ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Bose-Einstein condensates , cold fusion , Coulomb barrier , Eugene Podkletnov , Frank Znidarsic , planck's constant , quantum mechanics , quantum theory , Quantum Transition

Reply
Old 4th January 2011, 10:21 AM   #41
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
You cant state Planck's constant is irrelevant if your explanation of the fine structure constant is explained in terms of Planck's constant. You need to understand energy transfers and impedance matches. Planck's constant is only measured by experiments. Lofty professors of Physics cant show what it is derived from. The speed of transition can be proven from first principles, meaning that it is not simply empiracle.
You all need to understand this :
Vt is the underlying cause of planck's constant, not the otherway around.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:22 AM   #42
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Nope through would be completely and of course you've not read the newest paper and build a straw-man of an old paper
Your link to the new paper didn't work, so I read what I could get my hands on. But from the text you posted above, it seems that it was the same paper.

Quote:
Yes BECs are completely relevant to the conversation at hand.
Oh, this is going to be fun. Please explain exactly how BECs are relevant, because Znidarsic certainly didn't explain it in his paper (Hint: hand-waving doesn't count)

Quote:
Being a professor do you understand what BECs are?
Yup. I had a couple of courses in grad school which dealt with them. I also happened to be learning about the theory behind BECs at the same time they were first created in the laboratory - that was exciting

Quote:
And what role they play in the model put forth by Frank?
No clue at all, because he's just making things up out of whole cloth.

Quote:
Why then ask wtf since obviously they are aptly included in the paper?
Znidarsic, and you apparently, think that simply mentioning Bose-Einstein Condensates in a random paper somehow, magically gives it more validity. It doesn't.

Quote:
I am beginning to suspect you are no professor at all
Obvious physics crank is obvious
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 4th January 2011 at 10:31 AM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:24 AM   #43
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
umm they actually have maybe you are just not up to date? The problem is palladium purity and 50-10nm range of domain uniformity issues in the palladium used by some of the supposed "failures". At a uniform 50 - 10 nm palladium, cold fusion with palladium is reduplicated easily and has been around the world
Data, evidence, citations?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:24 AM   #44
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
So where does Isaac fit into this?
His classical physics models can be used to predict empirically verified quanta level data.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:28 AM   #45
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Data, evidence, citations?
CONCLUSION
The field of quantum physics revolves around the stationary quantum state. A speed has emerged from experiments involving low level nuclear reactions. This author, with the use of this speed, has developed results as a condition of the transitional quantum state. This new understanding suggests that a macroscopic body may be forced into a state of quantum transition. Trillions of atoms may be adjoined within a single transitional state. Strong gravitational and long range nuclear forces may be produced. The use of these strong, long range forces could provide new sources of propulsion, allow for the reduction of nuclear waste, and lead to the development of new sources of energy.

