poets sensibilities. And all the time its just sloppy thinking, the confusion of concepts and the logical fallacy of reification.

  52. “Yes if they aren’t outright going to say that it should be banned because it’s fraud the rhetorical strategy always involves some convoluted non sequitur like this”

    Bullshit. You are making it up. The fact is its obviously fraud. What do you NOW need to display this? If you are incapable of comprehending the situation conceptually, then what OTHER course of events could help you understand the situation MORE THAN THE course of events we have seen already?

    Every fucking one of these clowns would have gone under but for the ubiquitous government bailout. Not one of these guys would be afloat. And you yourself backed the bailout.

  53. ITS VERY EASY TO SEE WHEN THE MAINSTREAM VIEW IS WRONG. MUCH HARDER TO PUT TOGETHER AN ALTERNATIVE. AND WE DON’T EXPECT THE ALTERNATIVES TO BE PERFECT IN EVERY RESPECT.”

    But we do expect them to be at mathematically correct (not define infinity as a finite length!) THERE IS NO INFINITY. SO ANYTHING REAL IS FINITE. YOUR FUCKUP ALONE.

    And physically consistent WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU MORON? WHAT THE FUCK IS PHYSICALLY CONSISTENT ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS. STOP BEING SUCH A DISHONEST CUNT CUNT. ITS YOU AND NOT HIM THAT ARE COMMITTING THESE FAULTS. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.

  54. Still no hint as to why the electrons don’t fall into the nucleus.

  55. Just noticed this:
    “WHAT ABOUT BIG FAT ELECTRONS PUSHING THE PROTONS TOGETHER. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? YOU SEE YOU ARE TRYING TO IMAGINE IT AS IF THE ELECTRONS ARE TINY AND FOLLOWING ORBITS. BUT THEY COULD BE BIG FAT SHEILAS SURROUNDING THE LITTLE BLOKES IN THE CENTRE AND CRUSHING UP AGAINST THEM. WE STILL DON’T KNOW WHERE YOUR ORBITS (DON’T TRY AND BULLSHIT PEOPLE AGAIN WITH THIS WORD-GAME OF ORBITALS) ARE COMING FROM. ”

    Unlike charges attract: “BIG FAT ELECTRONS PULLING THE PROTONS APART”

    YOU STUPID STUPID CUNT. YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THE MOST SIMPLE LOGICAL INFERENCE ARE YOU?

    As for the size of electrons. There are experiments that throw electrons at each other. The results are that electrons ar much smaller than an atom.

    NO. THATS NOT RIGHT. THE RESULTS ARE THAT THE SCIENCE WORKER SEES SOMETHING. AND THEN THE SCIENCE WORKER INTERPRETS WHAT THEY SEE IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

    WILL YOU EVER GET OVER BEING A STUPID CUNT? NOTICE HOW YOU WERE ENTIRELY UNABLE TO TAKE AN EXPERIMENT, TELL US WHAT THE RAW DATA WAS (ie what the researcher actually witnessed) AND THEN INTERPRET THAT DATA LOGICALLY. WE HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE, ALREADY MORE THAN 100 YEARS OLD, THAT YOU’VE BEEN ABLE TO ILLUSTRATE FOR US. THE RUTHERFORD INFERENCE AND NONE OTHERS. ITS LIKE YOU NEED TO BE EDUCATED ALL OVER AGAIN.

    GO AGAIN AND BACK UP YOUR CLAIM ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE ELECTRON. FACE IT. YOU’VE GOT NOTHING. YOU’VE GOT NO FUCKING IDEA AT ALL.

  56. I suggest that you……

    STOP RIGHT THERE. I SUGGEST YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP UNLESS YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO MAKE A CASE ON THE BASIS OF REASON AND EVIDENCE. BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST GOING TO MAKE A COMPLETE CUNT OF YOURSELF AND GET ALL YOUR UNREASON AND NON-ARGUMENT WIPED.

    NOW YOU SAY THE ELECTRON IS SMALLER. WELL IF YOU KNOW THIS THEN YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A CASE YOU STUPID CUNT.

    GO!!!!!!

    MAKE THAT ARGUMENT YOU FUCKING DUMMY?

    I NOW KNOW THAT YOU WERE ONE OF THESE MINDLESS ZOMBIES WHO GOT IN THE WAY AT RANDI’S SITE. YOU ARE SUCH A DUMB CUNT THAT ALL YOU DID WAS STAND AROUND REPEATING WHAT THE THEORY SAID.

    SOME “REALITY CHECK”.

  57. Don’t name-drop Rutherford you twit. Its very simple. If the evidence is there, and its compelling, just make a case.

    You are such a dummy fella.

  58. Some of you watching this at Catallaxy. Think about that dummy JM talking about Israel. The point is that fuckwits like that don’t get any better when the speak physics. In fact they get worse.

  59. This is getting frustrating – I know that I saw a page listing several experiments that measured the maximum electron radius but cannot find it again!

    WELL DON’T JUST LINK AND RUN YOU SILLY CUNT. YOU MAY AS WELL LINK GOOGLE SCHOLAR. WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE REASONING. ASK SOME OF THE KIDS IN THE SANDPIT AT THE LOCAL KINDY IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

    THE IMPORTANT THING IS NOT FINDING THE LINKS. THE IMPORTANT THING IS FIGURING OUT THE REASONING AND ASCERTAINING HOW STRONG IT IS.

    THE BASIC PROBLEM WITH THE PHYSICALITY OF THE MODEL IS THAT THE PROTONS WOULD BLAST THEMSELVES APART AND THE ELECTRONS WOULD FALL INTO THE NUCLEUS. THATS A PRETTY HARD GIG TO OVERCOME. SO THE REASONING HAS TO BE QUITE SOUND OR IT WOULD BE BETTER TO FORMULATE A MORE REALISTIC MODEL

  60. However the experiments are simple – just bounce electrons off each other and see how close you can make them go.

    YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT YOU ARE SO DIMWITTED YOU CANNOT SEE THE CIRCULARITY INVOLVED IN THAT? HOW CAN YOU FUCKING TELL HOW CLOSE THE ELECTRONS COME? YOU ARE DOING SO WITH THEORY THAT IS NOT PROVED AT THIS POINT.

    YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ANY DAMN THING DO YOU?

  61. You measure the size of the electrons in the same way as you measure the size of atomic nuclei when you scatter alpha particles form them.

    NO YOU DON’T. AND YOU DON’T TRY AND ARGUE “BY CORRESPONDENCE” AS IT WERE. THE INFERENCE HAS TO HOLD UP ON ITS OWN AND NOT BY UNSUBTLE ASSOCIATIONS WITH RUTHERFORD. STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE.

    SO YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE ELECTRON DO YOU?

  62. So you see third parties? So far we have shown that the basic physicality of the model we have is untenable. And we have a generation of physicists who cannot understand fundamental concepts of reasoning. We don’t get to watch electrons bounce off eathother. Even some of the younger researchers, with really good eyesight and fast reflexes cannot manage such a miracle. If THAT is the evidence that Fisk is relying on to back his doctrinal beliefs in the tininess of the electron, then it appears there may be no evidence at all.

    Now Fisk. The mass of the electron. 1840 electrons equal a proton in mass. Where is this JIVE coming from?

  63. We also do not get to see alpha particle bouncing of nuclei.

    NO YOU DON’T YOU FUCKING DUMMY. EVERYTHING YOU SEE IS INDIRECT. WHAT A LUDICROUS FANTASIST YOU ARE. YOU DO KNOW HOW SMALL THESE THINGS ARE RIGHT BLOCKHEAD?

  64. You can imagine how difficult it is people. Going on Randi’s site. Or the site of Richard Dawkins. And here are all these dim bulbs like Fisk hanging around. And they simply do not know any reasoning that is not circular. They cannot conceive of what a valid argument is if its not a circular argument. Its just depressing.

  65. Bird

    Use some decorum . This is a high level science discussion that you don’t want to ruin by swearing at someone all the time. Leave that for politics.

