Soft Particle Physics

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
This may sound like a off the way kind of subject but it has to be made known.

Disclaimer: I don't own any of this stuff, I'm only a student that is sharing the knowledge to those are who are confused on what's what.

What is soft particle physics?

How does it apply to me?

What can I do with it?

Why is it important to know?

All in due time. But the important thing is you understand what it is. And we'll start with the basics.



Now what is this? It's an atom, basically it's what makes up life as we know it.

Now how are those black dots swirling around those red and blue dots and not being flung away?

People will say magnetism, it's just a way of saying, "I'm running away from the truth." Because in reality, in magnetism, you need a repelling force meaning there are smaller particle that are in action.

Well how about this?



Now what is this? This is a electron scope-like display of an atom also known as a electron cloud.

Ok, now why do we need all those electrons to hold a bunch of neutrons and protons? The truth, the size of the proton differs from the size of an electron.

How so? In comparison, The electron is BB and the proton is the cannon ball, that is how big it is.

And if there are that many electrons just to cover one nucleus, then there must be at least 1836 times what we are told. So on average, there is one electron every proton, right? Well, what if I say there is 1836 electrons every proton? That will stir a hornets nest.

Now, what is keeping the electrons from getting attached to the proton? A particle that is never mentioned in schools that goes by the name of "Ether Particle.



As you can see, the proton is actually alive, it's breathing. It take in what is called ether particles and then spits them back out all the while repelling and attracting electrons. But as you can see the attraction rate is larger than the repulsion which leads to another thing.

There are only two kinds of particles, protons and electrons. You might say, "Don't forget the neutron." I didn't forget it, because it's the result of when a proton and a electron meet. or should I say a whole bunch of electrons locked in.

Ok, now we are to a point of say, "Fine and dandy, but what are these ether particles?" They really are electrons that are very hard in nature, meaning they are active, their small, and they are what is causing a lot of things to become possible, like the living breath that you breath in. With out this, life as we know it, is non-existent. Meaning there will be nothing to hold us, as in every living thing, including the Earth, together.

Now, if there is hard electrons there must be soft ones as well. Yep, you've guessed it, those electrons circling about, are the soft electrons. The soft they are the slower they go. The harder they are the faster they go.

Now I'm going to wrap up this first post by giving you reader an example. If there was no electron any where in the vicinity, you'll be gone. But it turns out there is a place, if you step outside the spherical universe that holds millions of universes, you'll die by extinction. Meaning, one moment your there, next your gone.

This example was said in ancient texts, unknown on the name of text, it's date, or who the author is.

End of first post on basics of soft particle physics.
edit on 20-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Now what is this? This is a electron scope-like display of an atom also known as a electron cloud.
...
And if there are that many electrons just to cover one nucleus, then there must be at least 1836 times what we are told. So on average, there is one electron every proton, right? Well, what if I say there is 1836 electrons every proton? That will stir a hornets nest.
No it won't stir a hornet's nest. But it will suggest you have a lot more homework to do. Why would you think there's 1836 electrons per proton when every learned scientist says otherwise? Do you have measurements to support your claim? If not then there's no hornet's nest, you just sound silly.


Ok, now why do we need all those electrons to hold a bunch of neutrons and protons?
We don't.
Have you ever heard of an Alpha particle? That's essentially identical to a helium nucleus...and the nucleus stays together without any electrons.


electrons are not important in nuclear chemistry
You seem to think they are, so this fact well known to students of nuclear physics has obviously escaped you, therefore, you have a lot of studying to do.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Then your saying that there is a proton that has no electron?

I'll only say this once, it's next to impossible to find a proton without a electron. You didn't read the entire post, because there is a part that I mentioned in there about what the size of a proton is and the size of an electron is.

You sound like a person that went through college, and for that I'm sorry. Sorry that I brought up a idea that is contradictory to the ways that were hammered into you and they stayed in you, called the orthodox ways.

This is a unorthodox subject.
edit on 20-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I would love to see some evidence of this 1836 electrons per neutron. Do you have any?

I was under the impression that the nucleus of atoms together is the Nuclear Strong force. Is this part of "soft particle physics"?

Where did you study the subject?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 





Disclaimer: I don't own any of this stuff, I'm only a student that is sharing the knowledge to those are who are confused on what's what.


I wasn't confused at all, until you started sharing.




And if there are that many electrons just to cover one nucleus, then there must be at least 1836 times what we are told. So on average, there is one electron every proton, right? Well, what if I say there is 1836 electrons every proton? That will stir a hornets nest.


Why makes you say there is?