1. I. Bernard Cohen, Henry Crew, Joseph von Fraunhofer, De Witt Bristol Brac, The Wave theory, light and Spectra. Ayer Publishing, 1981
2. Robert Bunsen, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Volume 22, 1900
3. L Hartmann, Johann Jakob Balmer, Physikalische Blätter 5 (1949), 11-14
4. W. Ritz, Magnetische Atomfelder und Serienspektren, Annalen der Physik, Vierte Folge. Band 25, 1908, p. 660–696.
5. Planck Max, On the Law of the Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum, Annalon der Physik, Vol. 4, p 553, (1901).
6. Einstein Albert, Development of our Conception of the Nature and Constitution of Radiation, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, (1909)
7. Bohr Niels, On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Vol. 26, pp 1-25 (1913)
8. Maxwell James Clerk, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 155, (1865)
9. Lewis deBroglie, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the quantum theory), Thesis, Paris, 1924
10. Max Born, The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Nobel Lectures, 1964
11. A Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Roses, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 - 780 (1935)
12. Miley George H., Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis, 2nd International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, (1996).
13. Mosier-Boss, Szpak S., Gorden F.E. and Forsley L.P.G., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition Experiments, European Journal of Applied Physics, 40, 293-303, (2007)
14. Storms Edmond, Cold Fusion, A Challenge to Modern Science, The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 9, No. 4, pp 585-594, (1995)
15. Rothwell Jed, Infinite Energy, Issue 29, p 23. (1999) "50 nano-meters ..is the magic domain that produces a detectable cold fusion reaction"
16. Arata Y. and Fujita H., Zhang Y., Intense deuterium nuclear Fusion of Pycnodeuterium-Lumps Coagulated Locally within highly Deuterated Atomic Clusters, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 78, Ser.B, No.7 (2002)
17. Li Ning and Torr D.G., Gravitational effects on the Magnetic Attenuation of Superconductors, Physical Review B, Vol 46, #9, (1992)
18. Reiss Harrald, Anomalies Observed During the Cool-Down of High Temperature Superconductors, Physics Essays, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 2002).
19. Tajmar M., deMathos C, Coupling of Gravitational and Electromagnetism in the Weak Field Approximation, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003011
20. Podkletnov E. and Levi A.D., A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu307-x Superconductor, Physica C, vol 203, pp 441-444 (1992).
21. Papaconstantopoulus D. A. and Klein B. M., Superconductivity in Palladium-Hydrogen Systems, Phys. Rev. Letters (July 14, 1975)
22. M. Modarres, Momentum Distributions of Nuclear Matter, 1987 Europhys. Lett. 3 1083
23. A. Sommerfeld, Principles of the Quantum Theory and the Bohr Atomic Model, Naturwissenschaften (1924), 12 1047-9
24. Richard Feynman, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, 1988
25. The Lex Foundation, What is Quantum Mechanics, page 189, 1996
26. Znidarsic Frank, A Reconciliation of Quantum Physics and Special Relativity, The General Journal of Physics, Dec 2005, http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:28 AM   #46
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,905
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
His classical physics models can be used to predict empirically verified quanta level data.
So do a few of the versions of String Theory.


If I had no knowledge of the Pythagorean theorum, and worked it out for myself, did I just link math and geometery?
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:44 AM   #47
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
No clue at all, because he's just making things up out of whole cloth.
Quote:
The quantum condition describes the angular momentum of a quantum system. The
angular momentum is an integer multiple of Planck’s constant. Bohr and Einstein sought
a classical explanation for the quantum condition. Schrödinger incorporated Bohr's
quantum condition and determined the intensity of the atomic spectrum. Rutherford
searched for a solution, gave up, and began his work with the nucleus. Over one
hundred years have passed since a classical connection was sought. None of the great
scientists has discovered a classical explanation for the quantum condition. The mystery
remains today and is embodied in the duality of particles and waves.
This author has discovered a classical link to the quantum condition. The link is the
elastic limit of space. The introduction of the elastic limit reveals the path of the
quantum transition and provides insight into the duality of particles and waves.
Convention represents the matter wave as the superposition of an infinite number of
component waves. The Fourier addition of component waves localizes the matter wave.
Waves, other than the matter wave, are localized by restraining forces. This author
proposes that the natural forces are pinned into the structure of matter (restrained) at a
discontinuity produced by the elastic limit of space. Reflections are produced at the
discontinuity. The superposition of the incident and reflected wave is the deBroglie wave
of matter.
Yea sounds right out of cloth

