Ultimele subiecte
» Teste de matematică altfel decât la școala primară , gimnaziu , liceu și facultate.
Scris de Dacu Astazi la 17:29

» Ubuntu: caracteristica oamenilor sănătoşi mintal
Scris de virgil_48 Ieri la 21:23

» Regulamentul forumului
Scris de Forever_Man Ieri la 20:14

» Mesaj din 1940
Scris de curiosul Ieri la 19:35

» O exceptionala problema inca nerezolvata
Scris de curiosul Ieri la 18:59

» Stiinta si Pseudostiinta
Scris de Vizitator Joi 05 Dec 2019, 22:28

» Ce este un foton ?
Scris de virgil Joi 05 Dec 2019, 21:14

» Piramida Keops; semnificatii tehnice ascunse
Scris de Dacu Joi 05 Dec 2019, 18:45

» Legi de conservare (2)
Scris de Vizitator Joi 05 Dec 2019, 17:50

» În ce tip de dovezi aveţi încredere deplină?
Scris de Dacu Joi 05 Dec 2019, 11:21

» Așa zisele teste "PISA - Program for the international students assessement"
Scris de Dacu Joi 05 Dec 2019, 08:46

» Forma actualizată a Regulamentului
Scris de Abel Cavaşi Mier 04 Dec 2019, 22:39

» Constanța legilor fizice
Scris de Dacu Mier 04 Dec 2019, 17:10

» Ce este FOIP?
Scris de virgil_48 Lun 02 Dec 2019, 21:34

» Despre "Proiecția cilindro-conică" propusă de utilizatorul "mm"
Scris de Dacu Lun 02 Dec 2019, 09:05

» Test pentru inginerii constructori
Scris de Dacu Lun 02 Dec 2019, 08:51

» LA MULTI ANI!
Scris de virgil Dum 01 Dec 2019, 20:27

» Despre ceva.
Scris de curiosul Dum 01 Dec 2019, 14:46

» Eterul, eterul
Scris de mm Sam 30 Noi 2019, 21:13

» Așa zisa "Noua idee de structurare a matematicii" a utilizatorului "negativ"
Scris de Dacu Sam 30 Noi 2019, 13:55

» Aria cercului şi altele...
Scris de Dacu Joi 28 Noi 2019, 08:38

» Despre dimensiuni
Scris de Dacu Mier 27 Noi 2019, 17:33

» Mishin, forumist
Scris de mm Mar 26 Noi 2019, 14:20

» Konstanta si Variabila lui nea Planck
Scris de gafiteanu Mar 26 Noi 2019, 04:56

» Prabusirea celor trei cladiri din WTC
Scris de curiosul Lun 25 Noi 2019, 19:38

» Lucrul mecanic - definitie si exemple (Secţiunea 2)
Scris de virgil_48 Lun 25 Noi 2019, 17:33

» Mitologia Română
Scris de negativ Lun 25 Noi 2019, 15:33

» Manipularea de la A la Z
Scris de virgil_48 Dum 24 Noi 2019, 07:16

» Marea teorema a lui Fermat.
Scris de Dacu Joi 21 Noi 2019, 08:47

» Carti sau documente de care avem nevoie
Scris de eugen Joi 14 Noi 2019, 12:37

Top postatori
virgil (9646)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
CAdi (8042)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
virgil_48 (7065)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi (7007)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu (6701)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Razvan (5725)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Pacalici (5571)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
curiosul (5547)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
scanteitudorel (4730)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
negativ (3037)
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 

Cei care creeaza cel mai des subiecte noi
Pacalici
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
curiosul
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
CAdi
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Dacu
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Razvan
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
meteor
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
scanteitudorel
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
virgil
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 

Cei mai activi postatori ai lunii
Dacu
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
virgil_48
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Forever_Man
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
virgil
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
mm
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
curiosul
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
negativ
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Bordan
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 

Cei mai activi postatori ai saptamanii
Dacu
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Forever_Man
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
virgil_48
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
virgil
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
Abel Cavaşi
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
gafiteanu
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
mm
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
curiosul
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 
negativ
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_lcapBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Voting_barBadea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Vote_rcap 

Flux RSS


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Spune şi altora
Cine este conectat?
In total sunt 6 utilizatori conectati: 1 Inregistrati, 0 Invizibil si 5 Vizitatori :: 1 Motor de cautare

virgil_48

Recordul de utilizatori conectati a fost de 49, Dum 20 Mar 2011, 14:29

Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr

In jos

Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Empty Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Lun 17 Noi 2008, 19:14

Ar fi fost de preferat ca mesajele mele sa fie incluse la subiecte stiintifice si nu aici, poti inca face the switch.

Ia sa vedem...adevarul despre smecheria inimaginabila folosita de cei doi membrii ai London Royal Society pentru a ne duce de nas cu un model planetar atomic, absolut fals.

Cartea senzationala Case against the Nuclear Atom de Dewey B. Larson:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

Arata cum a E. Rutherford (rosicrucian, membru London Royal Society) a introdus in mod fals si eronat conceptul de atom nuclear.

