Neutrino catalyzed fusion; Muon is a neutrino assemblage
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <699gv1$cmm$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> first EC occurs with 7Be, next one is 11C, then 18F, then 22Na, then
> 37Ar, then 40K, then 26Al, then 36Cl, then 41Ca, then 43Sc and 44Sc,
> then 44Ti and 45Ti, then 47V and 49V and 50V, then 48Cr and 49Cr and
> 51Cr, then 51Mn and 52Mn and 53Mn and 54Mn, then 52Fe and 55Fe, then
> 55Co and 56Co and 57Co and 58Co, then 56Ni and 57Ni and 59Ni
A few years ago I stipulated the Neutrino Catalyzed Fusion. We have
proof of Muon Catalyzed Fusion.
This research stems from and is allied to the Fusion Electricity
Barrier Law that says surpassing of breakeven in controlled fusion is
impossible.
That Barrier Law caused me to look for the *smallest fusion events*.
And the smallest is EC, K shell electron capture or Electron Capture of
fusing an electron to a proton and creating a neutron.
But what are the physics details of EC? We do know that the reverse
of EC is neutron decay and a antineutrino is vital to that decay
process.
So the many questions are:
(1) can elemental hydrogen be fused into neutrons? ie can hydrogen be
bombarded by electrons and converted to neutrons?
(2) is a muon an assemblage of neutrinos?
(3) can elemental hydrogen be fused if neutrinos were used in the
acceleration of electrons?
(4) in the H-bomb, there are many neutrinos or antineutrinos formed,
do they play a key role in the fusion activity?
(5) can the Nagamine muon fusion breakeven of 67% be increased if
Nagamine used neutrinos in his experiments?
(6) prove that 7Be is the smallest EC and that somehow the neutrinos
within the nucleus of 7Be catalyze the fusion of EC
(7) as per (6), prove that EC is not permissible in boron or other
elements because of the neutrino wavefunction of the nucleus of boron
and the other elements where EC is impossible.
Perhaps the Fusion Electricity Barrier Law is true for hydrogen, but
perhaps beryllium and carbon can surpass fusion electricity breakeven.
Perhaps the entire *key* to fusion is catalysis and the catalytic agent
of prime importance is the neutrino.
At the moment I cannot think of an experiment to prove that the muon
is merely an additive assemblage of bounded neutrinos or some type of
neutrinos bounded. Perhaps if we can create a muon from neutrinos and
electrons would go towards proving this. Perhaps if someone observed or
ever has observed the creation of muons from a H-bomb explosion or from
JET or NOVA in the fusion whether there were any muons observed from
the fusion pile
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <69bbq2$k1l$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> A few years ago I stipulated the Neutrino Catalyzed Fusion. We have
> proof of Muon Catalyzed Fusion.
I am coming to the conservation of mu-ness and EC and muon decay in a
different manner. From that of trying to solve fusion engineering. And
I do not contribute anything new to the conservation of mu-ness. Nor do
I contribute anything new to the fact that the muon is an assemblage of
neutrinos for that was already discovered and proved a long time ago.
What I do contribute new to this science is that EC, the electron
capture decay involves neutrino interaction. And that fusion by muons
involves neutrinos inside the muon. I am building a conceptual or
theoretical bridge between the hitherto separate subjects of EC and
fusion, in particular muon catalyzed fusion. I am trying to prove the
fusion-electricity barrier law and it has led me to this. I proposed
neutrino catalyzed fusion some years ago but when I did that I had no
idea of a barrier law. It is this barrier law that is driving this
theory.
Of course, a long time ago I agreed with Debroglie that photons are
composite particles of neutrinos but that is a big subject to itself
that I wish not to involve myself here.
And I must add to the questions earlier. Does anyone have accurate
data as to the neutrino emission of H-bombs or A-bombs? Does laser
fusion of NOVA emit neutrinos in the course of its implosion? Does
Nagamine muon fusion emit neutrinos? And, were any neutrinos observed
from JET or other tokamaks?
Muon decays into electron + electron neutrino + muon neutrino
Mu-ness on left needs to have mu-ness on rightside of equation
Mu-ness is conserved.
Mu quantum number is conserved.