Quote:
A discontinuity forms when the intensity of a force field exceeds the elastic limit of space.
The natural forces are pinned into the structure of matter at this discontinuity. The
elastic of space is a geometric property. It is expressed in units of reciprocal
capacitance. Each of the natural forces experiences the elastic limit of in its own way.
The gravitational force experiences it through its weakness and the structure of the
universe. The electromagnetic force experiences it through a maximum of intensity.
The nuclear forces experience it through the geometry of the proton and neutron.
Quantum events are normally described from the vantage point of the stationary
quantum states. Recent experiments have produced observables that have allowed this
author to describe quantum events from the vantage point of the transitional quantum
state. During a quantum transition the elastic limit of space releases its grip on the
natural forces. The velocity of the transitional quantum state, with respect to an elastic
discontinuity, is fixed at 1.094 million meters per second. The velocity appears, in noncentric
systems, as the dimensional frequency 1.094 megahertz-meters.
It has been shown that the elastic limit of space establishes the zero point properties of
stable matter. Many new phenomena are observed as fixed parameters thaw (become
variable). Conventional science has developed a bias towards looking to higher energies
to find interesting phenomena. Little application can be found for the discovered highenergy
phenomena. This author has introduced a new parameter, the elastic limit of
space. The elastic limit of space (quantum of reciprocal capacitance) becomes variable
at very low energies. The low energy affects are accessible with affordable technologies.
This author believes that the understanding of the affects produced by a changing
quantum of capacitance will allow man to directly control each of the four natural forces.
This understanding should produce a revolution in technology.
Gosh he's totally pulling it out of nowhere. The quantum world is not a magical world where physics laws cannot be applied. The magic land where the classical doesn't apply to quanta sounds like a cult not science. Frank is reconciling the two worlds, not retreating to a magical, dare I say "supernatural" explanation for empirically observed phenomena and instead sticks to Physics classical foundation in explaining things observed at the quantum level. And it works as evidenced by the number of calculations able to be done without empirical knowledge. Can any of you derive Einsteins- Photo-Electric constant WITHOUT Planck's constant? And yet I did in this thread. You are chicken and egging Planck and Vt. Vt is supreme to Planck in that it is classically explainable while professors pulled planck's constant out of cloth and CANNOT explain what it derives from
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 10:47 AM   #48
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
If I had no knowledge of the Pythagorean theorum, and worked it out for myself, did I just link math and geometery
If the world had no knowledge of the Pythagorean theorum then yes. Franks given us Vt something the physics world still claims to have no knowledge of
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:15 AM   #49
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Frank Znidarsic, "Motion Constants", Transactions of the American Nuclear
Society, Vol. 83, November 2000

Real quack I mean Transactions of the American Nuclear Society thats basically Fortean Times right?!?
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:19 AM   #50
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
If the world had no knowledge of the Pythagorean theorum then yes. Franks given us Vt something the physics world still claims to have no knowledge of
I have discovered a new constant, T, that explains gravity better than Newton. Here's the new classical gravity equation:

F = pi * e * M1 M2 / ( 2 * T r^2 )

See the new constant, T? From this new constant I can derive Newton's constant:

G = pi * e / 2 T

Have I "given you something the physics world claims to have no knowledge of"?
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:28 AM   #51
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Gosh he's totally pulling it out of nowhere. The quantum world is not a magical world where physics laws cannot be applied. The magic land where the classical doesn't apply to quanta sounds like a cult not science. Frank is reconciling the two worlds, not retreating to a magical, dare I say "supernatural" explanation for empirically observed phenomena and instead sticks to Physics classical foundation in explaining things observed at the quantum level. And it works as evidenced by the number of calculations able to be done without empirical knowledge. Can any of you derive Einsteins- Photo-Electric constant WITHOUT Planck's constant? And yet I did in this thread. You are chicken and egging Planck and Vt. Vt is supreme to Planck in that it is classically explainable while professors pulled planck's constant out of cloth and CANNOT explain what it derives from
Nope. You may think you did so, but it seems that you're not convincing anyone else here that you did (especially those of us who know physics).

ETA: Great example, ben_m
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:29 AM   #52
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Why doesnt the electron ever crash into the nucleus? That is can anyone give a causative explanation as to why two attractive forces never attract each past a certain point? Isn't the atom a perpetual motion machine?

Let's face it the current state of quantum mechanics is not even a true branch of physics. Physics is the study of CAUSATION. I mean what CAUSES orbits to be quantized in discrete steps? Frank has left the quantum magic for magicians and brought physics back to science
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:30 AM   #53
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Ben Matt what is the causation of Planck's constant?!?!?
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:37 AM   #54
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Ben Matt what is the causation of Planck's constant?!?!?
In terms of ben_m's example above, can you explain what is the causation of G, the Universal Gravitational Constant? Or, to stay consistent, are you going to claim that gravity is "magic"?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 4th January 2011 at 11:40 AM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:38 AM   #55
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Frank Znidarsic, "Motion Constants", Transactions of the American Nuclear
Society, Vol. 83, November 2000

Real quack I mean Transactions of the American Nuclear Society thats basically Fortean Times right?!?
a) That's not a journal, that is a conference proceedings. All that your citation tells us is that Znidarsic gave a talk or a poster at a conference. Not usually a high bar for crackpots to clear---APS meetings, for example, accept all abstracts, and end up with whole sessions of 15-minute crackpot talks.

