In the last 20 years I kept asking Physicists about this Planck constant

h. Their answer was that it was OK as it resolves the curb fitting problem

of the black body radiation. I asked them if it was the issue with the em

radiation theory or the problem with the black body. It was Prof. Dr.

Suntora of Helsinki Technical University, at the International Seminar on

the Structure of Cosmology held at Helsinki in 2010, who told me that it

was the problem with the black body itself.

I wonder why Physicists were wrong for more than a century on this issue.

To be fair, I must say that Planck was correct. He said that e=hf is just

a inscrutable mathematical convention to make up the discrepancy between

the prediction of em theory on the black body and the experimental result.

I will make it more pointed. It was not the problem with Maxwell's em

field theory. It was the problem with the em theoretic model of the black

body which was wrong. Most likely, for theoretical physicists this

difference is too subtle to even ask.

I am quite convinced that Physics community take this problem more

seriously and reflect on what went wrong at the most fundamental level

with their grandest theory of Quantum Mechanics which they called the

"Final Theory".

It was Wheeler who said that QM is not to understand but to calculate.

There was a promising young PhD student of him who all of a sudden

disappeared and never came back to Physics. When people asked Wheeler

about him, Wheeler replied "He made a mistake. He tried to understand

Quantum Mechanics".

I tend to put blame on the so called empiricism which was targeted as

anti-Physics by Newton 350 years ago. Under the severe pressure from

Freemasons, Newton's view was suppressed and empirical science emerged as

the new science for Freemasonic world which took over Christian world. As

I pointed out, Newton was a theologian of Orthodox Christianity.

Empiricists tend to focus on each problem which appears around us and they

do not have enough training to connect these empirical results to form a

coherent view which requires logic and which is against empiricist way of

thinking. This is why they failed to listen to the complaint of Planck and

went on to glorify e=hf as the victory of empiricism. Any who questioned

were eliminated as those who questioned the Vatican were in the middle

age.

We can see the vicious masonic pressure upon Newton in the glorification

of Galileo who basically did almost nothing. He was a "masonic

revolutionary" who served the purpose of Freemasons and the Jesuit of that

time. We have been told that Galileo was the freedom fighter who freed us

humanity from the repression of Christian Churches by presenting the

revolutionary "correct" view of the universe. There is no mention of

Newton in this Masonic propaganda which mislead physics for 5 centuries.

Objectively Galileo was absolutely nothing compared with Issac Newton.

Certainly, Freemasons at Cambridge proclaims that Newton was a reactionary

who confronted with empiricists. Einstein was embraced by Freemasons

because he "established" that Galileo's relativity cosmology with some

correction was the true cosmology which is anti Juda-Christian cosmology.

Going back to where I started, let me point it out again. hf=e deployed in

the relativistic theory causes the a mathematical contradiction 0/0=hf.

All physicists of the last century ignored this fatal error and here we

are. I was called "lunatic fringe" and faced systematic attack by the

mainstream including personal threat in the last 2 decades just because I

questioned.

AkiraVictor, a lesson we have to learn is that when a convention (hypothesis)apparently resolves a difficulty we must not take is as a solution to

theproblem. In wider context, such "solution" may well cause seriousproblems. Of course, we logicians all know very well about this. Local

solutions could well be a global catastrophe. To be fair to Planck, I

mustrepeat that Planck was not terribly happy with that his "embarrassing"convention was taken too seriously by Einstein and his followers to

buildQuantum Mechanics. Einstein was a pioneer who took a huge risk andfailed.I accept that and I respect his courage to take risk. But what about therest of Physics community. They are all habitual liars, coward followers

who persecuted those who questioned. Yes they are scientific mobs!

