I think I’ve figured out the source of the problem. It’s right here:
In my view, the correct way to write that sentence is as follows with my changes other than conjugations in bold:
**Modern science ** thinks the importance is simply to show that there is something horribly, horribly wrong with FranklinH’s understanding of the atom. Until FranklinH understands that, there can be no further progress in **his understanding of **the structure of the atom.QED.
Do you really know where the light comes from in a carbon arc lamp?
If you think it is from simple incandescent heating = like that found in an ordinary light bulb, look at these two charts of the spectra created by various types of lamps and by a carbon arc.
First, the carbon arc spectra compared to sunlight
http://www.jfe-tec.co.jp/en/tech-consul/img/weatherability/03_01_big.gif
What you notice is the extremely large amount of spectra in the UV wavelengths below 400nm. Now compare this against various other lamp types, but pay close attention to the graph of the incandescent tungsten lamp:
http://www.microimage.com.cn/bbs/attachment/28_1956_248c20842a4af3c.jpg
What you see is that an incandescent light source produces a smooth curve starting out with almost nothing below 400nm and gradually working its way up the spectrum.
This is totally different than the spectrum generated by a carbon arc. So if you think that the light produced is due to simple incandescence, I don’t think the evidence would back you up. But if it isn’t incandescence, then what is it?
I have already replied as to why I am not fried by this experiment, however, what I would ask you is “How do you know what the expected energy output is going to be?”
Any formula for how the combination would go would be very speculative and very hard to say for certain that there is a frying amount of energy present or expected.
As I have suggested in a previous post, I don’t think the mechanism is due to the collision of specific atoms producing specific products plus energy as has been suggested by other posters. The atoms become a “soup” in an energetic environment and this soup re-condenses into whatever atoms are energetically favorable at the time. All the recognizable proton/neutrons and electrons could all find new homes in newly created atoms with no actual conversion of any of the particles into matter.
Then we would only be dealing with the much smaller binding energy differences due to mass defect. So when an iron atom forms from cold fusion processes, it just grabs all the pieces it needs out of the soup and reassembles as an iron atom. There is no need to balance any nucleon equations or force the conversion of any of these nucleons to energy.
The question is not “why am I not fried”, but if iron was genuinely created from carbon and oxygen, what is the new mechanism that can be suggested to explain why so little energy is liberated in the process.
I suggest this “soup” approach as being the fundamental difference between “cold” fusion and “hot” fusion. Since I believe that the atom is held together only by ordinary electrostatic forces, those forces can be disturbed by electric currents which allow atoms to easily transmutate. Since ground state atoms are neutrally charged, they can be easily combined.
On the other hand, in hot fusion, we have atoms which have most of their electrons stripped off (by the heat). In this highly ionized environment, all of the atoms naturally repel each other and it takes a lot more energy to combine them using kinetic collision energy. Therefore it is much more difficult to do hot fusion and since we are colliding specific nuclei and you must have a specific mass and energy balance.
Now it is also interesting that in conventional nucleosynthesis through hot fusion:
It is mentioned that carbon and oxygen are also said to be the primary precursor atoms, perhaps for the same reason why carbon and oxygen are precursor atoms in cold fusion processes.
Nice, notice the complete and utter lack of any scientific content or argument in this reply. Sounds a bit like the Peanut’s cartoon I mentioned in my other post. Remember, bald faced insults are not scientific arguments. Funny, but not really furthering the purpose of science.
Neither does your lack of quantitative analyses … let’s see your math here please.
You can drop the control when its not a very good control.
See, when he burns the black stuff inside the pencil, he is burning away carbon…
leaving an ash. This has the effect of concentrating the iron.
Its this concentration that means the material fails the ‘magnetic’ test before the material is cooked, and passes the same test after its cooked…
A better control is to have the concentrated ash from the pencils core , with the carbon removed by some non-fusion process (or the raw ingredient obtained before its mixed with graphite) vs the same ash cooked in the presence of carbon (as the carbon burns off … unless it transmutes into iron.)
Or , go and buy a range of softness’ of graphite pencils, and test them…
Because I believe that someone found the softest ones to be magnetic, and someone else finds hard ones to be not - its just the concentration of iron in them that matters. Not all soft pencils will be magnetic, but all the hard ones won’t be. That is because some clay has a lot of iron in it, and some of the soft pencils will use the high iron clay…
Yes we do.
No we don’t think that.
Correct. This is a black body spectrum. It is precisely predicted by quantum theory. The precise shape, the location of the peak, everything. Does your theory predict this?
Nobody here said it was incandescence. Nobody.
The answer is that it is the emission spectra characteristic of a carbon plasma. And, guess what? There is no mystery at all. Quantum electrodynamics predicts the exact form of the spectrum and the precise wavelength of every one of those peaks.
In order for anyone to take you seriously you need to come up with theory which does minimally the same.
So here is the challenge. Show us how your theory gets the same values for those peaks as the existing science does.
Here you go with your “perhaps” again. The wikipedia article is not the sum total of the known science. It is a gentle overview for people who have never heard about the subject. Making a comment like that suggests you actually never got what core points about nucleogenesis. In particular how it predicts the observed abundances of elements. It also tells us how oxygen and carbon come into existence. Again, to be taken even a tiny bit seriously you need to explain how your theory accounts for not just the fact of nucleogenesis, but show how it predicts (numerically) the relative abundances.
Yes–does anyone remember the pithy (as usual) Feynman restatement of that?