Cele trei supersite-uri care includ informatiile senzationale despre erorile comise de E. Rutherford si N. Bohr:

http://www.geocities.com/longhairedbastard/chv7_4.htm

http://www.geocities.com/longhairedbastard/chv7_5.htm

http://www.geocities.com/longhairedbastard/chv7_3.htm

Photon theory or 'Particle Physics' cannot adequately explain how light is transmitted; why solid materials are transparent, translucent or opaque. The principal traits, predictions and observational evidence displayed when real particles and molecules are physically involved in motion are not observed in the magnetic spectrum, in light, or in energy in Nature. Although light travels in straight lines, particle physics is subject to Coriolis forces in the rotating 3-D Universe. Particle Physics cannot explain spectra, colour and polarization; diffraction, refraction or reflection; interference, SSB and radio communications. Particle Physics loses all credibility when other types of energy are considered because all the equations involve abstractions and two-dimensional-linear-physics. This is in a three-dimensional Universe where everything has rotational energy. Particle Physics cannot explain the transfer of mechanical energy through a lever, shovel or rake, or in a body exhibiting rotation, let alone the magnetic, electric and gravitational fields. Then there are chemical and nuclear energies to consider. When light and magnetic radiation are contemplated verbose discussions and poor analogies treat each separately because the concept of light being a pure photon fails, especially when one considers radio propagation and the properties of the types of transmissions at every frequency. This act of misleading and deceptive advertising is completed when Particle Physics maintains that light is both a particle and a wave, at the same time, yet the important equations used throughout Optics today were conceived by Huygens, Snell, Maxwell, Hertz, and Marconi using the debunked Æther theory; concepts, which are still applicable and have not been replaced by anything better. The electromagnetic vector model of magnetic radiation is also doomed to failure. So, a completely new theory must encompass all, and replace everything.

The photon may be the Aether itself but in a different form.

A New Model of the Atom:



In aether theory, elementary particles are considered vortices. The electron is considered to be either a toroidal vortex (a theory I favor) or a spherical vortex. The proton and neutron are considered to be compound vortices composed of electron and positron vortices. The vortex circulation creates a void core which reduces aetheric pressure to a null state and produces an inward-directed aetheric static pressure from ambient space which gives us gravitational and inertial force. The dynamic rotation of the toroid produces an outward-directed dynamic pressure which gives us the electric field while the circulation of the toroid produces an axial magnetic field. This is a simplified version of a model which we will use to visualize field propulsion in a saucer-shaped craft that utilizes this knowledge to produce a gravitationally-repulsive force for propulsion.

Electron Ring Vortex Model: In 1897, the English physicist J.J. Thomson discovered the electron and proposed a model for the structure of the atom. Thomson knew that electrons had a negative charge and thought that matter must have a positive charge. His model looked like raisins stuck on the surface of a lump of pudding. Rutherford thought that the negative electrons orbited a positive center in a manner like the solar system where the planets orbit the sun. Bohr came up with the first non-classical description of the electron in order to explain why electrons do not lose energy and spiral into the nucleus of the atom. Schrödinger pictured the electron as a standing wave. Physicist Max Born turned the electron into a cloud of probability. Modern quantum theory treats the electron as a point-particle with no specific structure or extension in space. The many versions of the new String theories treat the electron as an extended 1-dimensional string or loop, and some variations treat it as a 2-dimesional structure including a ring-like vortex structure. Lord Kelvin was the first to propose a vortex ring as a model for the electron. This seems to be undergoing a revival in new proposals in string theory, now known as M-Theory.

“A long time ago, Lord Kelvin (W. Thompson), Lorentz, Maxwell, and Hemholtz recognized that the behavior of matter had characteristics similar to vortex ring structures in a fluid (the atomic vortex hypothesis). This concept was abandoned in the early 1900's. This abandonment was more philosophical than substantive with the real problem being the math describing the model was, 'at the time', intractable. Must more success was being obtained by QM methods. This same model rears up again in modern physics in the form of the mathematical topology of string/super string theory as well as in superconductivity and superfluidity. Penrose's twistor is a vortex ring, as is a magnetic field. It is interesting to note that vortex rings can sustain transverse vibrations (analogous to guitar string vibration), indeed Kelvin proved mathematically that linear disturbances in a saturated 3D vortex fluid (he termed a vortex sponge) would produce propagation of pure transverse waves identical to the equations and properties that describe the propagation of light through space. It was this relationship as well as many others that caused this hypothesis to be considered seriously. It also is interesting to note that Maxwell used this conceptual model as the basis for his derivation of the EM relationships.”