Need a particle that carries mu-ness. Muon neutrino has mu-ness.
But what physically is mu-ness. If the neutrino is involved in fusion
what physically might it be? Good question. My best guess if all of
this is true is that the neutrinos assembled inside of a muon are in
some sort of resonant wave. It is easier picturing this with waves than
particles. A resonant wave and that in a fusion event of deuterium or
tritium involving a muon is that the neutrinos inside the muon have the
resonant frequency to overcome the Coulomb force of the two nuclei.
Perhaps the neutrinos convert the proton into a temporary neutron for
just enough time in order for the proton of the other nuclei to fuse.
Thus, the neutrino acts to change a proton into a neutron and removing
the Coulomb repulsion in order for the nuclei to fuse.
Perhaps Nagamine can increase his 67% breakeven by applying neutrinos
to his mix of muons and light elements.
Perhaps the reason that NOVA has such poor results of fusion
breakeven of a mere less than 1% breakeven is because laser fusion does
not provide the necessary neutrinos that is required for success.
Does anyone know how many neutrinos are produced in a H-bomb? And are
the neutrinos in an H-bomb more dense per volume than of the Sun?
Is there a way of knowing whether muons are created in a H-bomb? In
JET are muons created?
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <69chst$6m6$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
how EC is a physical act of fusing
The physical act of fission of splitting apart is rather easily to
see in the mind. But is the physical act of fusion as easy of a concept
or actual physical construct? I rather doubt it.
Most physicist see a alpha particle as clearly a helium nuclei but is
it really a helium nuclei or is it a helium excited atom with its
electrons in an excited position? I would grant that a Beta decay of a
electron would be hard to say that it is a hydrogen atom of excited
electron. But it is much easier to say that all alpha particles are
really helium atoms.
All of that above would be easiest seen as *Hydrogen Atom Systems* or
HYASYS which is my theory that all physics particles are hydrogen atom
systems. But I have no time to dive into this theory at the moment. I
am driven purely by this Fusion-Electricity Barrier Law at the moment.
Could someone tell me if the neutrinos produced in the H-bombs or
A-bombs per volume exceed the number of neutrinos produced in the Sun
per volume? Somehow, neutrinos play a major role in fusion events. And
in muon catalyzed fusion of say the Nagamine experiments, it is not the
muon but the neutrinos that are inside the muon that are the key
players of bringing about fusion events. It is the neutrinos-- the
electron neutrino and muon neutrino inside the muon that when a
muon-atom gets close to another nuclei that the neutrinos mask or
change the composition of a proton into that of a neutron for a second
of time and thus the two atoms overcome the Coulomb repulsion and fuse.
The physical act of fusion of two nuclei in muon fusion is because
the neutrinos inside the muon come out and cloak or mask a proton of
hydrogen and make it into a neutron and thereby the Coulomb repulsion
is overcome. If this is the correct theory, then it would be amenable
in experiments to find out if this is the correct mechanism. One can
observe if neutrinos and or muons are involved with JET or in H-bombs.
But since H-bombs are no longer tested one can observe in Laser
experiments.
Felix Tilley
In article <69bbq2$k1l$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> In article <699gv1$cmm$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> > first EC occurs with 7Be, next one is 11C, then 18F, then 22Na, then
> > 37Ar, then 40K, then 26Al, then 36Cl, then 41Ca, then 43Sc and 44Sc,
> > then 44Ti and 45Ti, then 47V and 49V and 50V, then 48Cr and 49Cr and
> > 51Cr, then 51Mn and 52Mn and 53Mn and 54Mn, then 52Fe and 55Fe, then
> > 55Co and 56Co and 57Co and 58Co, then 56Ni and 57Ni and 59Ni
>
> A few years ago I stipulated the Neutrino Catalyzed Fusion. We have
> proof of Muon Catalyzed Fusion.
>
I would like to know how to get a descent pizza at Dartmouth. I am told
that the illustrious A. Plutonium has the answers. So how does AP make
these great pizzas for the Dartmouth students? You better not be feeding
them plutonium.
FET
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <ftilley-ya0240800...@news.goodnet.com>
fti...@goodnet.com (Felix Tilley) writes:
> I would like to say that Goodnet official David Jemmet is in jail. I am told
> that the Arizona police have the answers. David Jemmet was electrocuted.
