Producing Planck's constant in a multitude of ways using basic algebra, explaining why the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency from a classical framework, producing the photo electric effect without Planck, producing the orbital radii of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen without Planck, producing the probability of transition / intensity of spectral emission without Planck... And calculating the Compton frequency / wavelength of the electron, giving new insight into the fine structure constant. These are the basic aspects of quantum mechanics, and we are doing it without Planck's constant (which is hitherto unheard of). That's not enough beef for you?
I'm guessing you must be vegetarian. Feynman would have have been intrigued, at the least. And the fact stands that the world of physics academia is ruled by M-theorists who have produced far less predictions, and with far less evidence, and far more complicated math, shedding far less insight on the cold-case quantum mysteries that have been forgotten and shelved since the primary instigators of quantum mechanics died off without adequate answers. J.B.S. Haldane on the "four stages of acceptance", Journal of Genetics, vol. 58 (1963): 1) This is worthless nonsense; 2) This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; 3) This is true, but quite unimportant; 4) I always said so. Peace. On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* seattle truth > > > > Ø I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense… But your > criticism that speaking of the speed of transition as a speed is ridiculous > is unfounded. > > > > Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of > transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically > that the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially > not to LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see. > > > > Can you step out on a limb and make any prediction based on it? > > > > BTW – I do admire what you have put together in terms of fine videos which > can explain clearly many aspects of physics to a broad audience, most of > which is based on a litany of the Great Men of science. Good work there, but > when it comes to tying all that back to Frank’s hypothesis, “where’s the > beef?” > > > > Sorry, but I must admit that I do not see anything of value in > megahertz-meter, and would normally be content to remain silent on that > issue, except that at some point – “silence” implies consent, and tends to > reflect poorly on all of us who post here – some of whom may not see it as > much more than fluff. And it is not that I haven’t tried, over the years. > > > > Jones >