    • Its not a high level physics discussion. Its just a cunt filibusting.

      Right Fisk I’m done. Fuck off until you let me know that you understand what a circular argument is. Any cunt, however credentialed, who does not know what a circular argument is is too stupid to be on my forum. Beat it. You have wasted everyones time.

      • You faux-skeptics over at Randi’s place ought to stop giggling. He’s not banned. He’s just got to get serious about breaking out of this mindless fundamentalism of always using circular arguments. Quoting scripture is no adequate proof of God or legions of angels. Our modern Christians appear, for the most part, to be able to section off their religious beliefs and be at least as reasonable as their secular counterparts when it comes to more worldly matters. But the stupidity of the committed relativist just isn’t something that could be sectioned off to Sundays. We are talking a truly sappy-headed religion that rules 7 days. These dummies probably think that reality is like an Excel spreadsheet, even when they are sleeping. Get ye to a proper church I sez. Any church will do but preferably one that makes you read Aquinas.

  66. Graeme, you’re hilarious!

    ZEP. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. I’LL PUT UP WITH A LOT FROM YOU ZEP. BUT I’M NOT HAVING YOU TOUTING ME AS SOME TWO-BIT JOKESTER.

  67. Quoting scripture is no adequate proof of God or legions of angels. Our modern Christians appear, for the most part, to be able to section off their religious beliefs and be at least as reasonable as their secular counterparts when it comes to more worldly matters.

    Um okay.

    Its not a high level physics discussion. Its just a cunt filibustering.

    Ye don’t say. Jeez man what the fuck is this all about. What’s your beef with the New Physics exactly?

  68. Its hardly new. Is it? Its goes against logic and reason. Its not merely counter-intuitive. Its wrong and ridiculous. Comparative advantage is counter-intuitive to a lot of people. But its not contradictory and foolish.

  69. “market-tested?” If the market were how to test physics, we’d be stuck with the geocentric solar system model. What matters is whether the model can predict experiments.

  70. No thats not right at all. Wrong on both counts. Anyone can make up a model-of-best-fit to predict the data thats already been gathered. Thats a Friday, winding down with a few beers, sort of operation. But what is harder is to find the truth.

    Particularly anyone ought to be able to get some sort of working model if he is allowed to throw in probability and magic into the mix whenever he has no clue as to whats happening. Its a pretty easy sort of deal if you can throw in negative-momentum, uncertainty principles, electrons that stay in orbit by magic, and all this other jive. To make that jive fit with observations isn’t even really all that neat a trick. Its keeping a straight face that must have been the tougher deal.

  71. Say something substantial will you Adrien? I’m not the least bit fond of your content-free crap. Act like you are interested in the subject. Surely if we have been duped into thinking that these people were on the level you would want to know one way or the other rather than using it as a vehicle for your roundabout, all fat and no meat, jibber.

    Ask a serious question like you want a serious answer.

  72. The reason that you can’t get a better more accurate description of the atom is becuase physical descriptions are innacurate. Including yours. The fact that a better physical description does not exist at the moment and that other descriptions are non physical does not make your physical description accurate.

    That would be like me describing fire as little dancing light fairies, and asking ancient cave people if they had a better description, and if they didn’t to state that my description must be correct. Then it’s like me saying if they gave me this mathematical jargon about h bar and electromagnetic waves I would say “but that is unphysical, so because my description is physical yours isn’t, yours has no bearing, is irrelevant and therefore my description is correct. Fire is made out of fairies.”

    You are either some kind of genius that we just can’t see yet or stubbornly stupid.

  73. Well I don’t expect that my description would turn out to be wholly accurate. But science ought to aspire to some sort of description. They are completely copping out at the moment.

    Where is this voodoo coming from that makes you think things that are smaller are non-physical. Where is that assumption coming from?

  74. “The reason that you can’t get a better more accurate description of the atom is becuase physical descriptions are innacurate.”

    How do you know that and why do you assume that? You are making assumptions about the little-world you are not really entitled to make.

    • (Quick aside: to your thanks, you’re welcome. I don’t mind responding, I find QM fascinating. And like most people that follow a particular way of thinking, I love defending my decision to do so 🙂 You may think I am blindly regurgitating the “system’s” reason for making me believe the currently accepted models, but I do think it makes more sense than the opposing arguments)

      Fair enough, I do not know that physical models are inaccurate. I am spouting the mainstream model, which you claim to espouse.
      In fact you made a very long, almost abusive, littany about the fact that yours was the mainstream model, which is why I felt compelled to respond.

      The subtly is that models are only appropriate in certain situations and not at all in others. I will concede that in describing some phenomena at a certain level, the shell model is the mainstream model, but to describe why electrons don’t fall into the nucleus it is not in any way shape or form the mainstream model, because it doesn’t work.

      This model leads to the idea that an electron in the lowest energy level (lowest as described by the waveform model) could emit a photon and drop down into a lower state or into the nucleus. Thus because it can do this, this is what it would do, most of the time (as it is energetically favourable to be in a lower energy state – assuming certain models from thermodynamics which are also assumed by the shell model). This is not what is observed, so that model is wrong. It’s not just that it’s the closest approximation in this case, it is actually completely wrong. It leads to the high incidence of bound electrons reaching a state lower than the ground state, which has been proved not to be the case by countless experiments.

      The mathematical waveform approach is the mainstream model. Visualising electrons as a ‘proabilistic cloud’ or ‘collapsing waveform’ is as close to physical as it gets.

      It’s not like the wave-particle duality of light, where the model of light as a photon works in some cases, and as a wave works in others. The waveform model actually works in all sitatuions that the shell model works, and then some. That’s why it replaced it as a working model.

      • This shell business is an excellent functioning model but it cannot be what is really going on if we accept that we have positively and negatively charged objects and that opposites attract.

        This model “WORKED” and was invented by a puny human and it is unbecoming of scientists to go in for the cult of personality even if it was Niehls Bohr. Telling us the working template does not give us the reality. All objects that are real in this universe come in three dimensions. There is no reason to believe this changes in the LITTLE-WORLD. That all real objects come in three dimensions means that they can be described and an attempt to draw them can be had.

        Now I know what you were trying to say. You were talking about primary concepts that must be rendered to sense-experience in order that we make a composite concept to have a picture of an object in our minds eye. We can see in our minds eye a purple mountain. Because we have in our minds eye a mountain and we have the other primary concept of purple. Putting the two together renders an understandable picture. But a micro-waved coloured mountain? A moutain in hews of differently graduated shades of dark and gamma? We cannot do it right.

        It is this that you were giving as a reason for copping out on a working guess at a physical description of the LITTLE-WORLD. I use the phrase LITTLE-WORLD. Because thats what it is. To describe it as the QUANTUM-WORLD is a gargantuan act of falling for ones preferred model.

        Even now when explaining why nuclear energy and carbon liquids are natural complements… even now when explaining why I think the nuclear plant and the coal liquification operation ought to be situated side by side…. I would explain how the goal is to get the plasma so hot as to have the molecules smash against eachother, breaking off the double-bonded outer-shell carbon-electrons, and the replacement of the carbon-electron with a single bonded hydrogen-electron. I would explain that if enough of this happens in a long chain of C’s O’s and H’s then the former solid will later condense to the hydrocarbon liquid or gas of ones choosing.

        But just because one can visualise this working model, and use it as a predictive tool, does not mean it is the revealed truth or things as they are in fact.

        If we accept that the positive and the negative want to hug eachother and the others want to repel the obvious model is not the C-C double electron bond in the outer shell. Rather we ought to think of a fat electron contorted out of shape as part of it tries to latch onto a proton in the opposing nucleus, part of it latching onto a proton in its own nucleus being repelled by lazy fat other electrons similarly contorted in both its own and the other atoms.

        Thats probably a more realistic view of what is likely going on. But the Bohr deal is easy to understand when you are 14. But then when it is called upon to explain subtleties it rapidly gets stupid, otherworldly and self-contradictory. This is clearly the sign of an excellent working model that DOES NOT represent the reality. That it works so well in simpletown. And then gets so complex when nuance is attempted. Thats a wrong working model for you. The rapidity of how badly the thing “complexifies” is the giveaway.