> There is a donation of Mexican taco or burritos for David Jemmet
>
> FET
Has anyone seen any science out of this turd
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <34baf59a...@news.idt.net>
msim...@mail.idt.net (mark simpkins) writes:
> Perhaps Idon't understand the question,
> I work with Pulsed Neutron sources that convert ionionezed deutrium to
> neutrons via a D-T reaction on a a daily basis. What Are you
> questioning?
> mark simpkins
What D-T reaction
Convert hydrogen, plain old hydrogen into a neutron. Bombard it with
electrons and turn it into a neutron.
Why is hydrogen and deuterium and tritium impossible for EC, electron
K shell capture
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <69dtad$s$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> JET or in H-bombs.
Does anyone have data on how many neutrinos, and neutrino species are
produced per volume of the Sun's center and in an H-bomb?
Does anyone know how many muons are created in the Sun per volume?
Does anyone know what the neutrino flux and muon flux of JET on their
60% breakeven burn run was?
Greg Shetler
Steven B. Harris wrote:
> Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and electrons
> again. So what's the point?
?? Neutrons are radioactive? What? And here all along I thought that
radioactivity had more to do with unstable *collections* of neutrons and
protons. Silly me.
Greg
Steven B. Harris
In <69gjpb$knh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
>In article <34baf59a...@news.idt.net>
>msim...@mail.idt.net (mark simpkins) writes:
>
>> Perhaps Idon't understand the question,
>> I work with Pulsed Neutron sources that convert ionionezed deutrium
to
>> neutrons via a D-T reaction on a a daily basis. What Are you
>> questioning?
>> mark simpkins
>
> What D-T reaction
>
> Convert hydrogen, plain old hydrogen into a neutron. Bombard it with
>electrons and turn it into a neutron.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <34BC2758...@rtis.ray.com>, Greg Shetler <she...@rtis.ray.com> writes:
>Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
>> Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
>> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and electrons
>> again. So what's the point?
>
>
>radioactivity had more to do with unstable *collections* of neutrons and
>protons. Silly me.
>
decay. Fits any reasonable definition of radioactivity.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
John Logajan
Greg Shetler <she...@rtis.ray.com> wrote:
> Steven B. Harris wrote:
>> Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
>> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and electrons
>> again. So what's the point?
> ?? Neutrons are radioactive? What? And here all along I thought that
> radioactivity had more to do with unstable *collections* of neutrons and
> protons. Silly me.
Well, free neutrons decay with a half-life on the order of 10 minutes or so.
(8 minutes?)
So you could say a single neutron is radioactive, or you could say it
is an unstable collection (of one) neutrons.
Doesn't seem to be a mighty big distinction.
--
- John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
- 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
- WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
Steven B. Harris
In <69hfi6$h51$2...@shadow.skypoint.net> John Logajan
<jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>
>Greg Shetler <she...@rtis.ray.com> wrote:
>> Steven B. Harris wrote:
>>> Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
>>> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and
electrons
>>> again. So what's the point?
>
>> ?? Neutrons are radioactive? What? And here all along I thought
that
>> radioactivity had more to do with unstable *collections* of neutrons
and
>> protons. Silly me.
>
>Well, free neutrons decay with a half-life on the order of 10 minutes
or so.
>(8 minutes?)
>
>So you could say a single neutron is radioactive, or you could say it
>is an unstable collection (of one) neutrons.
>
>Doesn't seem to be a mighty big distinction.
You can find a collection of neutrons inside any reactor. Or, I
should say, leaking out of any reactor-- since they bounce around and
diffuse out. Such collections, however, losely contained, are
radioactive. Free neutrons in a beam are radioactive, also. I didn't
say *A* neutron was radioactive, I said (free) neutrons (generic
plural) are radioactive. In the same way uranium atoms (say) are
radioactive. C'mon people, it's not that tough a concept. Get used to
it.
Steve Harris
Steven B. Harris
In <34BC2758...@rtis.ray.com> Greg Shetler <she...@rtis.ray.com>
writes:
>Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
>> Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
>> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and
electrons
>> again. So what's the point?
