Electrostatics and absurdities of modern physics
sorin
Electrostatics and absurdities of modern physics
For more then two centuries scientists have been used Coulomb law
without questioning its validity. Based on well known experimental
facts the presented text advocate for a limited validity of Coulomb
law; this is pedagogical fact in order to not scare too many actual
orthodox physicists. Further work will clearly tackle with the nature
of Coulomb force and its place inside electricity theory.
Second subject takes intro discussion the working principle for common
capacitors and supra capacitors. Despite their wide spread use as
electric and electronic components, their actual explanation for
what=92s happen inside such device at atomic level are a monument of
absurdity.
The link:
http://www.elkadot.com/en/magneticity/Electrostatic.htm
Starting with this point the advertisement will be directed for a
larger category of readers not only to English speakers. All the time,
the Romanian version of the text will serve as reference.
The link:
http://www.elkadot.com/ro/magneticitate/Electrostatica.htm
Except Romanian version, all other variants can present some
translation errors. In order to cover the intellectual=92s rights, the
Romanian and English texts will appear first because are written by
me. The variants in other languages (French, German, Spanish, etc)
will appear few weeks later, when their translations are finished.
All translations are made by amateur so if a reader is not content
with a specific translation, he/she can make appeal to Romanian
reference text and to search for a better translator.
If there are persons willing to help translation in other languages
please contact me by email.
Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret
Jim Logajan
sorin <sorinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For more then two centuries scientists have been used Coulomb law
> without questioning its validity.
It has been tested thousands of times. Experiments show agreement of the
square power to better than one part in 10^15:
http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/BartlettCoulomb.pdf
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i12/p721_1
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v2/i3/p483_1
You can buy a lab kit to explore the law:
http://www.pasco.com/featured-products/coulombs-law-experiment/index.cfm
If it were wrong modern electronics would not be possible. Cathode ray
tubes would not work according to design. Computer programs that are used
to design electrostatic systems would fail.
The law is presumed correct for the purposes of quantum chemistry, so if it
were wrong subtle effects due to quantum electrodynamics would yield
results different from experiment.
Please explain how the Retherford and Lamb experiment that measured the
Lamb shift could have succeeded if the underlying equation used for the
electrostatic potential was wrong!? I doubt you even know what I'm talking
about.
Your web page only shows:
1) That you fail to understand the underlying physics.
2) That you think you are smarter than all the thousands of people who have
gone before you in the last two centuries. You are exhibiting simple
arrogance combined with refusal to really learn any aspect of the subject
that disagrees with your preconceptions - a character flaw of yours that
is, sadly, common as dirt.
3) You don't know the history of the very thing you protest against.
4) You refuse to show the math for your own theory - assuming you even have
one.
5) You keep saying modern physics is "wrong" but are unable to show it
mathematically. Give an instance where modern theory predicts, say,
something pulls of force X and show that experiments show that it is Y.
Nobody cares about untestable claims.
Please stop bothering people. The Coulomb law predicts things exceedingly
well and no amount of insults by some arrogant know-nothing is going to
change that.
sorin
Hello Jim,
When a person asks respect ...must offer at least a little bit of what
he is asking.
As far as I know a new conversation with unknown person starts with a
greeting...
Where are your gentleman manners?
You are not making simple difference between reality and
representation of reality. The fact that Copernicus changed a
representation of reality with a subtler one it does not mean he
affected the reality. Before him and after him planets turn around
Sun, and they turn around Sun even in our times despite of
unintelligible tricks of relativity where everything is relative and
there is a completely equivalence between motion and rest.
The fact that Maxwell equations are absurd does not change practical
electronic and how a capacitor effectively works. The face of actual
physics and chemistry will be changed even for some well situated
chairs is difficult to believe that a person coming from an
undeveloped country can do that and such person gives lessons of
physics to metropolitan professors.
Maybe after centuries another one will challenge my theories and this
is the normal way of progress.
I am a man of facts so let=92s live experiments to talk.
1. You wrote:
It has been tested thousands of times. Experiments show agreement of
the
square power to better than one part in 10^15:
http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PH...ettCoulomb.pdf
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v26/i12/p721_1
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v2/i3/p483_1
The links regard some experiment with cylindrical capacitors. As far
actual electrostatic and of course the mutagenic quantum
electrodynamics are not able to explain how a capacitor works, any
common sense mind should ask what reliability presents such
experiments!?
As I said there is in working the second part of text for capacitors
and absurdities of modern physics and then maybe Saul turn to became
Paul.
2 You wrote:
If it were wrong modern electronics would not be possible. Cathode ray
tubes would not work according to design. Computer programs that are
used
to design electrostatic systems would fail.
The cathode rays tubes and any electronic device work in the same way
independent on our theoretical representation. But the consequences of
cathode tube working do not fit with actual accepted concepts of
electrodynamics or its ,,mutagenic=94 relative. A flux of electrons
captured from a cathode ray tube does not present specific effects of
electric currents.
