The Smart Model Neutral Particle Can Be Seen...
S. Enterprize Company
http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
This is not just an overlapping of matter and anti-matter. If this were so,
they would annihilate each other. When matter and anti-matter come into contact
they annihilate. This is the brief presense of the Smart Neutral Particle. It's
a neutral particle with even smaller interior sub-particles.
The Smart Neutral Particle
( ) AITOC <-- momentarily in charged state in chamber
======= Aether Fluid Barrier Field
( ) ITOC<--- momentarily in charged state in chamber
^
|__ This is what you see in the straight line movement
in the cloud chamber. As the matter and anti-matter separate, the Smart
Neiutral Particle then decays into Aether fluid energy, which can also be seen
in the enlarge view.
Another view of the interior structure of a Smart Model Neutrino
http://members.aol.com/SEntrprize/neutrin2.gif
(Smart's Home Page)
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AGAIN...
NBCi stopped their free 500 Meg Storage for people.
http://members.aol.com/smart1234/index1.htm
http://members.aol.com/smart1234/sframe1old.htm
The New Atomic Testament ( The Smart Atomic Model )
etc
S. Enterprize Company
>
>http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
>
>Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
>
>http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
>
>
> This is not just an overlapping of matter and anti-matter. If this were so,
>they would annihilate each other. When matter and anti-matter come into
>contact
>they annihilate. This is the brief presense of the Smart Neutral Particle.
>It's
>a neutral particle with even smaller interior sub-particles.
>
>
>The Smart Neutral Particle
>
> ( ) AITOC <-- momentarily in charged state in chamber
> ======= Aether Fluid Barrier Field
> ( ) ITOC<--- momentarily in charged state in chamber
>
> ^
> |__ This is what you see in the straight line movement
>in the cloud chamber. As the matter and anti-matter separate, the Smart
>Neiutral Particle then decays into Aether fluid energy, which can also be
>seen
>in the enlarge view.
>
> Another view of the interior structure of a Smart Model Neutrino
>
>http://members.aol.com/SEntrprize/neutrin2.gif
>
We should all together thank and praise The Lord for revealing to us HIS
physics structures of the universe.
You can even see the presense of The Smart Model Neutral Particle Field at
the Stellar Level, too.
http://heritage.stsci.edu/2001/05/supplemental.html
"The Smart Universal Model" is registered in the Library Of Congress. It
isn't listed as a science fiction story.
Franz Heymann
"S. Enterprize Company" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020911015130...@mb-md.aol.com...
> We should all together thank and praise The Lord for revealing to
us HIS
> physics structures of the universe.
You have a bloody cheek. Count me out.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> Cloud Chamber
>
> http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
That is not a cloud chamber photograph. I have taken many in my life
and they have never come out with lines of writing all over the particle
trajectories.
> Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
>
> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a pile of crap.
Franz Heymann
S. Enterprize Company
>news:20020911014040...@mb-md.aol.com...
>> Cloud Chamber
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
>
>That is not a cloud chamber photograph. I have taken many in my life
>and they have never come out with lines of writing all over the particle
>trajectories.
Well tell the reference book I borrowed it from they are full of (&(*&(*
then. In fact, The writing was my interpretation of the data using The Smart
Model. I guess you are too dumb to realize that.
>
>> Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
>
>This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a pile of crap.
That's because you are too full of the QM crap to understand The Smart
Universal Model. Did they give you an A+ when you solved the QM problems with
QM math in college? Duh.... .
>
>Franz Heymann
S. Enterprize Company
Turning the other cheek .....
( )( )
Bending over mooning you.
Ronald Stepp
>
> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
A bunch of pixels that dont show shit..
Ronald Stepp
> >>
> >> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
> >
> >This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a pile of crap.
>
> That's because you are too full of the QM crap to understand The Smart
> Universal Model. Did they give you an A+ when you solved the QM problems
with
> QM math in college? Duh.... .
You don't need a degree in anything to realize its a picture showing a bunch
of pixels that don't show shit..
S. Enterprize Company
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
>
>A bunch of pixels that dont show shit..
An enlarged zoomed in view ( about 1000%) of this,
http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
S. Enterprize Company
Why believe what "they" told you then about QM? Isn't QM a theory too.
Don't we seek the most accurate correct theory. Why were we told that only QM
( quantum mechanics) was right in college? Why were we told what to learn,
and not _how_ to learn?
The main thing you should learn in college is, not what to learn, but in
how to improve what is known for a better more accurate view of the thing
analyzed.