>
>
>?? Neutrons are radioactive? What? And here all along I thought
that
>radioactivity had more to do with unstable *collections* of neutrons
and
>protons. Silly me.
>
Yep. Silly you.
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <69h2lg$9...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) writes:
> Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and electrons
> again. So what's the point?
I don't care what neutrons breakdown. I am deriving a theory. I am
proving that fusion , controlled fusion will never surpass breakeven.
You explained nothing and I think you are a physics incompetent on
this subject.
Give me a reference to any journals of where hydrogen atoms are
bombarded with electrons to produce neutrons.
I do not mean where deuterium or tritium yield neutrons. I mean where
hydrogen the simple one proton one electron atom is turned into a
neutron.
Show me that you are not an incompetent here and give me a journal
reference.
Jim Carr
Steven B. Harris wrote:
}
} Hello? As explained, this can be done, but takes energy. And
} neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and electrons
} again. So what's the point?
she...@rtis.ray.com writes:
>
>?? Neutrons are radioactive?
Yes.
>What?
Yes.
Look at the usual chart or handbook: "0n1", t_{1/2} = 10.4 min,
decay mode \beta^-. Or look in the PDG summary entry: "n",
mean life \tau = (887.0 +/- 2.0) s. (Difference due to more
contemporary data used in newer PDG summary.)
>And here all along I thought that
>radioactivity had more to do with unstable *collections* of neutrons and
>protons. Silly me.
Yes.
Note followups to sci.physics.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
John Logajan
In sci.physics.fusion Jim Carr <j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
> Note followups to sci.physics.
No no no. Post your reply to the appropriate groups. Stop the
hypocrisy.
Steven B. Harris
In <69hqap$aqo$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
>In article <69h2lg$9...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
>sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) writes:
>
>> neutrons are radioactive and just break down to protons and
electrons
>> again. So what's the point?
>
>proving that fusion , controlled fusion will never surpass breakeven.
Since our own star the Sun is an example of controlled fusion, I
think your theory may run afoul of reality.
> You explained nothing and I think you are a physics incompetent on
>this subject.
There's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> Give me a reference to any journals of where hydrogen atoms are
>bombarded with electrons to produce neutrons.
>
> I do not mean where deuterium or tritium yield neutrons. I mean
where
>hydrogen the simple one proton one electron atom is turned into a
>neutron.
>
> Show me that you are not an incompetent here and give me a journal
>reference.
Archimedes, you seem to have mistaken me for the Library of
Alexandria. I suggest you take a trip there, yourself, and don't
forget to hold onto the oil lamp so you don't drop it and start a fire
or something.
You can convert protons to neutrons with beta rays above a couple of
Mev, and I'm sure one of the first experiments they did in the old
cyclotrons after the war was to see if they could do it. But finding
those papers from the 1940's is your problem.
Steve Harris
Ali Stolmar
In article <69hqap$aqo$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> I do not mean where deuterium or tritium yield neutrons. I mean where
> hydrogen the simple one proton one electron atom is turned into a
> neutron.
You should see a proof (just one of many) of my shell theory in the fact
that there is no proton and electron reaction, resulting a neutron.
About the fusion, you are wrong. Too many devices are out there and a
stupid politician may show you (and all of us), that the fusion works
well over the breakeven. It is very urgent to take all the materials out
of these warheads, bombs, artillery shells and use it for electrical
energy production. At least from the igniter fission devices. If we
reduce the enrichments to the levels, when it can be used only in nuclear
power reactors, we could feel much more secure.
How to convert the fusion energy to electricity? After we understand the
matter’s structure [see
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar
we will be able to provide the same conditions for the fuel materials on
a small scale, what exists in an environment of an exploding
thermo-nuclear device. So far even the same fuel material composition has
not been tried jet, but the ‘research’ goes on and on and on...[Not much
progress since 1976, when I last time fooled around the TOKAMAK in
Moscow.] I will not discuss the explosion of a thermo-nuclear device in
the news group, but in a private e-mail, I think, it’s O.K.. So give me a
reachable address in a private letter.
Best wishes,
Ali
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <69j5rl$h...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) writes:
> Since our own star the Sun is an example of controlled fusion, I
> think your theory may run afoul of reality.