The link:
http://www.elkadot.com/en/magneticity/Cathode%20ray%20tube%20and%20charge%2=
0movement%20experiment.htm
3. You wrote
The law is presumed correct for the purposes of quantum chemistry, so
if it
were wrong subtle effects due to quantum electrodynamics would yield
results different from experiment.
Quantum electrodynamics was conceived by your ,,genius=94 in order to
leave something after his death. What is the subject of quantum
electrodynamics?
Actual science is not more realistic now than epicycles theory
centuries ago. Every time a new epicycle (quantum electrodynamics,
etc) is added only to maintain a sand castle.
I do not know a simple application of bastard quantum electrodynamics
in chemistry (maybe you illuminate me!!!). But I made some simple
experiments.
A solution at a potential lower then potential necessary for electrode
reactions does conduct electricity. How is possible this?
http://www.elkadot.com/en/magneticity/Electric%20currents%20in%20solutions%=
20and%20charge%20movement.htm
The same thing happens for a molten salt as is described:
http://www.elkadot.com/en/chemistry/Electrolysis%20of%20Molten%20Sodium%20C=
hloride.htm
Probably as result of quantum time distortion and quantum
electrodynamics fecundation, combined with appropriates speeds given
by Maxwell distribution electrons jump between anode and cathode and
everything is possible =85..
4. You wrote
Please explain how the Retherford and Lamb experiment that measured
the
Lamb shift could have succeeded if the underlying equation used for
the
electrostatic potential was wrong!? I doubt you even know what I'm
talking
about.
It is really true that my English formulation has errors, but really I
never heard about Retherford. About Lamb-Rutherford shift I knew from
more then 20 years. Regarding my knowledge in the field of science, I
know another well appreciated and still alive scientist who desired to
compare our activities in the field of orthodox science. And after he
saw my CV renounced. I=92m sure your school period is shorter then my
lengths of schools holidays so I do not expect from you to really
understand principles of science. To copy and to edit some scientific
books or texts, in our days, is a routine work and therefore you
occupy a position in actual hierarchy. Of course having a mean of
propulsion (father, family, uncles) help even more in jumping such
hierarchy. But I'm sure your original ideas behind your copied texts
are less then your hands fingers. If you continue further and analyze
how many from your ,,original ideas=94 are correct you will discover
yourself what is your value for posterity ......
5. You wrote:
That you think you are smarter than all the thousands of people who
have
gone before you in the last two centuries. You are exhibiting simple
arrogance combined with refusal to really learn any aspect of the
subject that disagrees with your preconceptions - a character flaw of
yours that is, sadly, common as dirt.
Is this a problem that I=92m smarter then a lot of persons in the last
two centuries?
You can do the same like me=85. When you will have finished reading the
entire school and then city library before ending the school period,
when you are entering in university and you already know all that
teachers have to do =85. What is the problem?
I explain you what is the problem=85 I=92m not a follower of Oxford or MIT
or Cambridge university and my papers are not good because are not
revelation of brilliant minds produced by such universities. It is the
same old problem but with other face. The Franklin lightning rod was
not good for Englishmen only because it was coming from a colonist =85.a
uneducated maybe a villain man.
I don't think it is not so important my comportment. You don't expect
from a wild person coming from an undevelopped country at something
special. Let=92s see the comportment of educated people who are paid
from public money to have certain conduit.
Few years ago I asked to Joseph Richardson from Optical Society of
America to arrange a simple experiment able to make a little bit
clarification between my theory and actual ,,still orthodox=94 theory.
He indicated me Masud Mansuripur, chair of a well known optic
department, with hundreds of published papers, patents, etc.
The original discussion:
Dr. Cosofret
After conferring with our Science Advisor and other OSA Editors, they
believe that the best people to contact would be Masud Mansuripur for
the first two topics (angular momentum and electromagnetic pressure),
and Russ Chipman for the (experimental) polarization issue.
I hope this is helpful. If you need anything further please contact
me.
Joe
Joseph Richardson
Optical Society of America
Peer Review Manager
Publications Dept.
My polite email toward these ,,respectable persons=92=92:
From: Sorin Cosofret
To: Russell Chipman; ma...@u.arizona.edu
Cc: 'Richardson, Joe'
Subject: FW: a little bit help is possible?
Dear Mr. Mansuripur,
Dear Mr. Chipman,
I'm interested to perform some already well known experiments with a
new approach.
Mr. Richardson had the kindness to indicate as specialists able to
help me in this direction.
Without entering into detailed description (the theory is quite long
and annoying), the experiments have the purpose to make a difference
between electromagnetic wave and light.
I attach here the principle of experiments.
Thanks to all for help
Sorin Cosofret
In the attach there was a description of experiments available now on
the web page.