QM in my opinion leads to an incorrect model of the universe as a whole. It
becomes to complex to the point no one even understands what their own
colleagues are saying. One time there was a NOVA special on the physics
analysis of something very complex. They replied, they don't even know what the
other person worked out or solved, but it seemed right to them. Duh???
The Smart Universal Model is simple. It can get complex although, but it's
understanding remains simple. It's so simple, if you understand one field, all
fields are understood at all levels of the universe.
The Smart Model is like watching a hurricane field. Learn this field, and
you have seen the basic structure of the universe.
cold air
========== the clouds
|( ^ )|
| ( | ) |
| ( ) |
v ( ^ ) v
| ( | ) |
========= the seas ( water )
hot air
The hot humid air rises, then as it reaches the clouds, it condenses. Then
this condensation fall down to the ground, only to be warmed up again, to
spiral up again and spiral down again, and again.... . It's like an example of
perpetual motion.
Now look at a basic inner view of a proton
http://members.aol.com/smart314159/SubAtomicCircuit.jpg
Now look at it's basic external view
http://members.aol.com/smart314159/HSFPhotoEffect.gif
The external field feeds on the internal field. The internal field feeds on
the external field. The main forces involved are,
The proton in it's perpetual dampened oscillator circuit can produce the
line spectra in a state of resonance. The resonance produces the constant mass
at the hollow core of the proton.
From here one can build a universe, where all fields are interactively
related to this but in different sizes and field strengths..... .
Ronald Stepp
> Why believe what "they" told you then about QM? Isn't QM a theory
too.
> Don't we seek the most accurate correct theory. Why were we told that
only QM
> ( quantum mechanics) was right in college? Why were we told what to
learn,
> and not _how_ to learn?
Why would I believe you're "theory" is any more believable than the
established science theories, when you totally avoid the observation that
this:
http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
is a GIF image of a bunch of blobs and colore pixels?
Star Trek had lots or pretty graphs and pictures too, and their stuff was
science fiction.. I've seen plenty of very very nice shots of their warp
drive in action and I seriously doubt that because I see it on the series we
actually have spaceships travelling acoss the galaxy.
Your GIF above is not even in the wildest imaginings of a drug-abuser an
actual image of anything like what you try to label it.
Ronald Stepp
> >> Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
> >>
> >> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
> >
> >A bunch of pixels that dont show shit..
A bunch of pixels that don't mean diddly.....
> An enlarged zoomed in view ( about 1000%) of this,
>
> http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
1) There is only your word for that.. It (the first link above) could as
easily be a picture of a Quarter Pounder on a plate.
2) the cloud chamber picture looks like something you cropped out of a book
somewhere and not even sure what it actually shows, especially we know that
it may or may not have anything in the world to do with the first GIF.
Spaceman
>Star Trek had lots or pretty graphs and pictures too,
Star Trek is "Relativity based SciFi"
they use All of the sad ass theory.
and
When you back up ,GR, SR or QM,
you are backing Star Trek physics,
not reality.
The clock malfuntioned.
You (and Star Trek) lose in physics.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
S. Enterprize Company
Beam me up Scotty..... . I can't take this any more.
S. Enterprize Company
>news:20020914001907...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>> >> Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
>> >>
>> >> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
>> >
>> >A bunch of pixels that dont show shit..
>
>A bunch of pixels that don't mean diddly.....
Unless you have a Big Screen, high definition TV. I hope to get one some
day.
>
>> An enlarged zoomed in view ( about 1000%) of this,
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
>
>1) There is only your word for that.. It (the first link above) could as
>easily be a picture of a Quarter Pounder on a plate.
I didn't look at it that way before. I think you got something. Ok, we
have a Quarter Pounder on a Cloud Chamber track. My only question is, who ate
it? It disappeared.
>2) the cloud chamber picture looks like something you cropped out of a book
>somewhere and not even sure what it actually shows, especially we know that
>it may or may not have anything in the world to do with the first GIF.
>
>
Well maybe Ronald McDonald knows, right.
Did you here the latest science news? A Jack in the Box Head was last seen
in a Cloud Chamber.
S. Enterprize Company
>news:20020914005015...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>> Why believe what "they" told you then about QM? Isn't QM a theory
>too.
>> Don't we seek the most accurate correct theory. Why were we told that
>only QM
>> ( quantum mechanics) was right in college? Why were we told what to
>learn,
>> and not _how_ to learn?