b) The American Nuclear Society is not an organization of nuclear physicists. It's an association of the nuclear industry---on the sciencey side that includes nuclear engineers, chemists who deal with fuel, but it also serves radiologists, nuclear power plant managers and technicians, etc.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:52 AM   #56
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
I mean what CAUSES orbits to be quantized in discrete steps?
You do realize that the Bohr, or planetary, model of the hydrogen atom is only used in the most basic, introductory lectures on quantum mechanics, right? The Bohr model is not really a reflection of what physicists believe in terms of atomic structure; the more accurate view is the electron (or probability) cloud model.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 4th January 2011 at 12:18 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 11:53 AM   #57
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
I can explain where 1.094 Mhz m came from and how it can replace h can you explain the causation of a substitute for G? Even have a substitute?
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:00 PM   #58
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
You do realize that the Bohr, or orbital, model of the hydrogen atom is only used in the most basic, introductory lectures on quantum mechanics, right? The Bohr model is not really a reflection of what physicists believe in terms of atomic structure.
Mattus,
In all fairness, even though the Bohr model is about as relevant as the plum pudding model of Rutherford, orbitals are still in use as descriptors in the mainstream.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:08 PM   #59
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Mattus,
In all fairness, even though the Bohr model is about as relevant as the plum pudding model of Rutherford, orbitals are still in use as descriptors in the mainstream.
Oh, I know that; that is, it works well enough for hydrogen. Hell, I teach the Bohr model in introductory QM. My point is that if physics cranks are hell bent on taking down QM, then they should at least try keeping up with the currently accepted science.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:11 PM   #60
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Here is a link to cold fusion research in2010. http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html

'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance
A new "calorimeter," shown immersed in this water bath, provides the first inexpensive means of identifying the hallmark of cold fusion reactions: the production of excess heat. Credit: Melvin Miles
A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the organizer of one of the largest scientific sessions on the topic -- "cold fusion" -- being held in San Francisco for the next two days in the Moscone Center during the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

Any credence in this progress?
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:12 PM   #61
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
I can explain where 1.094 Mhz m came from and how it can replace h can you explain the causation of a substitute for G? Even have a substitute?
Sure, I can build a Cavendish balance and obtain data on my constant T.

ETA: Its value is T = 6.40x10^11 kg/m^3 Hz^-2. From that I can derive the motion of all that planets!

Last edited by ben m; 4th January 2011 at 12:16 PM.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:12 PM   #62
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Mattus,
In all fairness, even though the Bohr model is about as relevant as the plum pudding model of Rutherford, orbitals are still in use as descriptors in the mainstream.
Orbitals aren't part of the Bohr model. Bohr had quantised orbits. The familiar s,p,d and f orbitals are spatial solutions of the Schrödinger equation.
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:12 PM   #63
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Oh, I know that; that is, it works well enough for hydrogen.
OK, couldn't tell if you were being serious or facetious.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:14 PM   #64
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
Orbitals aren't part of the Bohr model. Bohr had quantised orbits. The familiar s,p,d and f orbitals are spatial solutions of the Schrödinger equation.
Did I state that orbitals were part of the Bohr model?
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:42 PM   #65
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Your argument is essentially circular in nature
You are right it is circular and this is the tract of circular math Frank was stuck in for 10 years
Short Clip
But he found a way out

This clip wraps it together with math

Last edited by JCM; 4th January 2011 at 12:47 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:55 PM   #66
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
CONCLUSION
The field of quantum physics revolves around the stationary quantum state. A speed has emerged from experiments involving low level nuclear reactions. This author, with the use of this speed, has developed results as a condition of the transitional quantum state. This new understanding suggests that a macroscopic body may be forced into a state of quantum transition. Trillions of atoms may be adjoined within a single transitional state. Strong gravitational and long range nuclear forces may be produced. The use of these strong, long range forces could provide new sources of propulsion, allow for the reduction of nuclear waste, and lead to the development of new sources of energy.