        The fault is with the epistemology and the sociological dynamics of the academy. Not with Neil who did a bang-up job, even if he did fall for his own propaganda.

  75. “then it’s like me saying if they gave me this mathematical jargon about h bar and electromagnetic waves I would say “but that is unphysical, so because my description is physical yours isn’t, yours has no bearing, is irrelevant and therefore my description is correct. Fire is made out of fairies.”

    The first half of that is right. The mathematics would not be a physical description. And the scientists have copped out of giving a good description for electro-magnetic waves. Hence this business about h-bar and so forth wouldn’t be very adequate.

  76. Thanks for showing up by the way Kelly. I get plenty of people reading this blog but only few commenting.

    • THATS BECAUSE WE ARE FASCINATED WITH YOUR WRITING BUT ARE AWED AND FEARSTRUCK BY YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

    • (There was no ‘Reply’ link under your last response, so I’m replying here.)

      What you say is interesting, but has strayed entirely from the point I was making, which refuted your statement “OK. So now that I’ve proved that I have the mainstreams model of the atom correct I shall now prove that it is wrong.” You seem now to be agreeing with me about the mainstream model.

      Aside from that, what is the model you are offering? If electrons engulf the atom, then how do you explain Rutherford scattering?
      Apart from the ‘desire’ for a physical model, are there parts of QM your model explains that the wavefunction doesn’t?

      You post a diagram of atoms to show that what is seen is not an abstract electron cloud, so what is it your diagram is showing? Also, what is the colour content of the diagram shows (the axes labelling is ambiguous)?

      You point out that we cannot see microwaves, that false colour showing one thing as a purple mountain and another yellow does not mean these things are really purple and yellow, or mountains. So what makes your picture any different? It is just a graph of light intensity against position. As you point out yourself, the fact that we can see it really just means one of the variables on the plot is also a quantity directly detectable by human senses. Thus making a picture as accurate as a graph. Or if not, please explain.

      Are you saying that you can’t get data from graphs, just because they choose something concrete, like x y z and colour to describe four seperate qunatities simultaneously, rather than plot separate graphs? Or are you saying you can’t extrapolate meaning from data? The way it looks (ie a photo), as you rightly imply, is irrelevant to reality, it only means that we are capable of detecting ti directly with our eyes. A measurement of visible light is as valid as a measurement of microwaves, do you agree? What is really there is what we’re looking for, so a graph (even with a fourth dimension plotted as false colour) is as accurate a way to represent data as an image.

      • “Aside from that, what is the model you are offering? If electrons engulf the atom, then how do you explain Rutherford scattering?”

        One might imagine the electron to be somewhat pourous. Fat and stretchy and easy for some things to pass through and perhaps it can reform itself.

        Or it might be that it interacts with the proton and their makeup wraps around eachother like DNA or the way plasmas wrap around eathother or something. So the naturally fat electron starts leaving a bunch of gaps. Could be anything really. Just not the mainstream model.

        The mainstream model is as I’ve described it by default if anything. When you go to the pictures of even the high order gear you get all these probability disributions of dots. Said to be in “orbitals” and not orbits. This is just playing silly-buggers and does not constitute an alternative physical description. Nor does the idea that these orbits are a “mathematical quantum functions” or anything where the person attempts to describe things, not as physical objects, but rather with formulas or the tools of maths.

        You don’t know what they’ll get up to next. If you can call something that ought to be an object a “quantum function” then you might as well imagine it going through and “existential crisis” or anything your heart desires.

      • The correct response to my question about the photograph was that this is NOT a photograph and NOT detectable directly by human senses. It is another graph, the colour is false and labelled on the axis to relate to distance, which is really an interpretation of the electric signals from a needle. So your statement
        “But a micro-waved coloured mountain? A moutain in hews of differently graduated shades of dark and gamma? We cannot do it right.” unhinges the evidence you use to back up your argument.

        “This … does not constitute an alternative physical description. Nor does the idea that these orbits are a “mathematical quantum functions” or anything where the person attempts to describe things, not as physical objects, but rather with formulas or the tools of maths.”
        What makes you assume these things are physical objects? What evidence? Isn’t the need to describe something as physical a result of the “puny human” mind? Aren’t you just allowing your sense of touch to tell you something is there when really it might just be a lot of force fields?

        “But now the dumb bastards have taken matters mystical, non-physical and formless.”
        This shell business … cannot be what is really going on if we accept that we have positively and negatively charged objects and that opposites attract.
        Do you see the irony? The concept of a charge is one we added to explain phenomena. Just like we did with the wavefunction.

        The real test of this porous electron model or any other is does it produce accurate experimental predictions. Then you would have a firm basis to rest your assertions on, and the long list of abuse and swearing that you put with it. Your dismissal earlier that predicting data is just a trick begs the question, then what makes the model valid?
        And what makes the shell model invalid?
        Please don’t suggest it is your “puny human” need for a physical description that makes your model not a model but a description of what is really going on.

        Because in that case, your theory is like a flying spaghetti monster in the sky and is just as valid as the theory I’ve just invented this instant that electrons are made out of custard and jelly.

      • If they are not physical objects they aren’t real. They are not wavicles or “quantum states” since these are notions invented by mathematicians. Why do you assume that they are not objects and do not have shape? If they don’t have shape and aren’t three dimensional then they don’t exist.

        See the picture up above. Doesn’t look like some quantum state or orbitals right?

    • We could continue asking one another “why do you assume they are physical?”
      and “why do you assume they are not?” ad infinitum.
      The answer is because one model works and the other does not.
      Since one model doesn’t work, why keep it – to which you appear to be saying
      “because otherwise it’s not real.” I disagree. I think we can experience the physical
      manifestations of a waveform, even if we can’t see the waveform.

      The picture above is a graph and therefore I wouldn’t expect it to
      ‘look’ like anything. It only looks like something because one of the quantities
      has been plotted as colour instead of what is normally plotted, length, which makes it seem
      intuitively like an image. It is not actually measuring visible yellow light, that representation has been added using maths.

      But incidentally, it looks like atoms, the physical
      manifestation of QM. As it’s not a picture, it’s only an
      interpretation (you might call it mystical voodoo) and another interpretation could say that the graph is evidence
      of quantum mechanical tunnelling if you assume atoms exist. Or evidence of atoms, if
      you assume quantum mechanical tunnlleing occurs.

      If you don’t assume anything then you can’t plot the graph at all. Your interpretation of the graph is relying on the assumption that QM tunnelling exists. But you reject that theory because you reject the waveforem idea. So again I’ll ask how you explain the picture/graph was arrived at. Once you have done that without using the waveform as a model, it is then valid to make further assumptions from it that assume the waveform is the wrong model.

      • Why do you assume the reality isn’t physical? Since every object that exists exists in three dimensions?

      • Phase isn’t three dimenbsional, but it ‘exists’ or rather gives a solution that is physical and works.

        Virtual particles don’t exist, but they give accurate predictions.

        The coriolis and centrifugal force don’t exist, but we certainly feel them.

      • Kelly, without trying to diagnose exactly what philosophical compromises you have personally made in order to accept quantum mechanics (and it may be that you have simply taken on board sophistries produced by other people, without ever realizing the kernel of unreason they require); and without agreeing with Graeme on every point; I will nonetheless agree that quantum mechanics cannot be the final word in physics, and the attempt to believe that it is merely causes a person to say irrational things.

        Basically, a person can say any sort of illogical thing in defense of quantum mechanics, and if they are criticized for it, they’ll say “But the theory works, show me your alternative”.

        Thus below you say “Virtual particles don’t exist, but they give accurate predictions”.

        Normally, if a person were to say such a thing – “X doesn’t exist, but the world behaves as if it does” – their meaning would be that, yes, X does not exist, instead some other thing, Y, is what exists; but some aspect of the X-theory is true enough to correspond to reality. Thus, fairies don’t exist, but mushrooms do grow in rings, and so the folklore about “fairy rings” does refer, just a little bit, to something real.

