You will be presented theories and concepts that are consistent, invariable and logical and for the most part easy for a junior high school student to understand. Though the concepts will appear controversial it is my intention to follow the conclusions of early developments in science and the logic of one basic rule which has been largely ignored. The result is that much of what has been taught in high school and university will be challenged.
realscnc bookmarks
======================
web_3
Basic Forces - Attraction / repulsion; Expansion of a gas; Inertia of nucleus
provides stable anchor; Explanation of so called waves; Explanation of
magnetism,- repulsion only; Explanation of radiant energy; What it is; How
it is created.
web_4
Origin & evolution of the universe; Accumulation of space debris &
gasses; The displacement of electrons & radiation of energy;
Origin of the universe - alternative to the “big bang” ; The “big crunch”
web_5 The
effect of environment on the structure and functioning of the atom;
Scientific conclusions were based on incomplete information that
overlooked the effect of the repulsion of surrounding atoms; Confirms the
components of atom as being equal and opposite forces; Scientists have not
yet acknowledged their error.
web_6
Is a summary / rewording of much of other pages
web_7
Deals with inertia and how it provides the stability of orbit and properties
of electricity, conductivity, resistance, semi-conductivity, etc.
web_8 explains
mystery of solar flares, development of gravity, and source and explanation
of energy
web_9
provides explanation of expansion of the universe. It is not some Einstein’s
cosmological constant.
web_10
Planets orbiting other stars
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
This is an attempt to enumerate some of the factors overlooked or ignored in the formulation of what we know as modern science. It will be clear in pointing out these items that, in my opinion if they had been considered, they would have had an impact on the conclusions drawn.
1. The cave man was well aware that the distant body 'the Moon' was able to move the oceans. "Attraction at a distance"
2. For more than a century we have known that a surplus of electrons on an object can push electrons from a surface of another object separated by an insulator. "Repulsion at a distance"
3. There does not appear to be any other distinct identifiable force associated with the components of matter.
4. If the two forces are indeed basic and exclusive they should be equal.
5. The difficulty is that a bucket full or a wheelbarrow full of either component will not indicate the comparative size or force of the smallest unit.
6. We can evaluate the force of the electron but the measure of its size remains elusive. Although the force of attraction of the nucleus is equivalent to the force of repulsion of the electron the nucleus appears to be some 1800 greater mass. The nucleus would appear to be a structure consisting of (X+1) attractions and X number of repulsions.
7. We know that any force will decrease at the rate of 1/over the square of the distance from target.
8. We know that the law of inertia applies to all movement of material
9. We presume that the electron orbits the much heavier nucleus. The laws of inertia will have a very significant effect on the fast moving electron. The much heavier nucleus will experience very little change in movement "acceleration"
10. Two equal and opposite forces in proximity will have no net effect externally and, internally, the attraction of the nucleus will be offset by the repulsion of the electron.
11. The conclusion in '10' is noted in the behavior of nucleus and electron in a vacuum. They form a plasma.
12. There is no natural condition of vacuum on earth. All is surrounded by gasses, liquids and solids. The two basic components of matter "attraction" , "repulsion" are within each atom. 'Attraction' in the nucleus is at the center of the atom. 'Repulsion' in the electron orbits at a great distance around the exterior of the atom. Due to the significant distance difference the electrons of surrounding matter will repulse each other more than the nuclei will attract. " The expansion of a gas"
13. Where surrounding pressure restricts the expansion of the electron orbit the electron will move in an orbit around the nucleus and that is the "NATURAL" condition upon which science has based all its conclusions
14. The 'natural' condition of atoms does nothing to define the properties of matter and in fact has obscured the true properties. - 'attraction', 'repulsion'
15. The laws of inertia will have a great impact on the rapidly orbiting electron. -TOTALLY IGNORED BY SCIENCE.
The effect of inertia is important to understanding the stability of what we consider our material world. However it has even greater importance to the rapidly moving electron or orbiting satellite.
If the above basic properties and rules are applied it becomes necessary to question some very commonly held contemporary conclusions. The rest of this site will be devoted to expanding our understanding of natural phenomena and developing many new conclusions.
To reduce as much as possible the splitting of hairs on interpretations and due to the controversial nature of much of the discussion I think it useful to ask a few simple questions to give everyone an opportunity to stake out their position.
Are you satisfied with contemporary explanations of magnetism, electro-magnetic properties, electricity, energy, gravity, gas pressure, or the origin of the Universe?.
What is the least likely motion in nature?
Is it acceptable that basic laws of nature
may be flexible, may be excepted, or may be relative?
For the last question I will provide my own
immediate answer so that there may be no misunderstanding of where
we are headed.
When the Creator was contemplating this universe He realized that there was much to be done. However He did not want to be constantly bothered by details. So a model was devised that would not require his attention. He knew that it must be simple, with two only, clearly defined components and one consistent non flexible rule to govern. When you get there you have it!!
