Soft Particle Physics

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mcsteve
 


To answer your question, I read is in a book that got it's research from a whole lot of other books. "The awesome lifeforce" and "The ultimate Reality" are some of the books that I've read that give a extremely detailed version of it.

But if you want the simple run down thing and read it in your spare time, and just for free, Free-energy-info.com then find the name that is "Cater" click on the chapter and happy trails on your journey.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Yeah but it's in the air and the people are not use to it.

Imagine it like sunlight, after a hour being under there you'll get burn. Remove it, and the problem is gone.

The Japanese people are not use to being exposed to this kind of radiation. But there is a way to heal them of this problem.

All you have to do is ask.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I've read the work of T townsend brown... hell I've even built a lifter or two in my day so you can't just try to fob me off by saying Townsend brown somehow validates your theories. In all of the reading I did I never found one single reference that said brown believed anything of the sort you are proposing.

Also I fail to understand why you added in your quips about nuclear power when people are asking you for evidence and or sources to back up your assertions.

I am also very confused as to what exactly the layered foil experiment is supposed to prove about subatomic particles.

In addition calling Nuclear power a scam is disingenuous to say the least. It's self evident that nuclear power really works as advertised. Which Btw also puts a huge dent in your theories as well considering all of the calculations for nuclear power were done using the conventional model. How could we build successfully operational nuclear power plants and be that far out of whack on basic atomic theory?

When people ask for evidence you do everything but give them what they ask for. Instead making claims that it's a journey they must take themselves. Threatening to ignore people for asking for evidence. Or telling people to do experiments which pretty plainly have nothing to do with the subject at hand and are poorly explained at that.
This methodology is typical of those that like feeling like they are part of the In crowd and doling out "knowledge" only to those who show them the "proper deference" or sycophantic behavior.

The problem you're going to run into here in the science and technology forum is we just don't roll that way. Cults of personality are not acknowledged here. Even Phage knows if he's going to make a bold assertion here he better darn well have evidence to back it up. So far you've not only refused to back up your assertions but actually acted like you shouldn't have to be bothered with such questions. This combined with the outright arrogance you've shown in several of your posts speaks volumes about the lack of respect you have for the people you interface with.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 

More hot air and no evidence or even responding to people's arguments. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy by convincing yourself that you're privy to some deeper understanding of the universe but the fact of the matter is you're only displaying your own ignorance and arrogance, a toxic combination.
edit on 21-8-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


I only do what I do. I respect people's wish, however, I have a problem with those who don't search the answers themselves.

Nuclear chemistry is involved in soft particle physic by explaining on how nuclear materials work and how to diffuse them.

I don't listen to the advertisements and I don't treat theories like laws. If your so desperate to know what that foil and paper experiment is, fine, I'll tell you. This will be proof that I'm not a heartless wretch stoop in so much mainstream education that they attack the first person that says something that doesn't go with the mainstream.

It's the Orgone accumulator, invented by Wilheim Reich, who is dead after being falsely imprison for just helping people. It's purpose is to gather the energy that is in the air and focus it into one point. If you put water in this device for 10 minutes then freeze it, you'll get a spiral out of it.

I've tested it.

I'm not one to shoot people down, but you've pushed me too hard and now I had to say it so I can get some breathing room.

Thank you for your time.

reply to post by john_bmth
 


You see it as hot air and just some mad man spouting things that have no ground, but to others it makes sense. So, I'm sorry to say, you rather stay in the box, I've tried, at least it was worth a shot.

The standard orthodox scientist does this because their views are being threatened by something so small.

If you get rid of the history of people, you dis-empower them. I simply show parts of the history that was lost.

This physics also have other names, Ether Physics, Lifeforce physics, Orgony, Od, the list goes on.

I'll say it once more, if there is something that doesn't add up, ask. Reference to Dale Carnegie
edit on 21-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: incomplete



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
What does Orgone have to do with 186 electrons per proton?

Honestly you are so all over the place it's basically impossible to have a conversation with any sort of coherence with you.

Maybe if you actually sat down and did some reading of mainstream sciences which have BUILT THE WORLD AROUND YOU you'd start to get what the big fuss is about. Until that point though I don't know that there's even any point trying to argue with you since you are just so far out in left field.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


2 pages into your own thread and you still haven't offered ANYTHING in the way of evidence. It really is quite absurd.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


We are in a sea of electrons, we breath them and the reason why it's that number, I don't know. Just some physicists found the size of the proton and published it but they are blot out of history.
edit on 21-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I did, I told you what is a Orgone accumulator. What else do you want?