>
>Why would I believe you're "theory" is any more believable than the
>established science theories, when you totally avoid the observation that
>this:
>
>http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
>
>is a GIF image of a bunch of blobs and colore pixels?
If you zoom in more, the blobs and colored pixels turn into nothing. I
think I have discovered nothingness.
>
>Star Trek had lots or pretty graphs and pictures too, and their stuff was
>science fiction.. I've seen plenty of very very nice shots of their warp
>drive in action and I seriously doubt that because I see it on the series we
>actually have spaceships travelling acoss the galaxy.
>
>Your GIF above is not even in the wildest imaginings of a drug-abuser an
>actual image of anything like what you try to label it.
>
>
>
Well maybe you could look at it as abstract art.... . Or maybe a
psychiatric photo. What do you see there?
Ronald Stepp
> >http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
> >
> >is a GIF image of a bunch of blobs and colore pixels?
>
> If you zoom in more, the blobs and colored pixels turn into nothing.
I
> think I have discovered nothingness.
No you just learned what everybody else who works with digital pictures
learns, if you enlarge a digital image, you get crappy looking blobs of
nothing..
> Well maybe you could look at it as abstract art.... . Or maybe a
> psychiatric photo. What do you see there?
If its billed as abstract art, I'll consider it in that light and ignore it
as I don't like abstract art, but if you bill it as showing something
scientific, then you're out of gas.
Ronald Stepp
> >"S. Enterprize Company" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020914001907...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >> >> Enlarged view of straight line movement area.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
> >> >
> >> >A bunch of pixels that dont show shit..
> >
> >A bunch of pixels that don't mean diddly.....
>
> Unless you have a Big Screen, high definition TV. I hope to get one
some
> day.
No. Then you have a high definition image of blobs. If you knew even the
most basic rules of digital image processing and touch-up, you'd know that
showing a set resolution image to ever larger displays gets you less and
less detail. You have to start at a high resolution to begin with.
As it is, it can just as easily be a quarter pounder..
But since you're beyond help, it won't matter anyway.
S. Enterprize Company
I'm glad you have no authority on the subject. So whatever you say means
nothing in regard to physics.
S. Enterprize Company
Just because I give credit to God...... .
You atheists have ruined science down throught the ages. You even forced people
to believe the earth was the center of the universe. It took a catholic Galileo
to correct science.
And now look at the QM atom on your Periodic Table of Elements.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * +O+ * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
Hundreds of electrons in orbit around a positive nucleus.
Then you QM followers have the nerve to say only the outer two electrons
share a stupid orbit, so this makes a bond so strong that it can make
everything around us. Then you idiots say the electrons move in such a chaotic
way you can never be sure where they are. But if this was true wouldn't
everything around you be moving in chaotic hell around you?
Ronald Stepp
> >"S. Enterprize Company" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20020914220226...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >> >http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartAetherAndNeutralParticle.gif
> >> >
> >> >is a GIF image of a bunch of blobs and colore pixels?
> >>
> >> If you zoom in more, the blobs and colored pixels turn into
nothing.
> >I
> >> think I have discovered nothingness.
> >
> >No you just learned what everybody else who works with digital pictures
> >learns, if you enlarge a digital image, you get crappy looking blobs of
> >nothing..
> >
> >> Well maybe you could look at it as abstract art.... . Or maybe a
> >> psychiatric photo. What do you see there?
> >
> >If its billed as abstract art, I'll consider it in that light and ignore
it
> >as I don't like abstract art, but if you bill it as showing something
> >scientific, then you're out of gas.
> >
>
> I'm glad you have no authority on the subject. So whatever you say
means
> nothing in regard to physics.
So ignore the fact that the images don't show jack shit, and if I know
nothing about physics, that goes triple for a self-confessed co-creator of
the universe who thinks Angels from Heaven copyrighted his work.
You are further from actual knowledge of physics than anyone on this list.
Ronald Stepp
> >No. Then you have a high definition image of blobs. If you knew even the
> >most basic rules of digital image processing and touch-up, you'd know
that
> >showing a set resolution image to ever larger displays gets you less and
> >less detail. You have to start at a high resolution to begin with.
> >
> >As it is, it can just as easily be a quarter pounder..
> >
> >But since you're beyond help, it won't matter anyway.
> >
> Just because I give credit to God...... .
> You atheists have ruined science down throught the ages. You even forced
people
> to believe the earth was the center of the universe. It took a catholic
Galileo
> to correct science.
> And now look at the QM atom on your Periodic Table of Elements.