        However, it seems clear that you aren’t saying anything like this at all. You’re not saying “Virtual particles aren’t real, some other thing is real”, you’re just offering recycled quantum-metaphysical hokum under cover of empirical success. According to this particular variety of hokum, a thing that “does not exist” (the virtual particle) nonetheless has observable consequences. This way of speaking really and truly is nonsense, and it merely signifies that physicists do not really know what their equations are about, even though they can turn the crank of the mathematical machine and make it spit out predictions.

      • I agree with this statement
        “yes, X does not exist, instead some other thing, Y, is what exists; but some aspect of the X-theory is true enough to correspond to reality
        and that the current state of quantum mechanics is not the end.

        The point
        “you’re just offering recycled quantum-metaphysical hokum under cover of empirical success.”
        I think that when things work in the world, that is the only way we have to decide whether or not it’s real. I concede that we might be wrong. All ‘truths’ might not be provable.

        I also agree that the equations give answers but don’t necessarily completely describe the physical system.

        I don’t concede, however, that the system necessarily has a physical description. In the same way that I think all truths are not necessarily provable.

        That is where I think we really differ in opinion, and I’m interested to hear how you would convince me that all things should necessarily have physical descriptions.

        The argument doesn’t need emotional “that si nonsense” statements without jsutification. Justify a statement, removing the emotion from it, and I can clearly see the reasoning and respond.

      • Also, mitchell
        “You’re not saying “Virtual particles aren’t real, some other thing is real”, you’re just offering recycled quantum-metaphysical hokum … [littany]… This way of speaking … [littany] … signifies that physicists do not really know what their equations are about”

        No, it signifies that your definition of what is ‘real’ differs from the definition of these physicists. It means that you cannot concieve of something unless it has 3D (4D since i also currently subscribe to special relativity due to the compelling evidence from particle physics, electromagnetism, astrophysics etc) and dismiss it as ‘nonsense’. Graeme further incorrectly assumes that I am making distinctions between the very small and the very large because I describe an electron with a wavefunction but not a table. This is incorrect, I think that it applies to a table as much as to an electron. It is not the whole picture, but the wavefunction does apply to both. I am happy with the idea that the collective behaviour of the electrons gives rise to a table. You seem unhappy with anything unclassical but there doesn’t seem to be any reason for that. As soon as you get close to giving a reason, you give insults and sweeping statements instead.

        I allow for the possibility that reality is not physical because there is no reason beyond emotional attachment to classical physics that reality should be entirely physical. In addition to that, there is evidence that parts of reality are not physical, such as quantum mechanics.

      • Kelly – I’m not insisting on three-dimensionality, or on anything much really, except the principle that if something has effects, it exists.

        Given your further comments, it seems your position may be a little more moderate than I thought. So you’re not saying that a virtual particle is some weird thing that has real effects without actually existing, you are just saying that it’s a sort of interim concept and the search for the truth can go on? How much do you know about quantum field theory? Do you understand the algebraic expansion which is then interpreted as a sum over histories involving virtual particles?

        When you say that reality may not be completely physical, or may not have a physical description, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In the intellectual output of the human race, the concept of non-physical reality certainly has precedents. Idealists think numbers are real but not physical. Dualists think the mind is real but not physical. But I can’t tell what concept, if any, of non-physicality you are using (or even what concept of physicality). Are you just saying that reality may contain something other than particles in space, while being totally agnostic and noncommittal about what this other reality is like, or do you have a specific idea about its nature?

  77. I FIND IT HARD TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. BUT I’M LISTENING ANYWAY. SHOW UP UNDER ANOTHER NAME AND START POINTING OUT WHERE I’M TAKING THE SECOND-BEST LINE ON SOME MATTER OR OTHER. OR YOU COULD EMAIL birdsnewworld@mac.com

  78. Mr B

    Look what the Celestials have done now.

    Good lord they are crafty.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/joel-fitzgibbon-resigns-as-defence-minister-20090604-bwjs.html

  79. Internment, Mr Bird, internment.

    Before it’s too late.

  80. The fingerprints of that rug-munching Minister for Fucking Up the Economy are all over this.

    I am grievously concerned that the Horde may use our present confusion in Defence Ranks as an opportunity for a Sneak Attack. They are very good at those, the Cunning Little Buggers.

    I will sleep in the bunker tonight, just in case.

  81. Well I’ll give you a counterargument. I’ll log a post where we have an example of an Asian man that is totally naieve and without guile. Unless this apparent obliviousness is deep deep cover. This very day the usurper claimed that “America will never be at war with Islam”

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    What is it with the two of you that you imagine that belligerent ignorance is a full-proof cognitive tool. Think of how you’ve dealt with this guy. Pure make-believe at every stage of the process.

    You want to believe he’s a centrist. Well he’s magically a centrist. You want to believe he’s got a great economic team. Well then as if by magic these dropkicks become worthies.

    You want to believe he’s not a Muslim? Magically we have a backdated conversion that no-one knows about.

    You want to believe he was born in the US. Well as if by magic his hiding his birth certificate is not the least bit suspicious though it would have been at every other time in living memory.

    You see the whole thing amounts to you living in a world of plaque.

    You know like the last lines in this song.

    “And your living in a world of plaque….

    OO OO OO OO living in a world of plaque”

    What is the point of just making it up Cambria?

    You too Jason?

    So you say he’s a Christian because WHY? Because you’ve investigated the matter? And then you say he doesn’t take his Christianity seriously? Because why?

    Because you want him to be an agnostic more like you right? More acceptable to you?

    He is what he is and your imagination has no part in it.”

  82. Mr B

    I don’t understand your comments “awaiting moderation”.

    Where do these comments come from? Who is this Cambria?

  83. From Catallaxy. Cambria is a bootnigger. Well actually I just say that because I’m mad at him.

  84. I’ll have to check that out. Is it a hotbed of Leftist Filth, or is it worth paying attention to?

  85. Its more exacerbating then anything else. You have people who ought to be able to think straight but somehow cannot. They pitch themselves as near-Libertarian but the tendency to be radical-centrist is strking. So you’ll sort of halfway have their attention and then alarm bells start going off in their heads and they then start painting for themselves a picture based on pure imagination to keep themselves grounded in centrist foolishness.

    So for me they are a considerable source of frustration. Since you always feel like you ought to be able to reason with them but somehow you cannot.

  86. Are they members of what Mr Quartermain has described as the Rockefeller-Soros-Rothschild Axis?

  87. I don’t know how extant this axis is that you speak thereof. Although Soros is a bit of a menace. And the Rockefellers may still be active. I’ll bow to the superior knowledge of others on this matter.

    No they are not. But if such an axis is a meaningful thing they would fight like anything to not let it enter their consciousness.

    Right now Cambria and SOON are in a fixated state of denial that the evidence points to Obama more than likely still being a Muslim.

    They just don’t want to know and so they make it up.

  88. This old Hebrew is spot on Mr Bird.

  89. “Phase isn’t three dimenbsional, but it ‘exists’ or rather gives a solution that is physical and works.”

    PHASE ISN’T WHAT SOMETHING IS. PHASE IS WHAT A BUNCH OF THINGS DO. BUT THEN THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY PHASE IN THIS CASE.

    Virtual particles don’t exist, but they give accurate predictions.

    VIRTUAL PARTICLES DON’T EXIST. END OF STORY. AND IF YOU NEED VIRTUAL PARTICLES TO HOLD YOUR PREDICTIVE TEMPLATE TOGETHER THAN THAT TELLS YOU ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY. YOUR MODEL IS WRONG. AND THE PRIESTHOOD HAS TO STOP BEING SO UPPITY ABOUT FACTS OF THIS SORT.

    The coriolis and centrifugal force don’t exist, but we certainly feel them.