If it's about the number of electrons per proton, I'll say it again, the size of the proton is different by the size of the electron.

Why is this important? Because there was series of questions that was asked before I got this thread up and going and have been answered that goes by these,

"Is there a great disparity in the size of a proton and the size of the electron? Does the charge on the proton have the same magnitude as on the electron? Does the proton have about 1836 times the mass of the electron as physicists claim?"

I'm just reading out of the book, ok? I don't worship it like dogmatic people do, and I try my best to find evidence that support their claims.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
I did, I told you what is a Orgone accumulator. What else do you want?

If it's about the number of electrons per proton, I'll say it again, the size of the proton is different by the size of the electron.
I read about the orgone accumulator and never saw anything about 1836 electrons per proton, so please give a specific reference to that which I can verify.

Are you sure you're not thinking of 1836 orgasms? "Orgone" accumulators accumulate orgasmic, or sexual energy according to the creator, though I've never really seen scientific evidence confirming the thing does what he says.

But if you were thinking of 1836 orgasms, I should point out that orgasms and electrons are not exactly the same thing.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I guess this bothers me so much because I'm currently doing a chemistry class in pursuit of my engineering degree and my instructor who was a practicing organic chemist before he was a teacher seems pretty sure that there are not in fact 1836 electrons per proton... . and further he's pretty sure that neutrons really are fairly important to the functioning of an atomic structure.

Now I know this is me taking something on faith here but the guy has obviously honed his craft to a level I'd be proud to ever achieve in my chosen field.

My point when it comes to this whole subject though is that if there really were 1836 electrons per per proton it would definitely change chemistry rather drastically. I am not smart enough to know how it would change chemistry but I'm not dumb enough to think it wouldn't.

Now when you factor this little fact in with the dearth of evidence of any sort you have provided or are willing to provide and it leaves me in the position where I morally have to oppose your dogmatic statements in favor of non dogmatic statements with real concrete explanations and experimental proofs provided by my chemistry teacher.
As it sits now you have just admitted that you "read this in a book" not experimentally verified your statements. This puts you in the same camp as zombie sky god worshipping fools who want to kill gays in my view.



dog·ma/ˈdôgmə/
Noun:
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true: "the Christian dogma of the Trinity".



As you can see from this definition what you are practicing and preaching is highly dogmatic in nature while being devoid of critical thinking and experimental verification. (your orgone experiment has nothing to do with 1836 electrons per proton and therefore does not count) Now if you did an experiment like rutherford did with his gold foil and alpha particles to show me 1836 electrons per proton I'd be impressed. But as it stands you are being dogmatic and inflexible in your thinking while accusing others of being the same.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


I was referring to you being a student. As a student in this(you) I dont think you have enough background to speak with authority on this.

And I am a senior in a CyberSecurity, although I do enjoy physics.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
My point when it comes to this whole subject though is that if there really were 1836 electrons per per proton it would definitely change chemistry rather drastically. I am not smart enough to know how it would change chemistry but I'm not dumb enough to think it wouldn't.
On page 1, I showed pictures of the electron charge to mass ratio experiment (I performed such an experiment in high school).

If there were 1836 electrons per proton, then each electron would have to have 1/1836 the charge of a proton in an electrically neutral atom (which most are at Earth surface temperatures and pressures). The electron charge to mass ratio proves this cannot be the case because it would have 1/1836 the charge to mass ratio measured in this experiment. That's one simply demonstrable way it would change a not too complicated experimental result which I've personally replicated.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
BTW, what exactly are you referring to when you use the terms 'size'.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


reply to post by roadgravel
 



Finally, back to ground level.

No that wasn't the reference I was pointing out. True, since I've started this, I began to question on who said what. It's thought provoking, yes, and does usurp people.

To all those that want to know the size of a proton.

Exert from Quantum diaries



the best measurement of the diameter of the proton was 0.877±0.007 femtometers (m) and this measurement measured it to be 0.8418±0.0007 fm.


A femtometer is 10^-15 meters.