Their answer astonished me and of course should astonish every common
mind:
Dear Dr. Cosofret:
I totally disagree with your proposals. As far as I know there is no
difference between visible light and microwaves with regard to
momentum, angular momentum, or polarization. Your ideas have no basis
in electromagnetic theory and I will not support the conduct of any
experiments to confirm or refute these predictions. I'll be grateful
if you'd kindly remove me from your mailing list.
Regards,
Masud Mansuripur
Professor and Chair of Optical Data Storage College of Optical
Sciences The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721
=85..
My latest text:
Dear Dr. Mansuripur,
I've proposed some simple experiments and I think it is a duty of
every physicist to try at least the experiments before pull a
conclusion.
I don=92t think physics is the field of fundamentalist and fixed ideas,
which makes part from another sector of human activity.
In physics the theory is based on experiments so in order to see the
limit of theory it is necessary to perform new and new experiments.
I haven't asked you as theoretician which is your opinion about
proposed theory, I have asked only if your team want and is able to
perform these experiments.
My luck is we don't leave in XVII century and I'm not burned for my
ideas.
Even the experiment will be never made (a improbable thing because the
world is high enough and not all physicist are agree with actual state
of things), none can impede me to say: E pur si mouve.
I remove you from the mail list.
Sorin Cosofret
With such attitude any common mind asks:
Has the science becomes a field where what ,,I know=94 is more important
then what experiment really says?
Has the science as a whole becomes an obedient thing for some persons
who use it for their interests?
The unspoken but real answers are:
Yes, this is the case and we should indicate clearly this fact.
Of course I expect that a new ,,brilliant mind=94 from a well known
university makes the experiments and took a Nobel Price and everyone
is falling on his knee in face of such revelation. Therefore I made
advertisements up to date and to the desperation of some well situated
persons the advertisement will be enlarged to discussion groups in
other then English language.
Of course not all ,,orthodox=94 scientists presents the same short
seeing ability like you and up presented people. I make a simple
mention from many of them.
On Sat, 11/21/09, Ken Schroer <kschr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Ken Schroer <kschr...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: [Stephen Hawking Group] Stern Gerlach experiment and
absurdities of modern physics
To: sorinc...@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 3:41 PM
Sorin,
Thank you. This is a very valuable and interesting posting, no doubt
highly appreciated by Stephenhawking Group members, and certainly by
me.
Ken Schroer
A Moderator
Finally but not last, you should learn that every thing created in
this world, I speak about man made things, was made by one individual
fighting against the majority. Sometimes majority accepted in short
time the ,,creation=94 sometimes in longer time. So it is not the case
to force me ,,a creator=94 to follow the stupidities written in low
level books.
6 You wrote:
You don't know the history of the very thing you protest against.
I know enough history and I know history is written by the winners so
is completely redundant therefore I learned history from documents and
not from interpretation of documents.
You will see another face of history when actual theory will be ruled
out.
7. You wrote:
You refuse to show the math for your own theory - assuming you even
have
one. You keep saying modern physics is "wrong" but are unable to show
it
mathematically. Give an instance where modern theory predicts, say,
something pulls of force X and show that experiments show that it is
Y.
Nobody cares about untestable claims.
Math can be done by any simple computer, the interpretation not. I am
in the stage of changing the interpretation with the simplest math
treatment possible. As principle you will never hear in new proposed
theory about Heisenberg principle or multidimensional spaces.
What math do you think it is necessary for demonstrate that lighting
rode do not fit with Coulomb law?
8. You wrote:
Please stop bothering people. The Coulomb law predicts things
exceedingly
well and no amount of insults by some arrogant know-nothing is going
to change that.
Does your chair starts to move and you feel not to have a place in
newly created circumstances? Haw many books and obeisances to actual
theory did you write?
As I said the advertisements will be more active and not only for
English speakers. Sometimes language barriers impede people to access
original information so it is my duty to remove this barrier.
I think it=92s better for you to avoid my texts or as far you have a
certain decisional power you can block my messages. You are not the
first and I=92m sure you will not be the last.
Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret
John Smith
On 6/9/2010 7:23 AM, sorin wrote:
> Hello Jim,
> When a person asks respect ...must offer at least a little bit of what
> he is asking.
Hi Sorin,
Do you often get respect, Sorin? Or do they just tell you that your
theory is wrong without respect? That would be very rude, in my opinion!
I think one should always give respect to people.
> ...
> I think it=92s better for you to avoid my texts or as far you have a
> certain decisional power you can block my messages. You are not the
> first and I=92m sure you will not be the last.
Do people often block your messages, Sorin? But isn't that
disrespectful, actually? They should politely read the things you write,
that's what I think, Sorin! Who do they think they are?!
> Best regards,
> Sorin Cosofret
Respect,
--
John