1. I. Bernard Cohen, Henry Crew, Joseph von Fraunhofer, De Witt Bristol Brac, The Wave theory, light and Spectra. Ayer Publishing, 1981
2. Robert Bunsen, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Volume 22, 1900
3. L Hartmann, Johann Jakob Balmer, Physikalische Blätter 5 (1949), 11-14
4. W. Ritz, Magnetische Atomfelder und Serienspektren, Annalen der Physik, Vierte Folge. Band 25, 1908, p. 660–696.
5. Planck Max, On the Law of the Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum, Annalon der Physik, Vol. 4, p 553, (1901).
6. Einstein Albert, Development of our Conception of the Nature and Constitution of Radiation, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, (1909)
7. Bohr Niels, On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Vol. 26, pp 1-25 (1913)
8. Maxwell James Clerk, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 155, (1865)
9. Lewis deBroglie, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the quantum theory), Thesis, Paris, 1924
10. Max Born, The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Nobel Lectures, 1964
11. A Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Roses, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 - 780 (1935)
12. Miley George H., Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis, 2nd International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, (1996).
13. Mosier-Boss, Szpak S., Gorden F.E. and Forsley L.P.G., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition Experiments, European Journal of Applied Physics, 40, 293-303, (2007)
14. Storms Edmond, Cold Fusion, A Challenge to Modern Science, The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 9, No. 4, pp 585-594, (1995)
15. Rothwell Jed, Infinite Energy, Issue 29, p 23. (1999) "50 nano-meters ..is the magic domain that produces a detectable cold fusion reaction"
16. Arata Y. and Fujita H., Zhang Y., Intense deuterium nuclear Fusion of Pycnodeuterium-Lumps Coagulated Locally within highly Deuterated Atomic Clusters, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 78, Ser.B, No.7 (2002)
17. Li Ning and Torr D.G., Gravitational effects on the Magnetic Attenuation of Superconductors, Physical Review B, Vol 46, #9, (1992)
18. Reiss Harrald, Anomalies Observed During the Cool-Down of High Temperature Superconductors, Physics Essays, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 2002).
19. Tajmar M., deMathos C, Coupling of Gravitational and Electromagnetism in the Weak Field Approximation, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003011
20. Podkletnov E. and Levi A.D., A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu307-x Superconductor, Physica C, vol 203, pp 441-444 (1992).
21. Papaconstantopoulus D. A. and Klein B. M., Superconductivity in Palladium-Hydrogen Systems, Phys. Rev. Letters (July 14, 1975)
22. M. Modarres, Momentum Distributions of Nuclear Matter, 1987 Europhys. Lett. 3 1083
23. A. Sommerfeld, Principles of the Quantum Theory and the Bohr Atomic Model, Naturwissenschaften (1924), 12 1047-9
24. Richard Feynman, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, 1988
25. The Lex Foundation, What is Quantum Mechanics, page 189, 1996
26. Znidarsic Frank, A Reconciliation of Quantum Physics and Special Relativity, The General Journal of Physics, Dec 2005, http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf
So which of these publications from an uncited reference is a repliaction of the alleged cold fusion phenomena?

Is English your first language, you have no presented data or evidence for replication, nor did you cite sources for them.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 12:59 PM   #67
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Why doesnt the electron ever crash into the nucleus? That is can anyone give a causative explanation as to why two attractive forces never attract each past a certain point? Isn't the atom a perpetual motion machine?

Let's face it the current state of quantum mechanics is not even a true branch of physics. Physics is the study of CAUSATION. I mean what CAUSES orbits to be quantized in discrete steps?
Do you know what the word quanta means?
Quote:
Frank has left the quantum magic for magicians and brought physics back to science
Um the Religion and Philosophy forum is that away >>>>>

You don't know what the definition of science of physics is either. QM is physics wether you like it or not and it is modeled rather well despite that fact that under current models it appears acausal.

The fact that you are resorting to philosophy and semantics does not argue well for your ideas.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 01:53 PM   #68
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Did I state that orbitals were part of the Bohr model?
Not in so many words, but it was fairly heavily implied by what you wrote.
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 01:57 PM   #69
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,888
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Mattus,
In all fairness, even though the Bohr model is about as relevant as the plum pudding model of Rutherford, orbitals are still in use as descriptors in the mainstream.
But the plum pudding model was Thomson's.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 01:57 PM   #70
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe View Post
Not in so many words, but it was fairly heavily implied by what you wrote.
Mmm, I thought that was what Mattus was implying. I mean, you could have said that I was implying that was what the plum pudding model implied.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 02:03 PM   #71
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
But the plum pudding model was Thomson's.
You are right, but it directly led to Rutherfords model.
Sorry, my mistake, I knew that Rutherford was involved.