    WHAT IS THAT TELLING YOU? THAT REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION. IF THE ACADEMY DOESN’T HAVE AN EXPLANATION THAT MAKES SENSE THEN THEY ARE DERELICT. THEY ARE PLAYING GOD. SETTING UP A TREE OF KNOWLEDGE THAT NO-ONE IS ALLOWED TO GO THERE BUT THEY WILL BE SNIDELY SHOT DOWN. SO WE NEED SOME IMAGINATION AND HYPOTHESISING. AND THIS IMAGINATION NOT TO BE SHOT DOWN IN A RAIN OF SNIDENESS, BEING BLOCKED FROM FORUMS FOR RETALIATING TO SAME AND SO FORTH.

    “The coriolis and centrifugal force don’t exist…”

    What makes you say that? Sure they exist. Your explanation of them may be wrong. But if they didn’t exist you would have a hard time describing them to me. They aren’t objects. They may be something that objects we don’t know about are doing.

  90. Logged Moderated Post:

    our comment is awaiting moderation.
    “US payroll data came out and it was hugely below street estimates.

    I’m not kidding these green shoots could end up being lemon scented gum trees by next year.”

    Payrolls don’t come out of consumer spending. They come out of business-to-business spending. Revenues spent internally in the business. Its a straight accounting proposition making a mockery of Keynesian idiocy.

    So its only natural that Obama, idiot that he is, running these massive deficits, would impede real payrolls.

  91. Yeah very good post Mitchell. And what Kelly doesn’t realise it that even in her case it comes down to a question of status. Like the physicists all know that light speed has been beaten for example. But they only talk about it in unmixed company. Then when the laity mentions it they throw it back expecting the other fellow to prove what they themselves know. Then there is the denial. Then comes the lying. Saying phrases like, well yes its “trivially true”.

    And you find out that they are not talking about whats true. But merely sticking up for a tribal decision.

    Its at that point we must admit to ourselves that the dysfuntion of the public service has taken over the upper levels of science.

  92. Old news about lightspeed. General relativity allows for objects to travel faster than light in some circumstances.

  93. No it doesn’t.

    • Yes it does.

      The scientific points you make are getting clouded by your social references. Put aside personal comments on people or lying or politics to just concentrate on the concepts.

      • No it doesn’t. General relativity set lightspeed as the ultimate limit. If its changed that then its changed it on the fly.

        There was some talk about these particles that can go no slower than lightspeed. But thats just a dodge.

        See whatever I say you will gainsay. If I say that experiments have already beaten lightspeed you’ll contradict that.

        So we are approaching science-fraud here.

        You say that things can go faster than lightspeed the dumb relativist insider will say they cannot.

        Once they know that everyone knows its been beaten the dumb relativist insider will claim that General Relativity predicted it. A lie.

        So this is science fraud.

        The only solution when matters get that far is mass-sackings.

        Because I argued that there is no light-speed limit in the context of people who didn’t know light-speed had been beaten. And the dumb relativist insiders told me flat out that this cannot happen.

        So you are now abrogating truth and knowledge as being a claim of STATUS.

        This is science fraud.

    • NO I DON’T NEED TO BRUSH UP ON MY TACHYONS. THEY ARE BULLSHIT. THEY’VE ALWAYS BEEN BULLSHIT. THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE ARGUMENT DISTRACTION. THEY MUST HAVE BEEN WHAT KELLY HAD IN MIND WHEN SHE WAS DISHONESTLY ATTEMPTING TO GAINSAY ME ABOUT GENERAL RELATIVITY. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO EVER GO SLOWER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. SO WE ARE NEVER SUPPOSED TO EVER DETECT THEM. SO IN FACT THEY ARE ONLY BROUGHT IT UP FOR RELATIVITY CULTISTS TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE THINGS BOTH WAYS. THEY REPRESENT THE STANDARD IN INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. THEY DON’T EXIST. THEY ONLY EVER ARISE FOR CULTISTS AS AN ARGUMENT DISTRACTION. I FRUSTRATED THAT ATTEMPT FOR KELLY RIGHT AWAY. SHE WAS HARDLY COMING UP WITH TACHYONS WHEN SHE’D ALREADY TRIED OUT VIRTUAL PARTICLES.

      • GR DOES IN FACT SET LIGHTSPEED AS THE ULTIMATE LIMIT. A MEANSPIRITED AND FRAUDULENT EXCEPTION IS MADE FOR OBJECTS THAT DON’T EXIST AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE DETECTED IF THEY DID. SO THE TACHYON ARGUMENT IS ONLY THERE SO THAT KELLY CAN FRAUDULENTLY GAINSAY ME.

  94. Look Kelly. If you say that virtual particles are not real, and I say they aren’t real, and the physicists say that they aren’t real, WHY DID YOU MENTION THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    It signifies that their models are provisional and wrong. Even by their own admission. To disagree is just priesthood poopy-pantseria. Since clearly in unmixed company they are all going to agree they cannot prove their existence.

  95. I see absolutely nothing that you can contradict Mitchell on. You are claiming by demonstration that science specialists, by virtue of their credentials, are allowed to make contradictory claims and have contradictory models, and only insiders can call for the need for update.

    • I claim that to update scientists, you study science, become a scientist and work on it. It is not some exclusive club, you are studying physics so you are a physicists. Forget all this them and us.

      • Well of course. But the academy has set up the them and us situation. Even though normal standards of analysing paradigms ought to have them agreeing openly that most of their models have to be downgraded to predictive templates. And they have to search around for competing paradigms and update them as being works in progress.

        They have to get over the curse of the loan paradigm. They have to get over the cult of personality. And they have to get rid of this deal where they keep building on what must be mistakes, and never circle back to basics.

        I’ve seen people getting beat up over thinking that the neutron is a combined electron and proton. No-one can seriously rule that out. The quark theory is highly speculative. Almost definitely wrong and merely a provisional model based on what people think they see from the accelerators. Which is not a great deal.

  96. “Kelly – I’m not insisting on three-dimensionality, or on anything much really, except the principle that if something has effects, it exists.”

    Dude. There is no evidence for anything anywhere in this universe that exists in one, two, four, or any other amount of dimensions. The fact is that everything we know of exists in three dimensions. When mathematicians come up with allegations of any objects, not three-dimensional they are fantasizing and in no way engaging in science.

    Even paper is three dimensional. Even wire. Even the thinnest sheets of graphite at the microscopic level are three-dimensional.

    We are bombarded with evidence for the reality of three-dimensional objects every waking moment. But other dimensions are a feature of only mathematics or theology.

    • Graeme, you’re familiar with the story of Flatland, right? Or Plato’s cave? There is nothing logically impossible about what we see being just a slice of a higher-dimensional space. You can even use it to explain observable phenomena like the bending of light rays and the handedness of basic forces, in terms of how that slice is located in its larger environment.

  97. Yeah I understand the concept. God is a four-dimensional being and he can see through us just like we could see through the flatlanders. He could see into our thoughts.

    But the fact is these are simply mathematical/theological inventions. They don’t constitute science or yet even a serious possibility.

    Using extra dimensions to fill in the gaps of poxy models that ought to be down-graded to predictive templates is no good either. Its a nonsensical and in fact easy way to make the mathematics jibe. Its ripping off and sidelining the abused and benighted outsiders that are out there who have formulated models that ought to get a serious hearing as a work-in-progress.

    The mathematicians seem to want to relate the entire universe in terms of mathematical formulas. But contrary to the impression Newton, Einstein and Maxwell have given us we have to assume that any, most, and probably all such relationships will only work between certain ranges of the various variables in the formulas. If you sample a slightly curved line that is really long it can look like a straight line in your sample. If you have any simple formula and it seems to be working within a certain range, and you go out of that range, and then you get more accurate measurements….. well perhaps you think you have a problem. But you can get a whole set of different formulas with extra dimensions in the maths to pull together the data to everyones satisfaction. Imagine then if you put forward some bullshit story about there being all these dimensions in order to shore up your calculations!!!!!!!!

    Doing so has some ways to go as any sort of science. Going outside the three dimensions that we know about can never be science and its getting in the way of better theory.