>
The Barrier Law is interpreted in two ways of which I do not
know as yet if it is one way because I do not have the theory ironed
out.
(1) that the smallest controlled fusion that surpasses breakeven is
the device of the smallest shining star
(2) That no device even stars shining surpass breakeven wherein the
equation of state shows that the energy (gravity) going into the fusion
process always exceeds the repulsion energy where fusion is but one of
those repulsion forces.
But like I say, Steve, reading a few of your posts we see you are a
science incompetent and will not understand the above.
>
> You can convert protons to neutrons with beta rays above a couple of
> Mev, and I'm sure one of the first experiments they did in the old
> cyclotrons after the war was to see if they could do it. But finding
> those papers from the 1940's is your problem.
>
> Steve Harris
A mouth without a physics brain. You do not surprize me that you
cannot find any reference.
So, what was the cyclotron particle created?
A neutron with a slightly bounded electron.
Did they call it the Magnetic Hydrogen Atom because it consisted of
a neutron nucleus with a single electron floating around it from the
original hydrogen atom. For a neutron while it exists acts like a
little magnet and would still hold on to the electron in a bound
structure. But what happens once the neutron decayed back into a
proton, electron and antineutrino.
Oops, I should not be asking a dope like you Steve, your still back
with Deuterium. Do my a favor and don't ever respond to any of my posts
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <884817631....@dejanews.com>
Ali Stolmar <alist...@3dresearch.com> writes:
> Dear Archimedes Plutonium,
Ali, I looked at your website some months ago. I gave you my opinion.
Now you use me as advertisement.
Perhaps I should start a form letter on everyone with their new
theory.
_
|_| Does this theory solve any problem of science or was it crafted
only to
limelight the author?
Most new theories never even mention what problem they intend to
solve in science. But the author's psyche appears very early on.
Most people with "new theories" do not solve anything. Their "new
theory" is made for their psychology-- they are empty and they think
they are the next great thing to come along. Most new theory authors
went from childhood of pretending to be a rock star or a famous
musician, and when that failed and the reality set in, their psyche
went into trying to be a famous scientist.
If your theory had any truth or reality, Stolmar, it will sell itself.
If you continue to drizzle on my threads with your hard sell
pseudoscience, I will put you on my list. You are not a scientist
Stolmar and your website is vacuous
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <69jkid$elk$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> The Barrier Law is interpreted in two ways of which I do not
> know as yet if it is one way because I do not have the theory ironed
> out.
> (1) that the smallest controlled fusion that surpasses breakeven is
> the device of the smallest shining star
>
> (2) That no device even stars shining surpass breakeven wherein the
> equation of state shows that the energy (gravity) going into the fusion
> process always exceeds the repulsion energy where fusion is but one of
> those repulsion forces.
Yes, I am brainstorming. The only idea I have fixed in my mind at
this moment is the Barrier Law. I am supposing that it is true. I may
be wrong. And I am grappling with everything else to see if I can prove
the Barrier Law as true.
I am relying heavily on the fact and experience of Fusion experiments
up to the date of this post. Nagamine Muon fusion achieved 67%
breakeven and JET only 60%, with Nova less than 1%. I am relying on a
Physics Corollary -- that muon fusion is equivalent to plasma fusion
and equivalent to laser fusion. We know the extreme hardships of
pushing Nagamine's 67% further. And so if muon fusion = plasma fusion =
laser fusion then NIF and ITER will face extreme hardships also.
I do not know if the Barrier Law (provided it is true) is universally
true or whether it has a *lower bound* and the lower bound is the
smallest shining fusion star in equilibrium.
At this moment I would say the Barrier Law is universal because the
proportion of a shining star that is fusion repulsion is only a
fraction of the gravity input energy. Thus, every shining fusion star
does not even surpass or even reach breakeven. But I am not familiar
with the Equation of State of star fusion. I would suspect that Coulomb
energy is the major repulsion force in a star with fusion energy next
and with Pauli Exclusion energy third. Gravity energy being almost 100%
attractive energy.
Dries van Oosten
On 15 Jan 1998, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[snip]
> But like I say, Steve, reading a few of your posts we see you are a
> science incompetent and will not understand the above.