The 1904 Thomson model was disproved by the 1909 gold foil experiment, which was interpreted by Ernest Rutherford in 1911 to imply a very small nucleus of the atom containing a very high positive charge (in the case of gold, enough to balance about 100 electrons), thus leading to the Rutherford model of the atom.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 06:17 PM   #72
jasonpatterson
Philanthropic Misanthrope
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Space, The Final Frontier
Posts: 2,556
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Why doesnt the electron ever crash into the nucleus? That is can anyone give a causative explanation as to why two attractive forces never attract each past a certain point? Isn't the atom a perpetual motion machine?
What you don't seem to understand is that ANY explanation of the workings of the universe is subject to these sorts of questions at some level. If you ask, "Why?" enough times an honest, knowledgeable person will eventually have to answer, "We don't know, it is simply observed to be true." The difference here is that rather than admitting that you don't know (or that Znidarsic doesn't know, anyway) you are comfortable with just accepting the crap that he's made up.

Made up crap vs. honest admission of ignorance... I know which I choose.
__________________
Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold.
Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself.
- Shel Silverstein
jasonpatterson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2011, 07:19 PM   #73
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
The speed of transition can be proven from first principles, meaning that it is not simply empiracle.
(An empiracle is a small, cute baby empire.)

Your calculation is nonsense, JCM. The quantity f*lambda isn't "the speed of a quantum transition", it's the speed of light. By definition. It's not 1.094x10^6 m/s, it's 3x10^8 m/s. Look up any photon you like and do the math. (A handy wavelength to measure yourself is that of your home microwave: http://www.physics.umd.edu/icpe/news...4/marshmal.htm) I have no idea where you got 1.094e6 from.

Anyway, who cares, because that's not the unknown in your calculation. Q is. You wrote down the expression for the energy stored on a flat-plate capacitor of dimensions lambda x lambda x lambda (and you used a hideously inaccurate approximate equation for the capacitance), charging it up to an arbitrary amount Q. Then you randomly rearranged the equation to pull out a factor of f, to make it look like E = something * f---and ignored the fact that you the "something" contains your still-unknown charge Q. Q is not the fundamental electron charge, by the way, as you will find out if you do the math. Nor the fundamental up quark charge. Nope. It's some random constant---with, yes, units of charge---that you will learn when you do a quantum experiment just like everyone else.

But I'm mostly amused by your thinking the speed of light is 10^6 m/s. Dude, the electrons in your TV tube are going faster than that. If that were the speed of light, you'd need five-inch pupils just to be able to read. If that were the speed of light, there'd be a four-second delay in coast to coast phone calls. If that were the speed of light, the planets would cross the sky with redshifts and blueshifts (especially Mercury's) noticable to the naked eye.

ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 03:48 AM   #74
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,424
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
The speed of transition can be proven from first principles, meaning that it is not simply empiracle.
We're all waiting to see you do so. As far as I can tell from the rather incomprehensible paper you're referencing, the value for Vt is derived from the ratio of the energy and frequency of a photon; in other words, from Planck's constant. Until I see a derivation of the value of Vt from some other source, it's nothing more than a rearrangement of terms, and - yes - purely empirical.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 02:10 PM   #75
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
Until I see a derivation of the value of Vt from some other source, it's nothing more than a rearrangement of terms, and - yes - purely empirical.
Ok well this is what I was getting at I am sorry if I come off as very ignorant I am not a physicist and am a math major so its the math in this work that gets me not the physics but from what I understand it can be derived elsewhere and this is the diamond in Franks coal. I havent mentioned how yet and without doing so all of this is as you said before circular using plancks to get plancks whop de do. But the equation is using the quantum transition rather than planck's even though they may appear to be the same number. This is because the transition number is derived at not may up. It is derived by the study of sound waves propagation within the nucleus and deals with impedance matching. I am still trying to understand how Frank derived 1.094 Mh m but it is stated indeed the derivation of the value of Vt does come from some an other source. Yes frank is an electrical engineer but principles such as impedance matching have been applied by him to quantum models resulting in this research.

Please check out this video it as I said begins to explain where the derivation of 1.094 Mhz m is coming from

The next video continues explaining how Frank derived the 1.094 MHz m speed of quantum transition.