Right. You don't just give credit to God.. You actually believe you were
personally involved in creating the universe with him, that he and his
angels copyrighted your work, etc. That goes beyond the pale of "giving
credit" to god.
And your pictures still look like a bunch of blobs... which was what this
started as, and which you stray from to confuse people.
S. Enterprize Company
As I said before, there is only One God. He works in mysterious ways through
people and His Creation.
>
>You are further from actual knowledge of physics than anyone on this list.
>
Just _saying_ that The Smart Model is wrong isn't proof that it is wrong.
S. Enterprize Company
>news:20020915060057...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>> >No. Then you have a high definition image of blobs. If you knew even the
>> >most basic rules of digital image processing and touch-up, you'd know
>that
>> >showing a set resolution image to ever larger displays gets you less and
>> >less detail. You have to start at a high resolution to begin with.
>> >
>> >As it is, it can just as easily be a quarter pounder..
>> >
>> >But since you're beyond help, it won't matter anyway.
>> >
>> Just because I give credit to God...... .
>> You atheists have ruined science down throught the ages. You even forced
>people
>> to believe the earth was the center of the universe. It took a catholic
>Galileo
>> to correct science.
>> And now look at the QM atom on your Periodic Table of Elements.
>
>Right. You don't just give credit to God.. You actually believe you were
>personally involved in creating the universe with him, that he and his
>angels copyrighted your work, etc. That goes beyond the pale of "giving
>credit" to god.
There is only One God. I am not God. God works through His people and His
Creation in mysterious ways.
>
>And your pictures still look like a bunch of blobs... which was what this
>started as, and which you stray from to confuse people.
>
>
You should try to understand what I did, instead of just looking at the
pictures.
Ronald Stepp
> >You are further from actual knowledge of physics than anyone on this
list.
>
> Just _saying_ that The Smart Model is wrong isn't proof that it is
wrong.
Just _saying_ that The Smart Model is right isn't proof that it is right.
Ronald Stepp
> >And your pictures still look like a bunch of blobs... which was what this
> >started as, and which you stray from to confuse people.
>
> You should try to understand what I did, instead of just looking at
the
> pictures.
I'm not a mind reader.
Reading your mind doesn't make your "theories" any more true than not having
evidence.
The contents of your mind is not a basis for the proof of anything.
Why provide pictures if looking at them doesn't show anything?
Your "picture" shows a bunch of pixellated blobs.
S. Enterprize Company
Well if I enlarge the word "Dummy" on my zoom in function to about 1000%
like those pixels shown from the clould chamber image, wouldn't you agree that
even though the word "Dummy" looks like a bunch of large unexplained blobs,
can't we still say you are a "Dummy"?
S. Enterprize Company
Just saying that QM is right doesn't mean it's right either. QM is just a
theory. It's not called QM law. But from what we can see so far The Smart
Model makes more logical sense than QM because at least classical particle
physics is in agreement with physical chemistry, chemistry, and on up to stars,
galaxies and so on... . QM can't even explain how a hydrogen atom can even
exist. They say it gets too complex and that only 1 dimensional analysis must
be used.
The Smart Model can be easily be analyzed up to 4 dimensions, including all
the way up to the DNA logic on/off bit circuits showing what life is in
sub-atomic logic, in the Smart Model.
Well, maybe I should enlarge the word "Dummy", so you can say DUHHHHHH.....
., that's just blobs.
Ronald Stepp
> >> You should try to understand what I did, instead of just looking at
> >the
> >> pictures.
> >
> >I'm not a mind reader.
> >Reading your mind doesn't make your "theories" any more true than not
having
> >evidence.
> >The contents of your mind is not a basis for the proof of anything.
> >Why provide pictures if looking at them doesn't show anything?
> >Your "picture" shows a bunch of pixellated blobs.
>
> Well if I enlarge the word "Dummy" on my zoom in function to about
1000%
> like those pixels shown from the clould chamber image, wouldn't you agree
that
> even though the word "Dummy" looks like a bunch of large unexplained
blobs,
> can't we still say you are a "Dummy"?
What does that have to do with your alleged cloud chamber image? The point
is, nobody except you knows what that picture was originally.. I can zoom in
to the word dummy as well.. so what? What does it have to do with the blobs
you have in your image?
Ad hominem..
Ronald Stepp
> >> Just _saying_ that The Smart Model is wrong isn't proof that it is
> >wrong.
> >
> >Just _saying_ that The Smart Model is right isn't proof that it is right.