AkiraDear prof. KandaWith regards to alternative derivation of blackbody radiation, pls check:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.0715.pdfVictor Christianto*Founder and Technical Director, www.ketindo.comE-learning and consulting services in renewable energy**Founder of Second Coming Institute, www.sci4God.comHttp://www.facebook.com/vchristiantoTwitter: @Christianto2013Phone: (62) 812-30663059***Papers and books can be found at:http://www.unesco.chair.network.uevora.pt/media/kunena/attachments/731/ChristologyReloaded_Aug2016.pdfhttp://nulisbuku.com/books/view_book/9035/sangkakala-sudah-ditiup

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/APS-Abstracts/APS-Abstracts-list.htmhttp://independent.academia.edu/VChristiantoHttp://researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Christianto/Http://id.linkedin.com/pub/victor-christianto/b/115/167http://www.amazon.com/Victor-Christianto/e/B00AZEDP4EHttp://gospel.16mb.comhttp://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Evangelism-Difficult-ebook/dp/B00AZDJCLAhttp://www.kenosis4mission.tkhttp://www.twelvegates.tkOn Mar 13, 2017, at 14:40, "Akira Kanda" <kanda@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:quantum mechanics. The concept of energy in classical physics isAfter all, we do not need to get into things like relativity theory or

invalid.ofIt violated the conservation of energy. mv^2/2 is the kinetic energymvonly if m is accelerated from 0 to v under constant acceleration. This isAswhy Newton never used the concept of energy though he used momentum.ITheoretical physicists are all morons who take themselves toosaid, Newton was a great improvement to all of his successors.seriously.AkiraWoe!Did de Broglie say that?! His wave can move faster than c! What kind ofopportunists are these people. What kind of fools are the audience. Alltheyphysicists do is either get back up by free masons and lie what everwant to lie or just lick the boots of those who lie with the backed byfree masons.violatesAs I said many times, it also is the problem that Doppler effectlick9ingthe energy conservation law. Physicists are all too busy withthehonestyboots of big names and they have neither brain or intellectualtosay what has to be said.What a filth we are soaked into!AkiraDear Victor,introduceThere are also other similar papers; but at their beginning theywave properties to the particle studied by hands.psi-function to two factors (the de-Broglie-Bohm wave pilot), whichIn the paper that your quote they use the separation of the wave

latersince 1952 de Broglie did not consider seriously. He noted that such aHencetheory is developed in a phase space but not in the real space.thetheory cannot allow any real trajectory for the particle inprinciple.VolodymyrOn 12 марта 2017, at 17:57, Victor Christianto wrote:Dear VolodymyrI do not argue that UP is the beginning of all confusions.mechanicsBut just to remark that it seems possible to conceive wavewithout probabilistic interpretation:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.4247v3.pdfYours,Victor Christianto*Founder and Technical Director, www.ketindo.comE-learning and consulting services in renewable energy**Founder of Second Coming Institute, www.sci4God.comHttp://www.facebook.com/vchristiantoTwitter: @Christianto2013Phone: (62) 812-30663059***Papers and books can be found at:http://www.unesco.chair.network.uevora.pt/media/kunena/attachments/731/ChristologyReloaded_Aug2016.pdfhttp://nulisbuku.com/books/view_book/9035/sangkakala-sudah-ditiup

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/APS-Abstracts/APS-Abstracts-list.htm

http://independent.academia.edu/VChristiantoHttp://researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Christianto/Http://id.linkedin.com/pub/victor-christianto/b/115/167http://www.amazon.com/Victor-Christianto/e/B00AZEDP4EHttp://gospel.16mb.comhttp://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Evangelism-Difficult-ebook/dp/B00AZDJCLAhttp://www.kenosis4mission.tkhttp://www.twelvegates.tkOn Mar 12, 2017, at 17:57, Volodymyr Krasnoholovets<vk@indra-scientific.com> wrote:Dear Akira,demonstration of pure wave effects.You are completely right talking bout uncertainty principle as theIn the book below ---l'InterprétationLouis de Broglie, Les Incertitudes d'Heisenberg et(1982); English translation: Heisenberg's Uncertainty RelationsProbabiliste de la Mécanique Ondulatoire, Gauthier-Villars, Paris

andtheProbabilistic Interpretation of Wave Mechanics with Critical Notes ofthe Author, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (1990). Muscoviantranslation: Mir, Mowsow, (1986).strictly supported the idea that any uncertainly is associated--- de Broglie showed how uncertainties appear from waves. He also

onlywith waves.Wave and particle cannot be identified in one object of course. In mywavesapproach I show how all this look like - there is something fromsystemand something from pure classical mechanics. But in general theprinciples.{particle + its cloud of spatial excitations} behaves on its ownBy the way, it seems I am the first who demonstrate that the value ofperiodicallymass of a particle is not a stable parameter; the massBrogliechanges to a tension. In each section equal to the particles 's"\xi", then again the tension "\xi" to the mass "m" and so on. Thewavelength "lambda", the particle mass "m" changes to the tension

masssection of "lambda" and the tension "\xi" appears in the particle.is a volumetric fractality, which is gradually decomposes in the

So, such a motion allows one to consider microscopic phenomena in

deeper details than QM does.GeneralWhen we derive gravity in this approach, we do not meet anystandingRelativity at all. But we derive the Newton law 1/r as theobject. The inerton gas appears due to the overlapping of inertonwave of inerton gas that is found in the interior of the massive

clouds of all the entities that form the object (a stone, a

planet,astar, etc.).The same for the electric charge: the electric charge changes to themagnetic monopole, then the magnetic monopole changes to the electriccharge and so on (the particle's de Broglie wavelength "lambda" is aThe charge is the structure of the surface; for example, asection in which "e" changes to "g", then again "g" to "e", ...)

chestnutisthe typical positive charge.spikesThe magnetic monopole is a combed chestnut (in the chestnut allare combed).surface) and spikes inward (on the bottom surface).The photon is a cell of space that has spike outward (on the upperThe photon jumps from cell to cell such that the state of an oncomingcell gradually changes.appropriate cell becomes combed, which means that the electricAfter passing the section of "lambda", this structure on the

statechanged to the magnetic state.magnetic state again changes to the electric state.After passing in the same manner the next section of "lambda", theThe Maxwell equations describe this motion.This is in short I have presented you the major ideas developed in myforthcoming book.Best wishes,Volodymyrcorrespondences on my applied physics and technological projects)P.S. I use this business e-mail of mine (typically I use it for

because both the Institute's and the http://mail2web.com servers

donot function properly.On 11 марта 2017, at 16:28, Akira Kanda wrote:Voldymyr and Mihai,problemMaking the theory deterministic is not sufficient to avoid theofUncertainty Principle. This is because Schrodinger's wave mechanicsisnotambiguitydealing with any probability at all. He is talking about thewaves!inherent in any measurement on waves. It is strictly the issue ofOnly von Neuman who had no idea on what physics is aboutintroducedUPasthe problem of probability.itself.The wave uncetainty of wave mechanics is not a contradiction byAkiraThe problem creeps in just because we identify wave and particle.Dear Volodymyr,Before we read the book, can you explain maybe some aspects ofQUESTION: I am sure that you have done a very nice theory.

the theory? For example, is your theory determinist? ANSWER:

The theory is 100% deterministic, Poincarefundamentalemphasisedsed the necessity of determinism for the mosttheory.What is interesting is that at the same time he pointed out that aessentialdeterministic theory faces the situation where the issue isnon-deterministic. For example when an object is at unstable saddlepoint,which way it will go is not deterministic.completeBut I am sure that Poincre meant that there is such thing astheory!QUESTION: If so, why do you need the wave function? Or you recallfunction indeed an approximation of your determinist theory?the wave function only in order to show why is the wave

ANSWER: As mathematicians say, we have to reduce the problem to

theprevious one.realThe point is that in the theory for the first one the notion ofphysical space is done and moreover itPhysicalhas been derived from a pure mathematical theory of space.spaceappears as a mathematicalballlattice of tightly ordered topological balls. So, a topologicalisasuperparticle from each anyelementary material particle may appear (i.e. leptons and quarks)-electron, muon, tau lepton, then themassfamily of quarks: quark u, quark d, etc. The physical notion ofisassociated with the mathematicalMoreover,notion of a local deformation, i.e. deformation of a cell.ithasbeen shown that thedeformation must be a volumetric fractal deformation. Then a ratiooftheinitial volume of a degeneratecell to its new appeared volume is named the mass.How can this leads to action reaction law? Newton struggled to nailonmathematically and logically. It appears that the only ttruelywhat is force and what is mass. It is an interesting question

groundedDynamicstheory in Newton's world is kinematics. It is pure mathematics.satisfactory physical model (ontology).is an axiomatic theory and as Newton himself admitted, it has noI will go back to the rest in the forth coming post.AkiraPS: BTW, how is your work related to the vortex theory?A lepton is a realmassive particle. A quark has aninverse mass: the volume of the appropriate cell is large than theinitialvolume of the degenerate cellunder consideration. Such a local d

## Tidak ada komentar:

## Poskan Komentar