Quote:
Your calculation is nonsense, JCM. The quantity f*lambda isn't "the speed of a quantum transition", it's the speed of light.
In this equation


lambda = wavelength of photon during transition not "the speed of light".
f = Frequency of the emitted photon = known by experimental measurement

The eq. is stating that the speed of transition is equal to the frequency of the emitted photon
Quote:
But I'm mostly amused by your thinking the speed of light is 10^6 m/s.
Sorry but that is not what I am stating. First of the number is 1,094,000 m/s second the number is the speed of quantum transition not the speed of light but yes I can see how your misunderstanding could be amusing.

If you think I am confused watch the math explain in this short video

Quote:
(An empiracle is a small, cute baby empire.)
So the Vatican? Well now not in times of the past
Quote:
Um the Religion and Philosophy forum is that away
Well maybe I shouldnt mention the Vatican

Quote:
QM is physics wether you like it or not and it is modeled rather well despite that fact that under current models it appears acausal.
ACAUSAL is not science, sorry. It may work pragmatically, that is Mayan priests could predict eclipses perhaps not knowing the causation of the eclipse but believing in sky god migration patterns or something (this might be totally wrong). They could predict phenomena but did not know their causation. That is the current state of QM you may be able to predict things reliably but you have stated yourself it appears without causality.

There is causality and Frank is able to explain it finally.



The mentioning of Bohrs model and what not relates to this video as well in that its explains that the REAL radius of a proton is 1.2fm as the proton is fuzzy at the end and most texts just measure the "non fuzzy" density at the center .877 fm but the fuzziness extends to 1.2fm
but the actual distance is that is Kf=1.36 fm

Quote:
The difference here is that rather than admitting that you don't know (or that Znidarsic doesn't know, anyway) you are comfortable with just accepting the crap that he's made up.

Made up crap vs. honest admission of ignorance... I know which I choose.
Looking at this work you cannot seriously think Frank just made it up. Ok maybe you can seriously but I can't. it is simply too in depth and the math is undeniable. I admit ignorance and find ways out of it like Franks unorthodox viewpoint. Not simply because of it being unorthodox in fact not at all, but because of it's ability to fill in gaps in a manner that is verifiable and scientific. I underline that because that is what qualifies me accepting it not worship of personality, wanting to explain everything, believing in made up stuff, etc... Only due to the fact of Frank's science do I accept it

Frank Himself explaining some of his theory

Please watch the vids they are better at explaining than myself.

Trust me the level of this work is not on par with ghosts and bigfoot this is real science

The final video brings it all together

Last edited by JCM; 5th January 2011 at 02:23 PM. Reason: added 1.36fm
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 02:19 PM   #76
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
JCM, QM is science and you don't understand that reality does not need to conform to your expectations.

Um sure this guy did whatever you say he did, as soon as you privide the proof.

But 'sound waves propagation within the nucleus', that is nonsense. Surely you have garbled something or it is nonsense.

Electron transitions will not cause sound waves in the atom's nucleus. It may cause adjoining electrons in various shells to respond, but there are no electrons in the nucleus.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 03:09 PM   #77
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,855
So you admit you don't understand the science, but you're convinced it's true, revolutionary and overturns QM. Well, that's good enough for me...
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 03:12 PM   #78
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
but there are no electrons in the nucleus.
I am speaking of nucleons
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 03:13 PM   #79
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
So you admit you don't understand the science, but you're convinced it's true, revolutionary and overturns QM. Well, that's good enough for me...
Which is why I want input of those that understand the science and take a look at FRANKS work not mine at explaining it. The work not my summary of the papers abstract.
And not to simply dismiss it in terms of "well it has psudeo physics terms but is completely misunderstanding the science"
I want concrete examples using math dissecting the work entirely not a simple skim of the premise. If its wrong ok but dont just tell me show me in his work in his equations. You can't prove a negative but I am giving you work to disprove not dismiss. Claims are stated in his research and backed up with work

Last edited by JCM; 5th January 2011 at 03:16 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2011, 03:38 PM   #80
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,426
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
I am speaking of nucleons
How would one measure a sound wave traveling through a neutron or proton? How would it arrive? How would it leave?
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark and deep
but i have promises to keep
and lines to code before I sleep
And lines to code before I sleep
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.