Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Soft Particle Physics

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


Galen Windsor.


He's one that found that nuclear materials are not so bad. I mean I've been looking for it, and even just for small materials would be great for me. I have no intention to use it for harm, instead use it to do some good in this world.

And believe me, it's a scare scam, because the only damage they do is only instant, and no mutation are there.

Just found this link, Very good reading, opens more to what is the lie
edit on 22-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, let's take a step back and look at how it's made.

Going off my first post picture, it showed what a proton looked like.

What if it took in too many electrons, what would happen?

So far that I can draw up a conclusion is that it took in electrons and was made neutral. But the beauty of it, is that it can be made back into a proton.

Because if a proton breaths, then a neutron must breath as well.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


"neutron is a proton plus an electron". Well, first of all, particle's masses don't fit that theory. And second, What do you say about quarks and gluons? Particle decay?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Going off my first post picture, it showed what a proton looked like.

What if it took in too many electrons, what would happen?
If a hydrogen atom has one electron that makes it neutral. If it gets a second electron, it becomes a Hydrogen anion which is one proton with two electrons, and even getting the second electron happens only in extreme conditions like stars and particle accelerators. I've never seen any evidence of a proton getting a third electron...two electrons is the most I've seen evidence for, but if you have evidence of more, where is it?


So far that I can draw up a conclusion is that it took in electrons and was made neutral.
I suppose this is a pointless discussion, but why would you draw the conclusion that more than one electron is involved in making it neutral. One electron makes a neutral hydrogen atom, two electrons makes it a negatively charged hydrogen anion. Why would you think otherwise?


Because if a proton breaths, then a neutron must breath as well.
Breaths? What are you talking about? Nevermind, I'm still waiting to hear why you think there's more than one electron in a hydrogen atom. So far all I've got is you made it up and have no evidence except the orgonne accumulator but you can't explain how that's evidence.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But wait, if they gain that much electrons (Sorry, if you say 2 electrons then it's 2 X ~1836) wouldn't that change the atomic structure of the hydrogen atom? Would this also put a new element onto the periodic chart? (Because there is a big gap in that chart, still looking for a more accurate periodic chart that has all the stuff on it.)

Well, the question arises, is there a way to tell by sight how a proton looks? As if it was caught on camera? Or even a electron?

I mean we are dealing with imaginary stuff that was thought up by people. Are we all supporting a idea from one person and another?

I mean, I never saw it. And I'll assume that now here ever saw it up close and live as in it's there in front of them and no animations of any sort are there.

See, if we are given the real evidence, (Sorry for not providing some) then we can all know instead of follow it blindly and/or believe it.
edit on 22-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Sorry, I don't take that in, even though I was taught it, and accepted it, but I had to drop it once I found the truth.

There is only two real particles; Electrons and Protons. Anything else would be a off shoot to me. Neutrinos, quarks, gluons, and the such are all compositions of electrons and protons, they just add creative names to them because they don't understand what they are talking about.

It's hard to break off those world of orthodox studies and go unorthodox, because everyone is steep into it.

I mean, if they say "I just know!" then it doesn't give anyone a whole lot (guilty of that). If they use all kinds of big words, then they are more likely to lose interest in the populace.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


I'll be honest i just went hunting around for about an hour (which is my limit of sifting through the garbage that google some times comes back with). Searching for Dr Galen Windsor, the only "articles" i could find where forum posts claiming he eats/drinks radioactive material(s) and a few stating he was at the Twin Towers site with a geiger meter stating the damage done to the towers was actually a suitcase fusion bomb.

I'm sorry to say but I'm not buying it, nor am i buying that this fellow exists as a PhD due to the lack of REAL information on this person (hell i couldnt even find a wikipedia entry).



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Mate, quarks can't be composed of protons because protons are made of 3 quarks.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


But wait, isn't quarks a hypothetical particle? Meaning, no one has ever seen them up close, right?

But this is all in magnetism. The proton and electron have a shape and spin for themselves.

Protons are hypothetically egg-shaped, it's point is pointing the way it's going, and has a clock-wise spin.

While electrons are hypothetically egg-shaped, it's point is pointing the way it's going, and has a counter-clock-wise spin.

Now, I've been studying my books even more, and found somethings I over looked and forgot to ask.

Why does electricity always go to ground?