A great deal of particle and nuclear physics speculation relies on numerous
scholarly precedents. Do they quote these precedents to avoid
taking responsibility for subsequent conclusions? But has anyone
ever verified the previous conclusions? How can intelligent scientists
go on about magnetism without ever adequately explaining just what
it actually is? What is the association "electro-magnetic"? At the
very least it is a misleading misnomer. The two can be shown to be entirely
separate and distinct phenomena. How can scientists without embarrassment
accept three different explanations of light and related effects? On
what basis and on whose authority did scientists accept the agitation
of molecules as the source of gas pressure in a container? If the structure
and function of the components of the known universe are examined how
on this earth can anyone not see that the anti-matter hypothesis is
an impossibility? How can someone propose a neutron star or a black
hole without a full and clear understanding of gravity and energy? The
misdirection of the course of science is the result of some seemingly
minor careless conclusions.
Let us first examine some undisputed beliefs.
The structure of the atom was defined at about 1890 and we have
no reason to question that definition. The law of inertia is not
disputed. There are a number of experiments that show electrons repulsing
electrons. It is accepted without challenge that a force emanating
from a source will at a target, vary by the inverse of the square of the
distance to the target. There are a number of experiments that show
a fierce attraction of the components of the nucleus of the atom -
the protons. Unfortunately since experiments gave conflicting result
when trying to analyze properties of the components of atoms no firm
position was taken by scientists. The direction taken was an attempt
to deal with each finding in isolation. The result was " Positive or
Negative Charge" "Positive or Negative Ions" and "Positive and Negative
Terminals "on batteries to identify the direction of flow of electrons.
The confusion is the result of a very simple
but catastrophic error of omission of details of the experiment.
Our world is a zoo, a unique and very limited portrayal of the
universe. Unfortunately the attempt to draw valid conclusions from
an incomplete and unique situation would only produce confusing
theories tailored to each particular experiment rather than a common
theory.
Environment was left
out of the picture. The various results of experiments in different
environments was interpreted to indicate the variability, relativity
or uncertainty of laws of nature. Remember, there was to be no relativity.
Some very simple early experiments produced
varying results of pushing electrons through gases at reduced
pressure. The near vacuum of space is an important laboratory that
should have been included and the results interpreted.
If it is accepted that attraction is an inherent
property of the nucleus and repulsion an inherent property of the
electron and the two are exactly equal it will be clear that the
electron need not remain with the nucleus. That is probably why scientists
were reluctant to identify equal and opposite properties for the
nucleus and the electron and continue to this day looking for a
Unified Forces Theory.
However, our rule that states that the force
between two points will vary inversely with the square of the distance
between should tell us something. The electrons being in the shell
of the atom will always be closer to a target than the nucleus which
is near the centre of the atoms. The attraction of the nucleus will
therefore have less effect than the repulsion of the electron. This
points up another great failing of science. Nothing is too trivial and
unimportant to risk misinterpreting. Have you accepted the theory -
probably based on unsubstantiated speculation - that the agitation of
molecules is what creates the pressure of a gas in a container?. We have
just established a new logical theory that makes the agitated molecules
theory simplistic and childish.
Do you still think that modern science no
longer reaches conclusions based on co-incidental association,
incomplete information or misinterpretation of results? Or that
the mistaken conclusions that have resulted from such mistaken hypothesis
are immediately corrected as soon as more realistic information is
available?.
Think again, we have resolved the simple
gas pressure in a container issue. Now let us look at some of the other things
that scientists do not understand and some of the 'truisms' that
they would ask us to believe
2. Photons
3. Particle theory of light
4. Wave theory of light
5. Opposites attract - Likes repel
6. Rings of electrons determine properties of matter
7. Gravity
8. Magnetism
9. Black Holes
10. Big Bang Theory
11. Neutron Stars
12. Expectations from smashing of atoms
13. Unresolved - Unified Forces Theory
14. Relativity
15. Quantum electro-dynamics/mechanics
16. Mirror Universe
17. Environment
18. Topics indicated by reader response
19. The Science Hoax of the Twentieth Century.
20. New discoveries of planets orbiting stars.
The attribution of sources over a period of 57 years has been an impossible task. I do recall some interesting contributions but they were casual and incomplete. It seems that the major contributions were negative. Older cousins would concoct outrageous stories and insist that they were true. I learned at an early age to view with cynicism anything that seemed improbable and to look to my own logic for an answer. Although it is clear from the content of this web site that no one had yet assembled the complete picture I assure you that the individual thoughts have been considered by someone at some time. However, there was a major obstacle to completion of the theory and that obstacle has now been resolved.
Your comments are most welcome at realscnc@mnsi.net
Visitor #
Since January 1, 2000