I suspect you mean this gem by Wolfgang Pauli: Not even wrong - Wikipedia
I think you might have that the wrong way around - ‘Hard’(H) and ‘Black’(B) are the measuring standards for graphite pencils - with HB in the middle, the softer, blacker ones have more graphite - the harder ones have less graphite, more clay.
I find it amazing that you think there’s a mystery here. There really isn’t, but you need a mystery to provide the gap for your hypothesis.
Five minutes on Google will tell you the answer - and you’re right that it’s not just incandescence (good of you to debunk an assertion nobody made though).
That’s a good one I indeed, but isn’t what I was thinking of, nor is it the best relative to what is proposed and defended by FranklinH in this thread and what has been educed by his many reponders.
In looking for what I wanted, I did find this from Feynman, admittedly less pithy but equally apposite. The first graf prompted, and of course is cited and reprinted, in a Wiki entry “cargo cult science,” a term apparently ascribed to him from this passage (which I tend to doubt); the remainder is taken from a different wiki citation of Feynman. The whole shebang is excerpted from Surely, You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman; the original statement–I do not know how the printed version differs from the original–is from his 1974 CalTech commencement address:
In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land…
There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. … It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
I wonder how the electrochemistry of our retinas could be brought in as evidence one way or another, even stupidly, or, given GQ-pleasantly hypothetical goofball standards, necessarily stupidly, to advance the FranklinH nucleogenesis theory.
Conversely (maybe it’s not the converse), I wonder what one of the many paths terrestrial evolution would have taken under a suitably energetic carbon-arc lamp 93-million miles away.
Show me a reference for QED where a calculation is done which predicts the wavelengths and intensity of the spectra for carbon. I dare you to try to find that.
Presuming we look at the discrete spectral lines of carbon, they look nothing like the near continuous spectra emitted by a carbon arc lamp. Something else is going on.
I actually do have answers to these questions. A neutron is simply a positron and electron dipole particle. This is very different from hydrogen which consists of a “proton” and an electron. I have written a new paper which explains the what protons and neutrons are made out of and the role that neutrons play in gluing together the protons in an atom:
This is a more detailed extension of my Cubic Atomic Model.
As for radioactive nuclei, how exactly does the current model explain that? From my model’s perspective, the atom is built out on an octahedral shape with 4 extensions that look like an X. Since this is only built out of electrostatic forces, as the atom gets bigger, it naturally becomes flimsier as the extensions get longer. If they get too long, they can break off. Since the atom is basically made out of clusters of alpha particles, that is what we predominantly see in decay products.
This also answers the question about why the universe just doesn’t form into one big atom. There is a definite limit to how big an atom will form before it spontaneously starts falling apart just due to geometric structural weakness. It also takes a great deal of energy and fortunate happenstance to get that many particles to stick together. Atoms also don’t transmute spontaneously into heavier atoms. Once an atom like carbon forms, it likes to stay that way. Cold fusion shows that transmutation can happen at fairly low energies, but still requires a substantial energy input which is normally not present.
Now it is true, that if the Cubic atomic model is correct, that you would have to pretty much toss out about 100 years of atomic physics. But is this really a bad thing? Would you rather wallow in another 1000 years of heading in the wrong path? This is like discovering that the Earth really isn’t at the center of the universe and you can move on to do real astronomy.
So what if we find out that the strong force and the nucleus really didn’t exist? That’s very embarrassing, but you have to consider that mainstream science couldn’t explain how the strong force worked. Why? Because it is wrong. Why are the liquid drop and shell models required to explain current atomic physics but are mutually incompatible? Because they’re wrong. I don’t think it will be a matter that we go from understanding lots to understanding nothing, rather we will take what we know and be able to finally explain them in a simpler and more consistent manner with less magic and less “shut up and calculate”. It’ll be like, OH! that’s how it really works! That’s so simple!
I think people would be excited at the prospect of a whole new set of physics to play with that sweeps away 100 years of misconceptions and wrong turns. That’s what keeps me excited. But if you would rather keep on your current, go nowhere, learn nothing, explain nothing path, playing with epicycles then so be it.
FranklinH, the current “standard model” has evolved over 100s of years from hundreds of thousands of repeatable experiments performed by millions of scientists.
Where are your thousands of experiments and observed data that you have used to form your cubic model? What specific things do you believe that your model explains that the standard model doesn’t? (I mean in addition to your arc pencil lead experiment).
Seriously, if you don’t know something as simple as that, it isn’t clear that the conversation is useful. QCD explains quite solidly the mechanisms. Where things get messy is that actual calculation is horrendous, largely because of the nature of the colour force. The lattice gauge QCD guys run very large calculations that provide some predictions, but the computational complexity and difficultly with numerical stability make things hard.
As to the carbon arc, this paper for one derives the energy levels of carbon from theory. The arc is of course a mess of spectra, in addition to the emission lines there will be a constant flux from black body radiation, adsorption lines, and lines from other contaminating elements present in the arc. Expect oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and probably copper, sodium and a few others.
This paperprovides some perspective as the the accuracy of prediction of modern theory. You need to show that your model is able to achieve the same level of precision for the same set of experiments.
How does your model explain electromagnetism? … no offense but this paper seems to rely on the “action from a distance” theory of force and that’s been pretty much falsified AFAIK
What’s wrong with playing with epicycles?
It seems clear from the exchange (not all of which I have read) that the reason he is not dead is that no energy is being released from his “cold fusion” and therefore special relativity is wrong. If true, then that cold fusion is useless anyway.
Think outside the box … straw into gold … that’s useful …
Redaction mine.
Thank You, VERY much!