0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 06/11/2018 01:30:10Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).Then please try to do the required prerequisite research before making the empty claim that thousands physicists and chemists with access to multi-million dollar experimental equipment have gotten the structure of the atom wrong for many decades.
Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).
There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 06/11/2018 02:10:10There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims.I've seen a lot of people do that exact same thing when it comes to articles written by young Earth creationists. They repeat the claims without investigating whether the person who wrote the article understood what they were talking about. They are almost always rife with quote mining, straw-man attacks, arguments from consequences, ignorance of methodologies and a general misunderstanding of the issues. You have even admitted to not having a good understanding of the atomic nucleus and the experiments relevant to it, so your ability to recognize a bogus article that goes against experiment has already been compromised.You think that the vast majority of physicists out there are morons that don't know how to properly run their equipment or interpret their data. You think they are too stupid to consider solutions that you think are logical. Yet you consistently trust fringe explanations that have significantly less solidly verified data over what is done by actual professionals who have much more sophisticated and sensitive equipment. You seem to think that the only good reason why most physicists believe what they believe is "conspiracy", which is practically not an explanation at all.That being said, I give up. I cannot argue against someone with this kind of immobile mindset. I tried it against Thebox and consistently failed. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.
Dark matter
Quote from: mad aetherist on 01/03/2019 08:18:19Dark matterI thought you said dark matter was something invented by mainstream scientists to "prop up" relativity? Now you're speaking of it as if you too believe it's out there.
I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling. DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 01/03/2019 21:16:18I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling. DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation. Reality reckons differently. Almost all the confabulations you stung together there have already been refuted.