    • Oh my gosh, enough with the diatribe!! This has so totally left the realm of physics into just endless personal attacks and concern about status (who cares???!) it is not worth the time!

      See ya!

  98. Ho ho. You wait until you see what happens when you try it out on a gang of mathematical physics-cultists. The abuse never bottoms out.

    Hang on bear with me. I might be able to fish out an article which demonstrates this. We have people of all descriptions putting it about that there is this strange story of all these weirdos and intellectually handicapped people who keep questioning Einstein.

    I’ll have that article for you in a little while.

    http://www.slate.com/id/3134/

    Here is an article pointing out that the mainstream doesn’t have a clue what light is. But they are not trying to find out????? And at the same time they are totally abusive of people trying to speculate as to what it is.

    Hang out. I’ve still got to find the article I was after.

    Here’s this absolutely typical idiocy from leftist economist Brad Delong. He’s put it all down to conservative fear. Not to special relativity being bad theory:

    http://econ161.berkeley.edu/comments/occasional/bethell.html

    Here is something like what I’m looking before. But this is a truncated version:

    http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/print.html

    HERE IT IS:

    “According to Smolin, cranks are just a fact of life for working physicists. “Several of us have speculated that there must be a particular psychosis that results in people believing that they have disproved relativity,” he said. “Any of us who are in relativity and at all visible get several communications a month from such people, sometimes in the form of self-published books, sometimes letters, sometimes e-mail.” He added, “Usually they are innocuous, but a few times I have been threatened.”

    This is really what passes for an argument in idiotic special relativity cult circles. The above is drooling idiocy and mindless abuse. In fact anyone can disprove Special Relativity and no-one can justify it. So instead of refuting the disproofs of this theory you get the above as a sort of rolling thunder of abuse from very stupid people.

    http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html

    • I see your point, it is important that people question the current tenets of science and well accepted theories. And there is bias in government funding, especially when Dan Brown writes a book featuring an accelerator and suddenly everyone wants to fund anything to do with particle physics.

      But I don’t think this means people are not investigating alternatives to the theories, or are being brainwashed into thinking they’re absolute truths. Thousands of undergraduates and postgraduates spend many many lab hours trying to prove and disprove a range of currently well accepted theories. Theories are presented as theories, not as fact, and many courses and exams given on currently accepted theories are given by lecturers who disagree with the theories themselves and let the students know. So they are absolutely trying to find out the nature of things beyond current accepted theory!

      I still don’t think the collapsing nucleus disproves quantum mechanics though. Heisenberg explains it, though in a highly mathematical way that is difficult to prove either way, and evidence of the violation of this uncertianty principle is what I would consider compelling evidence that ‘quantum mechanics’ is wrong.
      It is nice that despite wildly abstract theories, hard evidence can still be found that support or discredit them.

      As it stands, I don’t know of any experimental evidence that refutes it, so Heisenberg’s theory is working for me.

      • Heisenbergs theory is just basically saying that the elite does not have to correct themselves when they are manifestly wrong. No longer do they need to stick to logic. The idea was to see that the model was wrong by what amounts to a contradiction. If you cannot take proof that you’ve gone down the wrong track as an impetus to scientific enquiry…… if rather you start learning to love your contradictions, and start making excuses for them, and enshrining them, then you have given up on science. But worse you are getting in the way. It is no compromise to say “perhaps the cat is sick.” There is no evidence that would support any uncertainty principle. Where would the evidence come from? Its mindless dogma. It doesn’t get off the ground in any way. A cat can be alive or dead. But it cannot be both. The cat thought experiment was a total refutation of the prevailing model. And the response was that the elite were happy with that. And no longer wanted to find out the truth. Nor were they in a position to. Given that by accepting excuses for contradictions, or by merely becoming proud of their contradictions and gleefully pronouncing them a such and such “paradox”, they had subverted any possible methodology for finding out what was really going on.

        “I still don’t think the collapsing nucleus disproves quantum mechanics though. Heisenberg explains it, though in a highly mathematical way that is difficult to prove either way…..”

        Then its not worth considering. Consider the heart as a pump? Is that difficult to prove either way? No because it happens to be true. So we have convergent evidence for it and no outstanding paradoxes.

  99. NO EVIDENCE CONFIRMS SPECIAL RELATIVITY. IT HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED IN PARTICLE ACCELERATORS AS YOU WRONGLY CLAIM. ASK YOURSELF WHAT THE PARTICLES ARE BEING ACCELERATED WITH DOOFUS?

    WHAT ARE THEY BEING ACCELERATED WITH YOU TWIT?

    YOU FUCKING MORON?

    SO WE SEE THAT PARTICLES CANNOT BE ACCELERATED PAST THE SPEED OF LIGHT FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THAT A PROPELLER-DRIVEN-PLAIN CANNOT EXCEED THE SPEED OF SOUND. DUH!!!!!!

  100. LIGHT ALWAYS BENDS WHEN GOING THROUGH A THICKER MEDIUM. NO BIG DEAL THERE. THERE COULD BE HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS. SPECIAL RELATIVITY DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE BENDING OF LIGHT AT ALL. IT JUST CALCULATES IT.

    SPACE IS THE ONE THING THAT ITS A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION TO SAY IT IS COMPRESSED OR EXPANDED. WHEREAS SPONGE CAN BE COMPRESSED OR EXPANDED SPACE CANNOT. SO WHILST THERE ARE MANY THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL EXPLANATIONS, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF IT JUST BEING PLAIN OLD-FASHIONED GRAVITY BENDING ITS PATH, SPECIAL RELATIVITY CAN GIVE US NO CLUE AS TO WHY IT HAPPENS.

    BUT THE MOST LIKELY THING TO DO IS GO WITH WHAT WE KNOW. GOING TO A THICKER MEDIUM MEANS BENDING. THE LIGHT THEREFORE BENDS WHEN PASSING THROUGH A THICKER MEDIUM AROUND THE SUN.

  101. BULLSHIT THEY DIDN’T DISCOVER ANY QUARK. WHAT THE HELL IS A “TOP” QUARK. LUDICROUS DESCRIPTIONS. TOP BOTTOM AND COLOURS. ALL MAKE-BELIEVE. YOUR CONTENTION THAT THEY DISCOVERED A QUARK IS A TOTALLY OVERBLOWN CLAIM. THE EXISTENCE OF PROTONS AND ELECTRONS IS WHAT THEY’VE DISCOVERED. MOST OF THE REST IS CONJECTURE AND MUCH OF IT LUDICROUS.

  102. TOP QUARKS HAVE NOT BEEN OBSERVED. WHAT A LOT OF CRAP. HOW YOU GOING TO OBSERVE THEM? BOUNCE PHOTONS OFF THEM? WHEN EVEN PHOTONS HAVEN’T BEEN OBSERVED? WERE THEY OBSERVED THROUGH AN ELECTRON MICROSCOPE?

    STOP LYING. THEY WERE INFERRED. NOT OBSERVED. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE IDIOT.

  103. Not only observed, but produced at Fermilab’s Tevatron.

    BULLSHIT. PROVE IT. YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING. INFERRED AT THE FERMILAB. NEVER OBSERVED. OBSERVED WHAT WITH? AN ELECTRON MICROSCOPE? A LASER? YOU TALK SUCH SHIT.

  104. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

  105. A QUARK DETECTOR IS HARDLY EVIDENCE FOR QUARKS DOPEY.

  106. IF THERE WAS FLIMSY EVIDENCE FOR METALS IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T THERE. KNOCKING UP A METAL DETECTOR THAT DETECTED METAL THAT WASN’T THERE WOULD NOT BE PROOF OF METALS YOU MORON.

    IF THE METAL IS THERE ITS NOT THE DETECTOR THAT PROVES IT BEING THERE.

    DUMMY.

  107. Whenever I hear the word “quark” I reach for my pistol. Because I know I am being lied to.

  108. And all of this quark bullshit is just the same as what goes on in the law.

    You get some supersmart scientist telling us he’s discovered quarks, and no you can’t see them and you are too stupid to understand his supersmart evidence, so just shut the fuck up, accept what he says and give him some more money to keep doing his bullshit work.