For the size of a electron, on the internet, (so that all of you can read it, and be somewhat happy with it). Wikipedia says that it's about 10^-22 meters, smaller than a proton. obtained from this link

Now, true, the neutron does play an important role, but the question is, what is it? It's a collapsed hydrogen atom, that is where it got it's neutral charge.

And, thanks, now that we are through that little rage moment, we can settle down and have a normal debate over what is what and not bash on each other whose right and whose wrong, we simply respect each other's findings and learn from what others learn.
edit on 21-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Sorry, I'm only the messenger, student, and teacher. As the saying goes "The student is the teacher, and the teacher is the student."

It's great to have a little side-track hobby such as physics and learn a little more.

And speaking of authority, I never had any, and I never did. When I started this, I was hoping to learn a little bit more of what I have learned through teaching it, it's tough, but it was well worth it.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


I'm sorry, alright? It was too early for me to say such things, and it was too rash of me to assume such things as well. Plus, this was a heated argument, but now that we've settled down, we can take this as calmly as possible.

Yes, it can change, and yes, it's too much to take in. I mean when I have read this stuff, I was blown away by it, and my first emotion was hatred. I'm just one to fight against the saying "Ignorance is bliss." I have heard of Walter Russel's works and his outrageous cost of his books and those that bought have seemed to be more happy, which raises a red flag for me as well as the cost,$200 to $2000.

But if your looking for a experiment, sorry I don't have one like that to prove that the proton has at least 1836 electrons to cover it.

However, I can direct your attention to particle accelerators that are build. Even though it may seem like a waste of time, it can actually show something, however I wished they just built a smaller one.

The science behind it is that once the protons that are stripped of electrons (Sorry to it's impossible to do) and they collide with each other at high speed, they shoot off particle. Turns out, these "supposed-stripped" protons are still holding some electrons and those electrons are shot off in all direction.

I haven't heard of any information on how they are able to harness that kind of energy but I hope they don't, because it's vial of ultra-hard tight-compaction electrons that require a magnetic field of a negative charge lower than it to hold them together. If it's not lower, the electrons will be release and the result will be the same as that of a proton gun.

This is why I learn this stuff, because of all the things it provides. Sure, it's thought provoking and sure, it's hard to take in. But in the end, it's worth it.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
For the size of a electron, on the internet, (so that all of you can read it, and be somewhat happy with it). Wikipedia says that it's about 10^-22 meters, smaller than a proton. obtained from this link
That's not what the link says. It says this:


As far as I know, experiments have defined only an upper limit for the radius of the electron, which according to Wikipedia is about 10^-22 m. This means that the electron could have a radius up to that size which is unmeasurable by current techniques; but there is no evidence that it actually does have such a radius.
In other words, we don't know how big the electron is and your reading comprehension isn't great. That's just an upper limit, not an approximate size. The electron mass we know better and that is about 1/1836 the mass of an proton.

Yet your earlier statements seemed to suggest we needed 1836 electrons per proton and you still haven't explained why. What's wrong with an electron being about 1/1836 the mass of an proton? As long as that small mass has enough charge to balance out the proton charge, it can still make the hydrogen atom electrically neutral, and you don't need 1836 of them, right?



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

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


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.


I stopped reading here. I know nothing about Particle Physics and i wont purport to do any such thing. BUT what i can tell you is holding U235 in your bare hands (and thus exposing your full body to it) WILL result in cellular degradation, and its even POSSIBLE it can play around with the cells genomes (Language is done on purpose, since reproductive cells, produced in an irradiated environment can rapidly change apparently).

If you want to change peoples views on particle physics the onus is on YOU to provide evidence of experiments including methods, elements etc and hand them to the scientific community for peer review.

Further reading - If you want o get into the nuts and bolts (pun intended), have a read of this. Its slightly old (5 years), but still is a good read for the new entrant.
edit on 21-8-2012 by Spruk because: Added book reference, will add more when i get a minute


Effects on Reproductive Cells by Depleted Uranium
edit on 21-8-2012 by Spruk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Actually Bob Lazar has his own particle accelerator.... Other than that I don't have much to add at this point other than to say Arb's comments about the charges makes a large amount of sense and is probably the single most true statement in this entire thread.

While I so want to believe that mainstream science has missed something somewhere and there's a revolutionary technology lurking out there in the mists, I've resolved not to keep my mind so open that my brain falls out in the process.




top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join