Now I'm going to wrap up this first post by giving you reader an example. If there was no electron any where in the vicinity, you'll be gone. But it turns out there is a place, if you step outside the spherical universe that holds millions of universes, you'll die by extinction. Meaning, one moment your there, next your gone.


Can't this be said about all the particles that make up matter?

What is the message you are trying to convey here?
edit on 20-8-2012 by Stonedhenge because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Sorry that I brought up a idea that is contradictory to the ways that were hammered into you and they stayed in you, called the orthodox ways.
The ways that were hammered into me was not to accept anything I was told, quite the contrary, it was to question everything from everyone. Since not everyone says the same thing, there is one tool above all else that helps us decide what is correct among all the different things different people are telling us, which is to make measurements and use that evidence to prove or disprove the claims. I and many others will gladly change our points of view if we are presented with adequate evidence that a different idea is valid.

Did you notice I asked you for your evidence? And did you notice you didn't even respond to that?

Not only are you missing valuable information about atomic structure, what's worse is you don't have any appreciation of how science works at all. Scientists love to prove previously held ideas wrong, because this usually leads to new discoveries. This happened dramatically in 1998 when scientists made a new discovery that proved they were all wrong. They accepted the new evidence, and changed their beliefs that were hammered into their head. It's even more sad you don't know this, than it is you don't understand the atom.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry to say, I'm more of a direct person, and all I heard was on how great nuclear physics is and how I need to study up on your stuff.

Aren't you guys being a little ignorant of the subject?

I too have accepted the idea of don't trust anything your told until you've tested it. I have tested it and the results are great.

And since you've demanded evidence, I'll say, "You do the evidence." meaning, I'll give you a simple project.

Using a glass jar, whether it's mason or other kinds, use paper and aluminium foil and layer one after the other onto the glass jar. Target: 40 layers. Then put a water bottle inside it and it can be any size as long as you can get the water bottle out.

I'll tell you the dynamics of it once your open, as well as the name of what is the project I gave you.

As well, are you saying your all knowing?

And just to add a note, we can bash our head against each other all day long on whose right and whose wrong, but I question the world and the state it's in right now. If the "Scientist" ideas are SO GOSH DARN GREAT, then why are we in such a sorry state today?
edit on 20-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Stonedhenge
 








And if there are that many electrons just to cover one nucleus, then there must be at least 1836 times what we are told. So on average, there is one electron every proton, right? Well, what if I say there is 1836 electrons every proton? That will stir a hornets nest.
Why makes you say there is?


Because in order to equal the balance of the proton and electron relationship it needs that many. and going back to the comparison, the electrons are BB size while proton are cannonball size. Which one is more like like to burst through a concrete wall? the cannonball.




Can't this be said about all the particles that make up matter?

What is the message you are trying to convey here?


How a proton is made is, well I've been trying to find the answer to that ever since I began reading the books that say it all. But so far that I can get out of it is that they are created by light. May seem irrational but it make a whole lot of sense to me.

What else is made out of light? This computer I'm typing on, your computer your typing on, light is everywhere and in all directions.

Electrons I can hit easy. They are made out of light as well, in fact light is a particle as well.

How is light made? Light is made up of ultra-hard electrons that are forced together to make a soft electron that is pushed through space.

What message I'm I try to say? Well, the main one I'm try to say is don't be learned, be learning. If you say you are wise, then your a great fool.

Me? The more I talk to people about this, the more I learn, and the more I learn, the more I realized on how much stuff I'm missing out on and how big this place is and what is the plan afterwards. As well, how wrong the direction I've been going down on before I've read some books that opened my eyes.

And like I said in the first post, that was the basics, just the ground level stuff. So there is more to come.
edit on 20-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
And since you've demanded evidence, I'll say, "You do the evidence." meaning, I'll give you a simple project.
I already "did the evidence" as you put it, in high school. Here are photos of the experiment much like the one I did:

Electron Charge to Mass Ratio



This experiment already proved what you say is false so if you can't present any evidence then you shouldn't expect to have any credibility. And it needs to be some pretty strong evidence, not only to prove your idea right but to prove all the scientists on Earth wrong.

As I said all scientists were proven wrong in 1998 so it does happen, but it takes some good evidence.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
so how did you come to the conclusion that there are 1836 electrons per proton? or that neutrons are byproducts of proton electron interaction? These are bold statements that are going to require serious evidence to make people believe.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


First of all, I only say what I was taught and what I have experimented on.

Second if people rely on an outside source to make them happy, such as you relying on me to prove something that I've tried and done but you still don't believe, then that'll end my involvement with anybody.

and third of all, this is a unorthodox thread meaning you have to leave everything behind you were taught in school and realize the truth.