    And now you have the Fish Taco Muncher in America and various Sodomites and Hermaphrodites on our High Court who tell us about the rights they discover. And no you can’t see these rights and you don’t know where they come from so shut the fuck up and hand over your guns and gold and accept a piece of paper in return.

    It’s the same thing. It’s Cosmopolitanism and Hebrew Science Run Amok.

  109. It makes me very angry, Mr B. Very angry.

    I know you understand.

  110. Modernism is the name for the Hebrew/Asiatic principle that you can make up whatever shit you want and it’s as good as anything else.

    Think about it.

    Modern art. Quantum mechanics. “Gay Rights”. Paper money. Collateralised debt obligations. Gangsta rap.

    What do they all have in common?

  111. Poor Graeme. Still unable to explain time dilation.

  112. Forget time dilation, Wombat. That has never been observed in reality and doesn’t need explanation.

    Instead you explain to me how Dr Dre has sold more than 20 million albums unless there is a very powerful race of people determined to destroy European Civilisation.

    GO!!!

  113. Observed and integral to the correct functioning of GPS.

  114. Bullshit, you lying leftist filth. GPS uses satellites. Time dilation has nothing to do with it.

    Consider yourself busted, you lying prick.

  115. NO SPECIAL RELATIVITY DOESN’T PREDICT THIS. SPECIAL RELATIVITY CANNOT TELL YOU WHICH CLOCK IS STATIONARY DOPEY. SINCE VELOCITY IS RELATIVE.

    THERE IS ANY NUMBER OF REASONS WHY A CLOCK MOVING THROUGH A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD WOULD SLOW. NONE OF THEM INVOLVING VELOCITY PER SE SINCE ALL VELOCITY IS RELATIVE.

  116. sez who?

    Busted with your pants down, Wombat.

    Very embarassing for you I know.

  117. WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF DUMMY???

  118. That’s not an argument.

  119. Look at the Leftist Tactics of this filth Wombat.

    He thinks that if you cut and paste garbage it stops stinking.

    Bullshit. It’s all lies and it still stinks.

  120. Yeah he doesn’t have much on the go does he. What is pretty silly is the idea that there is only one possible explanation for anything he happens to dredge up.

  121. TIME DILATION DOESN’T EXIST. NOR IS THERE ANY GOOD EVIDENCE FOR IT. WHEN ASKING FOR SUCH EVIDENCE PEOPLE GET ALL MICROSCOPIC ON YOU. START TALKING ABOUT MUONS AND OTHER JIVE. THE POTENTIAL FOR CIRCULAR REASONING IS OBVIOUS.

    THEY MUST KNOW THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT. SINCE WERE THEY INTERESTED IN PROVING TIME DILATION THEY COULD HAVE DONE SO WITH EXPERIMENTS IN SPACE. FIRST TESTING FOR AND THEN NEUTRALISING WHATEVER EFFECT ACCELERATION HAD. THEN RE-RUNNING THE TEST AFTER SUCCESSFULLY NEUTRALISING WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF ACCELERATION ON THE CLOCKS TURNED OUT TO BE. NO SUCH EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN FUNDED. WHICH JUST GOES TO SHOW THE RELATIVIST CULTISTS MUST KNOW OR SUSPECT THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT.

    IN FACT TIME DILATION CANNOT EXIST. SINCE WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHOOSE WHICH CLOCK IS STATIONARY AND WHICH IS MOVING. SINCE VELOCITY IS RELATIVE.

  122. There is no time dilation. Never been sighted. No evidence for it. Doesn’t exist.

  123. NO THE GPS PROVES RELATIVITY WRONG. THEY JUST NEEDED TO ADJUST THE SATELITE CLOCK ONCE AND IT WAS FINE AFTER THAT. THIS IS A COMMON FALSE CLAIM.

    ONCE AGAIN. SINCE VELOCITY IS RELATIVE, THE CULTIST HAS NO RIGHT TO TELL US WHICH CLOCK IS MOVING AND WHICH IS AT REST.

  124. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO ADJUST FOR TIME DILATION SINCE TIME DILATION DOESN’T EXIST. ONCE AGAIN WE MUST POINT OUT THAT NO CLOCK IS ENTITLED TO BE AT REST.

  125. “There is no time dilation. Never been sighted. No evidence for it. Doesn’t exist.”

    Damn straight. If they cannot demonstrate it, to the satisfaction of lines of arms-folded blokes….. blokes of the sort who get out there……. and get their hands dirty and SELDOM GET ANY THANKS FROM THESE SCIENCE-GRANT WHORES………… well if they cannot pass THAT test. to THAT-Audience…… then its got to be 360 degrees mass-sackings. Just save the taxpayer a whole lot of money.

  126. WHEN YOU FIND SOME EVIDENCE DOOFUS, DON’T LET ME BE THE LAST TO KNOW.

  127. DON’T BE BRINGING MY STEPDAUGHTER INTO IT. SHE DOESN’T DESERVE ANY OF THAT. AND I WOULD RATHER FIND YOU AND KILL YOU AND ANYONE YOU ARE AQUAINTED WITH AND ANYONE YOU EVER DID KNOW THEN ALLOW HER TO CARRY ANY SORT OF TAINT

  128. Yes indeed Mr B.

    Arms-folded blokes. I like that. That’s who I want on my side.

    Arms-folded blokes who have no time for Snoop Dogg, Biggie or Tupac. Who couldn’t care less about East Coast vs. West Coast. Because Gangsta Rap is the musical equivalent of Quantum Mechanics i.e. it’s a lie foisted on us by Certain Peoples to undermine confidence in God and Country. I think you know what I’m getting at.

    That’s who we need on our side. A bunch of Fair Dinkum Aussies who’d punch your lights out if you so much as suggested that we use Taxpayer Funds to look for evidence of Quarks.

  129. Bravo Mr Hanson

    It is about time the pernicious influence of the Hebrew in distorting our view of reality through their Talmudic mathematical theologies was acknowledged.

  130. I call ’em as I see ’em, Mr Quartermain. It’s as simple as that.

  131. FURTHER?

    IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU FOUND ANY SORT OF EVIDENCE.

  132. I don’t think we ought to single people out in this way. I’d just hope that the kids got an example of REAL MEN and REAL WOMEN.

    You know tals a good girl and if we could compute the way the influence of a real woman rolls down the ages through her kids and nephews and nieces then there would be nothing to worry about.

    But can we really count on such eternal influences and do we have the right to discount such influences back to the present to gain hope that the people are up to dealing with the problems they face.

    Some of these children do not know what a man is. How a man acts. Few of them even know who Alan Keyes is. And they shy away from stories of Odysseus putting his house in order in the earlier grades.

    What can I do?

    I can show a woman singing like a real woman. Concerned with things real woman are concerned with.

    I cannot do much for the education of the kids.

    But this one thing I can do.

    One doesn’t want to get the backlash from over exposing Alan Keyes. But failing Alan this is what a real man looks like.

    This is the template for how real men act on all occasions.

  133. As well as the conclusive experiments showing time dilation via Muon decay there is also the atomic clock experiments.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

  134. Well it cannot be the alleged speed of the alleged muons can it Edney you moron. Since velocity is a relative concept. And so we have no right to choose whether it is the muons at rest and we that are moving.

    By Lord and Teacher Buddha you are one fucking moron Edney.

  135. The experiment you site was a proven example of science fraud. The “scientists” didn’t allow anyone to look at their data. Someone had to get it through freedom of information.

    If there was any effect on the atomic clocks at all it was obviously not due to their speed you fucking twit. Since velocity is a relative concept we have no right to arbitrarily decide which clock is still and which is moving.

    Go away you fucking moron Edney. Take your outrageous and idiotic voodoo with you.

  136. Notice that no actual time dilation was found even in the experiment. Actually quite the opposite. But then these same cranks would say that the opposite effect was the result of general relativity showing up to overmatch the effects of special relativity.

