First, I have studied all the stuff I spout off about before I spout off about them. Actually, I studied advanced physics some 15+ years ago. Now, the ideas I come up with... well that is another story, but I do at the very least make sure I know what I am talking about before I talk about it.
Second, and this is actually one of the more import points, is that I outright asked for help/confirmation/criticism right when I came up with my idea in my first physics article entitled
Spacetime and Quantum Mechanics. I even went so far as to sit down with the head of the physics department at a local college. It was what that physicist said that made me start my next series of posts on the subject, but we will get to that later (hint: he pissed me off).
Third, I am smarter than the average bear. Actually, my IQ is someplace well over a 100 points above average. To my surprise, there really was an "off the charts" when it came to intelligence quotients, so while I do not know my exact IQ as a result of this, I can comfortably say that I am probably smarter than any other scientist you have met. Unless you had met Tesla when he was alive and then I might have to amend my last statement. Of course Tesla practiced Quack Science, so I am good with that.
Lastly, after never getting any type of solid answer and/or feedback from any physical science type people, I have intentionally left tidbits of information out of each of my physics entries. I had hoped at least one person might bite and point out the opening I left so that I could start a discussion, but we already know no physicists (or even chemists) read my blog. It was a futile attempt, I know, but it had to be done.
So in the name of real science, let's correct a few of those wide open holes I left for the science community:
Orbitals Do Not Exist
Every Chemist, Physicist, Engineer, and (hopefully) first year college student (in previously mentioned fields at least) know that Orbitals Do Not Exist. They don't. Orbitals are graphical representations that correspond to the statistical likelihood that you will find an electron in a given area around the nucleus of an atom. They aren't real, they are statistics that say "yep, 90% of the time an electron is gonna be here if we look."
The problem is with the "if we look" part above. In order to see where an electron is (or was) you hit it with a light particle. Electrons travel very fast, so it is no longer there before you even had a chance to record the spot. Worse than that, when you hit that electron with a light particle, you transfer energy to that electron so that it is now travelling completely differently than it was previously. Basically, by looking at the electron path, you change that electron path. Oops. So scientists use orbitals because they have never been able to accurately predict the exact orbits (i.e. they have no mathematical law).
That was actually the point of this article. That there really is a mathematical formula that can accurately predict the orbit of an electron in an atom, and even model it through a graphical computer algorithm. But I lack the math background to come up with that exact formula thus far (I am working on it), so I threw everything out there that any scientist would need to know to create that model. No one has created that model because they all suck (partially joking).
The Nature Of Light
Pretty much everything I covered in my slit experiment section is dead on, except for the small part I left out to hook in a physicist: The actual wave disruption patterns created by light; i.e. the areas where overlapping light particles that cancel out, much like two waves on an ocean reaching the same point. It's kind of a big one, so I figured I would get at least one comment out of it. But no...
Anyway, the problem with this whole wave cancellation pattern thing of light is that all particles do this. Light, electrons, alpha particles, etc. Any free particle does this. The question is: why? The answer is NOT because they cancel each other out like the waves on an ocean, but rather because two particles occupying the same space are not the same thing as one particle.
Confused? Ignoring for a second the whole fusion thing, if you perform the slit experiment using hydrogen particles (not alpha particles, but actual hydrogen) and you recorded the pattern that the hydrogen hits a plate at, you would get a wave formation similar to light (and electrons and everything else). The reason is that you are looking for hydrogen atoms. When two hydrogen atoms occupy the same space, they are no longer hydrogen atoms. Instead you have one helium atom, but you weren't looking for that, you were looking for hydrogen. So you get a wave pattern on your plate, with blank areas wherever helium happened to have formed instead of the expected hydrogen. Same thing happens with light; you are looking for red laser light and instead get something else in those areas. Not cancelled; changed.
Einstein, bless his little heart, sort of understood this when he said that light can be treated as both a particle and a wave. EVERY particle can be treated as a wave, so he was dead on. But treating something like a wave and it actually being a wave are two totally different things. When you actually get down to the nitty-gritty of how light (and every other particle) behaves, you can just use that instead of wave mechanics.
This leads me to Einstein, or rather the religious zealot following of his theories in the science community. Whenever I have spoken with a physicist about my theory it inevitably winds up with the physicist saying these exact words, "because Einstein said so." Yea, that's solid science for you. Didn't work for my parents as a reason for anything, won't work for a physicist either.
Now, don't get me wrong, Einstein was brilliant and advanced physics a ton. Not as brilliant as Tesla, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is that he was wrong. The second problem is that his theories cover every possible contingency (almost) so that he can't be disproved. Thus, my own theory has to sit in limbo until he can be disproved, which set me about all the rest of these posts I have been covering. In order to prove my own theory, I have to disprove Einstein on several fronts.
Lucky for me, I do have a way of doing that. Unlucky for me, I do not have the time, money, or equipment to do that. As I mentioned once before, a modified Shapiro experiment will disprove Einstein (and most current physics theory). So here it is:
1. Put a satellite in low orbit around Jupiter (big enough gravity force that it should show the Shapiro Time Delay effect).
2. Sync the clock on it without using Einstein's theories to do so (which is what has allowed for GPS satellites to have their clocks in sync) by sending several signals and responses back and forth until you get it right.
3. When the satellite is alongside the planet (by line of sight) in that low orbit, you ping it with a radar signal.
4. Instead of an echo, the satellite waits until a specific time (synced to time on Earth as mentioned above) to respond back. That response is just the time that the satellite received the radar ping, and nothing more.
What the results should (will) be is that the signal to the satellite takes less time than the return signal, despite the distances being the same. If I am right (and I am in this case), this would disprove the whole space-time thing and allow my theory to actually be taken seriously. But, someone needs to run the experiment first, and what are the chances of that?
The nice thing is, despite my not having the resources or academic clout to get my theory out there and accepted, I know it is true (or as close to true as science can ever be). This means that someday I will get to utter those words to the physics community that I have said to every other community I have disagreed with: "I told ya so." And I am good with that (for now).
Stumble This