>
I think you have a lot of nerve telling someone else he is incompetent in
the field of physics, while you yourself are clearly not only incompetent,
but also unschooled in this field. You have in the long time I have read
your posts not even once made a remark that made sence, let alone
contained a physical truth or even suggested one. I pity you mr Plutonium.
Dries van Oosten
// No more drugs for that man.
// Standard disclaimer applies.
Ali Stolmar
Dear Archimedes Plutonium,
I am a friend and your humble servant, your majesty.
I marked your text with > and skipped some parts.
>Ali, I looked at your website some months ago. I gave you my
opinion.
Yes, thank you and I suspect, you did not read all the pages,
just the starting page.
>Now you use me as advertisement.
Yes. I’m guilty.
>Perhaps I should start a form letter on everyone with their new
theory.
No. I asked your letter, because I don’t want to discuss the
problem - what you brought up - in the newsgroup. I planned to do
it in private letter within today’s neutron physics, without
pointing to my shell theory, unless you specifically ask for.
>Does this theory solve any problem of science ...
Yes. It gives an understanding why we see these elements, what we
see, and why we see these radioactive decays and nuclear
reactions, what we see. Also, it explains why can we use a three
dimensional space and why we have to use it together with the
time and with the objects with masses. I also ran a few threads
with Newton’s 300+ years question about the cause of the gravity.
It turns out that the science could not identify the cause of
gravity all for these years. My theory - of simple just existing
elementary units and the built from their collisions objects -
does. (I hope that you agree that these are real problems of
today’s science. There is a large experimental evidence - the
entire periodic table of elements - and we just have to look at
each element as an individual God? Is not your Atom Totality
theory designed to solve that?)
>... or was it crafted only to limelight the author?
No. I admit, when I first found the possibility to explain all of
our observations by accepting the fact that I’m so small that for
me the whole just exist, and assuming that the just existing
whole is built from just existing elements, I tried to
communicate it to the proper scientist community. It was 24 years
ago, in Hungary. I got back a citation from Kant. Since that time
it’s only my hobby. Recently I came to the point when it is ready
for scrutinizing. I tried to find a single evidence, what would
contradict to it, this is why I went through a quite large number
of ground state isotope masses, decay and abundance data. I did
not find any. Now it’s up to you. Please, find something! This is
the objective of my threads with the long quote from Newton. I
don’t need the limelight, but I can’t stand the stupidities like
black holes and big bang and expanding Universe, when I know that
these are erratic extrapolations of limited understanding of
matter’s structure. And these are what the science establishment
represent today. (You were right in your Edict.)
>Most new theories never even mention what problem they intend to
solve in science. But the author’s psyche appears very early on.
I agree.
<....>
>If your theory had any truth or reality, ... it will sell
itself.
From your Edict I thought that you see the real situation in the
scientific establishment. Also, I had some dealing with these
people on other subjects, so I know some of them and I rather
choose to bring it to the newsgroups. If they want to join, they
can. Anybody can.
<....>
Best wishes,
Your humble servant and friend Ali
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.98011...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl> writes:
> Man: prof.dr. J.E.J.M. van Himbergen, 030-253 2962
> Email: J.E.vanH...@fys.ruu.nl
>
> Work: Faculteit Natuur- en Sterrenkunde
> Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, 030-253 3284
> Postbus 80000, 3508 TA Utrecht
> Fax faculteitsbureau: 030-253 9282
> E-mail: facb...@fys.ruu.nl
>
> Sports: J.E.J.M. van Himbergen, I have watched enjoys " pedorrera "
>
> I think he have a lot of nerve telling dr. P.J.Th. Zeegers is incompetent in
> the field of physics, while van Himbergen is clearly not only incompetent,
> but also polvo in this field. Zeegers have in the long time I have watched
> him pararse not even once made a follarse that made sence, let alone
> contained a physical chocho or even suggested one. I serve Himbergen and
> Zeegers kaffee laced with ganga this morning.
>
>
> Dries van Oosten
>
> // No more drugs for that man.
> // Standard disclaimer applies.
Interesting Dries, but this is a science forum, not a Amsterdam
night club. Maybe you should drink some DeWars, or maybe that is your
problem
Ed Price
Still awaiting evidence of engineering out of Arky.