    Which Ron rightly points out:

    “There is no time dilation. Never been sighted. No evidence for it. Doesn’t exist.”

    So useless are these guys they cannot even set up an experiment where their alleged effect would be out there, clear, and not overmatched by other allegations from their stupid theory.

    So after failing with that, hiding the data, ruling out alternative explanations….. well what do these frauds and cranks do? They go get microscopic on us.

    And how is the sample size for these alleged muons. When we are talking decay rates we are usually talking billions of atoms. Apparently these folks think they see something that is statistically significant. Too stupid to investigate other explanations when their own explanation quite literally CANNOT be right.

  137. Edney you lying fraud

    “That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly who examined the raw data: according to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim such a high precision.[2] Also, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in which he discussed the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment”

    Busted with your pants down, Edney. You and Wombat. Both busted. Shameless liars.

  138. What’s your agenda, Edney

    Who’s side are you on?

  139. What sort of name is Edney anyway.

    Sounds like someone who wants to appear British but doesn’t really know anything about it.

    A fraud. A busted lying fraud.

    Pull your pants up and go home, Edney. We’ve all had a a laugh at your expense but now the joke’s over.

    You sicken me.

  140. From memory I think that this fellow took ten years to get his hands on the data. The frauds held out for ten years.

  141. Look the guy who invented the Atomic Clock thinks these bozos are full of shit.

    He invented the damn thing and he says time dilation is a bunch of hooey.

    I’d take his word for it over “Edney” and “Wombat” anytime.

  142. You’d have to wonder if it was generally known how fast the solar system was moving around the galaxy, when Einstein came up with this very foolish idea.

  143. TIME DILATION OF SOURCE LIGHT? SO YOU’VE CLOCKED IT SOMEHOW ALONG THE LINE. YOU TALK SUCH SHIT. NO LYING ON THIS BLOG FELLA. WHAT A FUCKING FANTASY. YOU WERE RUNNING RIGHT NEXT TO IT WERE YOU?

  144. Oh so if Goldhaber and Perlmutter say so, it must be true.

    Fuck off, Wombat.

  145. Mr B, what do you make of this:

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25619504-5011761,00.html

    At first glance it’s rather disturbing.

    But I don’t trust the Gravity Mafia to present a straight story. They have a vested interest in having us so terrified of bogus Gravitational Effects that we don’t question the bigger lies they tell us (e.g. Solar Energy).

    I would value your thoughts on this, Mr B.

    In any event I think it might be appropriate to spend some time underground until a clearer picture emerges.

  146. Also on that point, Mr B, I value your Advanced Knowledge of High Tech Materials.

    Is there material that you know of along the lines of Dragon Skin that could be used to harden a shelter so that it would survive impact with another Planet?

    As you say, unreadiness is unrighteousness and I would like to be prepared for any eventuality, no matter how far-fetched.

  147. “Using powerful computers, Mr Laskar and colleague Mickael Gastineau generated numerical simulations of orbital instability over the next five billion years.

    Unlike previous models, they took into account Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Over a short time span, this made little difference, but over the long haul it resulted in dramatically different orbital paths.”

    This would be merely further evidence against General Relativity. General Relativity is so unsound it has the planets smashing together.

  148. What is your alternative?

    GB sez: I think the alternative is yet to be found. General Relativity does not explain gravity. And it gets in the way. I like what Gaedes ideas on it. And I like the electric universe theories. But this ought to be a scientific question. Meaning people ought to go out and find the answer. Its not something you could expect me to make up in my head.

    Perhaps this is one of the pernicious effects of Einstein. Every one expects someone to come out with this gear in their own heads. Rather than do serious science and find this stuff out.

  149. Graeme I’m begging you please stick to reviewing movies and albums

    • WHY? This is serious stuff! Epistemology is my best subject. Its no disrespect to Einstein. Clearly he was a very smart man. A creative genius. But the way he went about things was not what science is supposed to be. Everybody loves Albert. Almost everyone. I’m just the same. But the academy has gone down the wrong track with their failure to go over the basics, compare paradigms in parallel, and just basically follow good epistemological methodology.

      I don’t have the answers here. Physics isn’t my deal. But comparing and evaluating various paradigms is. And these guys really have made a hash of things.

      The other thing is that other than epistemology my main speciality would be monetary economics and the way this is supposed to integrate with “capital markets”. I put that in inverted commas because its a phrase that has two separate and related meanings.

      This really is my strength tal. I could teach you all about it easy. Its inherently a much easier subject than what it would appear to be. But for the way the benificiaries of our crap fiat system, as well as the ignorant court-economists react when someone starts talking about money.

      Its clear to me that you’ve been taken in by Andrew and Cambria over at Catallaxy. But Andrew and Cambria really are full of shit.

      Often you’ll ask a question about economics over there. And you won’t get much of an answer. I’ll give you a detailed and understandable answer but Sinclair will wipe it.

      You ought to email me and get me to answer questions that way. So Cambria and Andrew aren’t confusing you by gainsaying me, and putting words in my mouth.

      The fact is that its the fiat systems failings that put money in the pockets of people such as this. Thats why they are devoted to it. They say they would want fraud banking. But when they say that they are always lying.

      Humphreys, Cambria, Andrew, Soon…. all of them have pulled the “I prefer ‘free’ banking” line and everytime they’ve pulled that line they have been without exception lying. Except for Mark Hill whose an incredibly confused character. And Terje who has some weird monetary-crankery fixation.

  150. BIRDLAB: I have a research proposal

    NASA: Yes, go on

    BIRDLAB: It’s based on the ideas of unstoppable international powerhouse Bill Gaedes.

    NASA: Tell me more about this Gaedes fellow:

    BIRDLAB: He’s really quite good. I should know as epitistomology is my best subject.

    NASA: Do we have any samples of his work?

    BIRDLAB: Why yes, he has a website. All high quality gear. Very sane and not at all completely unhinged and thoroughly deranged:-

    http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

    NASA: Go away.

  151. Very Good.

    But who is NASA anyway? (N)ever (A) (S)traight (A)nswer. Paragons of scientific resources rather than scientific virtue.

  152. So this is the last generation in human history is it? Some logic.

  153. He’s got his reasons.

  154. So did Charles Manson.

  155. His reasons are something to take into account. I think he’s half-right. I think we are going in for serious down-sizing as a population.

  156. NASA is the tip of the Gravity Mafia’s spear.

  157. Ron check this out. Sinclair has been blocking all my attempts to inform the public about economics and how to get out of the recession. I’m fucking sick of it. He won’t listen. He won’t learn anything new. He’s pig-ignorant in the first place.

    Perhaps you can help me shepherd these arguments through to the children Ron. Think of the children Ron. The ones who are reading and not saying anything. The ones who are eagerly trying to find out the answers to the mysteries of economics.

    Here is the post I tried to get through. Note the hostile tone. But this ignorant pig was blocking me even when I had no such tone:

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    You are allowing yourself to get completely confused and sidetracked Sinclair. Its hardly a winning argument to try and say they didn’t increase retail spending. Since its pretty clear they did. And thats not what the doctor ordered.

    So you are way off track. Challenging the dumb left on this basis, you may as well be the Manchurian candidate.

    WE WANTED LOWER RETAIL SPENDING TO HELP THE ECONOMY. Lower not higher. And here you are trying to prove that their counter-productive actions didn’t increase retail spending from what it otherwise would have been. Thats an argument you are going to lose and a very stupid argument to make. Since we wanted retail spending to go down, savings to go up, debts to come down, and its only BUSINESS TO BUSINESS SPENDING that we wanted to increase.

    There is no substitute for learning the material.”

  158. Where would you like me to post it, Mr B?

  159. Oh well. I’ll leave it up to you.

  160. Mr B

    I posted it in the Open Forum but those Leftist Fucks deleted it.

    The ghost of Stalin lives.

  161. Hi admin, i must say you have very interesting content here.
    Your page should go viral. You need initial traffic only.
    How to get it? Search for; Mertiso’s tips go viral


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: