Jurg,
You state "In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton."
Since I believe that the proton is composed of relativistic leptons and
leptons of EM fields (expressed as photons?), you have presented something
that will take me time to examine. I hope to do so - eventually.
Andrew
Just one thing:
I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is
neutral. If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with
the nuclear Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would
be one of our incompatible assumptions. However, I am
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew
Photons are the universal = most basic form of energy. With photons you
can transport energy over any distance. So here the equivalence relation
E = mc^2 is obvious. Same for the Pointing power vector for a radiation
field.
But if you write E = mc^2 and e.g. m is 4-He then the equation simply
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:17:01 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .
>
>
>J.W.
That was assumed anyway. I.e. the change in mass is where the energy comes
from. Are you saying that E=mc^2 is not the
total energy of
I think I have posted this before, but Einstein was also able to derive E=mc^2
without recourse to his theory of special relativity. Max Born presented
this alternate derivation in his book Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here
is the proof:
Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .
J.W.
On 25.04.2022 21:23, Robin wrote:
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and
explain to them why
Andrew,
I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that
most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics
based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
Jurg,
Thank you for the comments. It helps
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and
explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)
>Andrew,
>
>
>I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
Jurg,
Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
Comments below
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
> itself
Andrew,
I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of
the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no
clue of physics.
The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed
Jurg,
I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.
Andrew
_ _
If the 2.8328 fermi mentioned in the paper is multiplied by the inverse
of alpha, the fine structure constant (alpha =1/137.035999), then you
get the radius of Randell Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
the radius of
13 matches
Mail list logo