> >
>
> Just saying that QM is right doesn't mean it's right either. QM is
just a
Yeah, but they got evidence.. all you got is pixel blobs..
S. Enterprize Company
Here we go again.
Do you know what a Cloud Chamber or a Bubble Chamber is?
http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
When you enlarge this in certain areas of the image you can see the Smart
Model Neutral Particles. I have even shown about 10 Website pages that
discusses the basics of The Smart Universal Model. I later will put up my
Website back up. NBCi changed their mind about their free 500 Meg Internet
storage, so I have to put it on another Website.
More on Bubble Chambers...
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUKpics/POW/pr_980211b.html
Ronald Stepp
> Do you know what a Cloud Chamber or a Bubble Chamber is?
>
> http://members.aol.com/link14738/CloudChamber.gif
>
> When you enlarge this in certain areas of the image you can see the
Smart
> Model Neutral Particles. I have even shown about 10 Website pages that
> discusses the basics of The Smart Universal Model. I later will put up my
> Website back up. NBCi changed their mind about their free 500 Meg
Internet
> storage, so I have to put it on another Website.
Uh, the question is, do YOU know how a cloud chamber works? Neutral
particles do not leave tracks in a cloud chamber.
So much for that fantasy? Anything harder you want to toss my way?
S. Enterprize Company
And still more
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUKpics/POW/pr_980318.html
If you observe right before the split of matter and anti-matter, The Smart
Neutral Particle, separating the two travels in a STRAIGHT LINE. You can zoom
in to it and see it. It looks something like this all the time.
anti-matter
o
o o
O O O< -- Smart Neutral Particles
o o
o
matter
The Smart Neutral Particles have about a 10^-17 sec life span and have energy
of about .1 MeV, as can be seen from the photos.
S. Enterprize Company
This energy is clearly accounted for in the images by the extra or less
energy of in the decay of neutral particles, like for example the K0 particle.
The energy of this particle is 497.67 MeV +- .13 MeV ( extra unaccounted for
energy)
This extra unaccounted for energy IS The Smart Neutral Particle Presense.
The track of a neutral pi0 particle shows that's it's life span is about 10^-16
sec. So based on this, the average life span of a Smart Particle is about
1/10th smaller in existence time, before it decays.
S. Enterprize Company
No joke. But they are detected and are usually shown as inserted dashed lines
before the matter/anti-matter split.
>
>So much for that fantasy? Anything harder you want to toss my way?
>
You really should study more.
Ronald Stepp
> >Uh, the question is, do YOU know how a cloud chamber works? Neutral
> >particles do not leave tracks in a cloud chamber.
>
> No joke. But they are detected and are usually shown as inserted dashed
lines
> before the matter/anti-matter split.
No. They aren't if they are neutral they do not leave a trace.
> >So much for that fantasy? Anything harder you want to toss my way?
> >
>
> You really should study more.
You got nerve telling ME to study, Mr. Angels copyrighted my "work."
Ronald Stepp
You're mistaken. Till you figure out your error, there is no use in
discussing anything more.
S. Enterprize Company
>news:20020917023455...@mb-fo.aol.com...
>> >Uh, the question is, do YOU know how a cloud chamber works? Neutral
>> >particles do not leave tracks in a cloud chamber.
>>
>> No joke. But they are detected and are usually shown as inserted dashed
>lines
>> before the matter/anti-matter split.
>
>No. They aren't if they are neutral they do not leave a trace.
Duh....... Mommie nobody loves me.
>
>> >So much for that fantasy? Anything harder you want to toss my way?
>> >
>>
>> You really should study more.
>
>You got nerve telling ME to study, Mr. Angels copyrighted my "work."
>
>
It's hard to believe anyone can't see the unseen like you.
S. Enterprize Company
.<--- Worlds smallest boom box playing, "you poor poor dumb goofy idiot".
Ronald Stepp
> >No. They aren't if they are neutral they do not leave a trace.
>
> Duh....... Mommie nobody loves me.
Whether she loves you or not doesn't change the behavior of neutral
particles in a cloud chamber.
> It's hard to believe anyone can't see the unseen like you.
?
S. Enterprize Company
alt.sci.physics.new-theories
for follow up of info in regard to Smart Neutral Particles and Scattering
proof...
Ronald Stepp
> proof...
There is no proof in science.. get a clue and we can continue this
discussion..
Spaceman
>There is no proof in science.
You are a frellin moron to the first degree.
no proof would mean "no science"
that is theoretical physics idiot,
not science.
Science is based upon proof.
not theory.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com