So far that my answer has gotten to be, it's a giant proton.

Impossible as it maybe, but here we stand. I mean sometimes even I forget it has a positive charge.
edit on 22-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


The people in power are trying their best to get rid of him and his work.

I didn't say he ate or drank nuclear materials, but I forgot to say that he has swam in a 660000 gallon pool of water that kept a reactor cool as an act of rebellion against "The Establishment." Now when was the last time there was a disposal act for low-level nuclear wastes? My money goes to that there is no nuclear waste, only dead bodies.

Never heard him say such a thing as a fusion bomb the size of a suitcase. If so, why didn't he report it to those in authority?

He has commented on how warm the water was, how the water gave off a blueish light, and how clean it was that he could drink it. (That can really save the electric and maintenance bill for some swimming pools)

I'm not saying you have to accept it, it's just one cool tid bit after another.
edit on 22-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Oh there is a number of articles/videos showing him eating/drinking plutonium. I seem to be having issues today converying my points, so please bear with me. My major issue with that is the video looks like its from a camera around 70s-80s origin, so there is no way except for taking someones word for it.

And i know this isnt the crux of your discussion points it is from my standpoint wrong that running around with radioactive U235 is an awesome idea, even in small doses (Again medically speaking)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I've been reminded on how relative the atom is to our solar system.

The statement goes, "As above, so below." I found it in the Hermetic Axiom, Principle of Correspondence.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


wow, what do you know? You were right. Now if you've provided a link such as this then I would be better understanding.

I mean, sure, this is outlandish, but aren't all the ones who wish to make a positive difference outlandish?
edit on 22-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


The reason i didnt post the link is because i think its credibility is questionable, thus cant be relied on in any way shape for form. Most of my posts have reference source material will have links if they are what i see as credible.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 


I find that reasonable. Right now I'm listening to his testimony of his experience in the military and nuclear industry.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
But wait, if they gain that much electrons (Sorry, if you say 2 electrons then it's 2 X ~1836) wouldn't that change the atomic structure of the hydrogen atom? Would this also put a new element onto the periodic chart? (Because there is a big gap in that chart, still looking for a more accurate periodic chart that has all the stuff on it.)
There are no gaps in the periodic table. The number of protons determine what element it is. If there's one proton it's always hydrogen no matter how many neutrons or electrons there are. If there are different numbers of neutrons it's a different isotope, and if there are different numbers of electrons they are called ions.

You really need to understand mainstream science before you can claim mainstream science is wrong. Since you don't even understand mainstream science, your claims that it's wrong are completely without meaning. You don't even know what it is you're claiming is wrong. Once you learn mainstream science, then if you can talk intelligently about what's wrong with it, at that point we can have a discussion about that.

Your statement about the periodic table having gaps is like me saying the planet zeta beta alpha is not red, when I have no idea what planet zeta beta alpha is. You obviously have no more idea about the periodic table than I have about planet zeta beta alpha.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   


Neutrinos, quarks, gluons, and the such are all compositions of electrons and protons, they just add creative names to them because they don't understand what they are talking about.


Believe what you want but I doubt you will get many followers. Good luck.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Not looking for followers, just learning what I'm saying by speaking.

Speaking to myself just seems to not cut it.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





Your statement about the periodic table having gaps is like me saying the planet zeta beta alpha is not red, when I have no idea what planet zeta beta alpha is. You obviously have no more idea about the periodic table than I have about planet zeta beta alpha.


But don't you agree that there are some elements on there that are missing?

Aren't you aware that a element can change into another element?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

But don't you agree that there are some elements on there that are missing?

Aren't you aware that a element can change into another element?
You said there were gaps. I said there were no gaps.

The question about missing is something else. As long as we've has the periodic table we've been adding higher numbered elements to it. The table on Wikipedia goes up to 118. So you could say 119 and higher are "missing" and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we might continue adding higher numbers, but that has nothing to do with any gaps. Also the elements being added lately have such short lifespans they are almost irrelevant in the real world. They may be of some interest to researchers in particle and nuclear physics, but for most of us they have little relevance.

There is speculation that we may reach a limit at 137 or 173 of not being able to add higher numbered elements to the table, but we're not there yet.

Why do you think the fact an element can change into another element is relevant? If uranium decays into thorium both are on the table already.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join