Where I got my information came from a book that go it's information from a whole series of books and it's name is "The ultimate Reality" By Joseph H. Cater. But it first started when I was reading a free energy generator book.

Experiment were done to prove this because other scientist, the real kinds, asked the hard questions instead of following the mainstream path to nothing. This is what we are here for, because we want to break off.

One of the scientist names is T. Townsend Brown. He's one that found the "Charge Plate Condenser." Now you say that I require evidence, I just simply show the door, and it's up to the person to open the door.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
so how did you come to the conclusion that there are 1836 electrons per proton?


I am going to take a guess.

He claims this because an electron is considered to have 1/1836 that mass of a proton. So science got the masses correct but not the number.

For now, I'll stick with accepted theory.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Very good. Now I'll tell you one thing that you've failed to notice about this experiment. Electrons are more likely to be attracted to protons than vice versa.

Why? Protons have a larger shape and consequently are slower than electrons. By putting a charge that is positive in nature on the surface disc the stream of soft electrons which are in the billions hit the positive side and complete the circuit.

Now you seem like a learned man, but at the same time one who stopped learning. Reading your other posts that you've made on other threads, your a nuclear physicist. But what if I told you were part of a scare scam? Which in reality you are.

How? One man that was willing to stand out and speak the truth goes by the name of Galen Windsor. You might think of him as crazy but I think he has a sound mind. He's worked 35 years in the nuclear industry. He was in charge of production of nuclear fuels and the building of reactors. He worked in every major reactor decommissioning project in the USA. And get this, He along with few other, did plutonium processing bare-handed until radiation monitors were installed at every reactor.

And, Arbitrageur, You must learn the truth, nuclear materials that are below critical mass are safe to handle barehanded and they are harmless. What is below critical mass? 20 lbs. for U235 and 5 lbs for plutonium.

He worked in the industry till 1985, that is when he began his crusade to expose the lie and tell the truth.

But if your still willing to uphold the lie of "Nuclear materials are harmful" which include the absurd death rate by radon and the lie of radon is dangerous, then you'll live to tell another tale because the ones in that industry are willing to kill to keep it a secret and continue as a lie.

So I'll ask you, the orthodox man of nuclear physics, which radiation is more dangerous?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


It's not a theory, it's a fact. A unorthodox fact that is constantly ignored. Plus I forgot to mention that the size of a proton is at least 1836 times that of a electron. So in other that is one big proton and they vary from different sizes.
edit on 21-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   


And, Arbitrageur, You must learn the truth, nuclear materials that are below critical mass are safe to handle barehanded and they are harmless. What is below critical mass? 20 lbs. for U235 and 5 lbs for plutonium.


That sounds like something TEPCO would be telling the residents of Japan. Not sure they will believe it though.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
OP, As a student, I dont think you know enough about this subject to speak with authority on it.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

Aren't you guys being a little ignorant of the subject?


You're the one that's waving aside solid science without so much as a whiff of understanding and literally making things up as you go along. Ironic that you accuse others of being closed minded yet you expect others to take what you say as fact without any evidence whatsoever.


Edit: here's a very important litmus test to see if you're really here for a discussion or here merely to reaffirm some misplaced sense of self importance: what would experiment would falsify your "findings"?[
edit on 21-8-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





You're the one that's waving aside solid science without so much as a whiff of understanding and literally making things up as you go along. Ironic that you accuse others of being closed minded yet you expect others to take what you say as fact without any evidence whatsoever.


I'm just using the same tactic as quantum physics but you've caught me. I'm using tactics to get people to think on what they are being taught.

I've tried using a challenge tactic, didn't work. Now I'm just purposely making the holes so that people ask the questions.

I will not accuse you of being ignorant because then you'll just dish out on me and how dumb I am. I'm not making this up, only idiot that say they found it and it turns out they are using money for something else beside the project they are designated to work on, such as NASA. We are told they spent over 5 million on a camera lens, when it could turn out to be just a 100 dollar lens.

So I'm asking, are you one to hurt people that disrupt the status quo and act like the standard orthodox scientist that will shed blood before he/she could renounce his/her education? Or are you one to think outside the box and get outside the box and explore all the ideas that are presented to you?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Student in what? And what kind of school your going to?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'll remind people of this; I refuse to change your views, it's YOU that can change your views.

I have done the experiments but the standard orthodox scientist would deny it even if they were there. They will make the excuse of "I need to have all 5 of my senses there (Sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing)" (turns out there is a lot more senses than that.

So in other words, even if I do them, you won't believe it, literally.
edit on 21-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join