By the early 1930s, the collective works of J.J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, and James Chadwick had established the solar system-like atomic model…’ This is false because the ‘fuzzy’ Schroedinger-Heisenberg-Born picture of atomic orbitals as probability waves (in which the probability of finding the electron is proportional to the square of the wavefunction) had been established by the end of the 1920s, so the earlier solar-system-like atomic model was obsolete by the 1930s rather than established. Moreover, all the people named by Brian were not working in collaboration. This is crucially important because science doesn’t necessarily emerge from collaboration, it isn’t a cosy tea-party. J.J. Thomson’s measured the mass to charge ratio for the electron (predicted by Maxwell in the 3rd edition of his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, which J.J. Thomson edited for publication), but his plum pudding atom theory opposed Rutherford’s solar system model. Thomson pointed out that Rutherford’s model with all the positive charge in a central core would mean that coulomb repulsion would explode the nucleus! You then have to invent nuclear forces to get around that problem, which although correct, to Thomson was like adding epicycles.

The involvement of Rutherford:

Around 1911, Rutherford carried out an experiment where he assumed far too much about matter without the necessary tools or equipment to substantiate his notions and beliefs. His research based on observational illusions and the chemical model introduced by Davy around 1810. At the time, Rutherford knew very little about the nature of metals, or the properties of atoms, so he drew his conclusions based on the accepted electro-chemical theory, observations, and here again, observational illusions distracted Rutherford from making the correct conclusions. As the next several Chapters explain, in the explorative research stage, with a high probability of error, Rutherford drew three conclusions far too early, which he promoted as true. Owing to his flawed experimental design, his analysis and research conclusions produced an atomic model that failed to explain Nature's Chemistry. With scientific acceptance coming through the backdoor, 'Since Rutherford shattered the atom which Chemistry states as indivisible, then his atomic model must be true.' As a junction point, the acceptance and promotion of Bohr's atomic model by Rutherford, introduced many scientific mysteries. So poor the Rutherford concept in explanation, Chemistry maintained the 1806 atomic model introduced by Dalton, because many crystal and molecular structures defined chemical precision, described and explained by chemical alignment, bond position, bond-length, bond strength and structure, all of which instantly became scientific mysteries.

http://www.geocities.com/longhairedbastard/chv7_3.htm

When Rutherford proposed his atomic model, he used a Gold-leaf electroscope to measure the strength of the alpha-particle radiation passing through the metal foil. Rutherford's lack on knowledge about matter and the primitive technology of the time, caused him to wrongfully conclude the atom as being 99.9999% empty space. Many years later, the differences between metallic bonds and normal chemical bonds were identified. Unfortunately, Science turned a blind-eye to the fact that the electron cloud atomic models are wrong.

In 1913, there was no knowledge of microwaves, single side band transmissions, frequency modulation, nor was there any knowledge of radio astronomy, and very little known of frequencies above ultra-violet or below infrared. It is accepted as fact that 'all the theories in Physics have limitation that breakdown and that these theories become less accurate as the speed is made to approach the speed of light'. Without any rules to guide him, without following the scientific method, Bohr suggested a radical hypothesis. He quantised mass, energy and the orbital parameters, including the speed of the electron in orbit, at a quantised orbital height, that excited Rutherford and would be accepted in giving credence to an unnatural atomic model. Through direct reasoning Bohr derived a mathematical short-cut to describe what seemed to be Hydrogen spectral lines. His solution is a ruthless empirical short-cut or mathematical trick that appears to work. He did so without involving any natural mechanism or contemplating Hydrogen's molecular and crystalline state. Bohr deduced, the larger his quantum number, the larger the atom and the slower the orbital frequency, thereby increasing the period of time for the atom to transit from one state to the next. Quantum theory needed to explain light in quantum steps, so from this deluded notion about Nature and matter, came another deluded notion.

Thomson battled the terrestrial illusion of exploding chemical batteries, for the ignorant argued that when charges neutralise, the atom must short out and explode. During this time of enormous change, electric lights replaced gas mantles in the streets, theatre, and in the home; motor vehicles began replacing the horse and cart; Marconni retaliated and attacked the arrogant scientific community's pecuniary rejection of radio transmission; while world politics rapidly headed to a point of starting the war to end all wars. With so little known, about the atom, about electricity, about magnetism, about gravity, about radiation, about the magnetic spectrum, speculation and errors hijacked the sciences creating self-proving tendentious theory based on terrestrial illusions.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.

Indoctrination created Chemistry's biggest problem, a closed mind-set where the chemical sciences place Davy's electrochemical theory, the electron-cloud atomic model and valency, as being above Nature. The currently accepted electron cloud atomic model may appear wonderful when sketched on paper, however, any three dimensional animation of such a model instantly generates unsolvable problems that serve to confuse. Although claimed to be like the Solar System, with a central body, orbited by electrons, that any astronomer should be able to compute, Chemistry and Quantum theory deliberately mystify the theory's abject failure, calling on the uncertainty principle and peer pressure to give this model credibility. Without giving the student any other option, educators overcome a student's acceptance problem through stealth, 'Well suppose this is true, then, this must occur and here you see that it does...'

Chemistry's acceptance of this flawed electron-cloud atomic model seems enigmatic for it confuses everything, to such a degree that although Chemistry expounds great knowledge about molecular structures, bond lengths, bond angles, bond strengths and molecular properties, the replaced Dalton atomic model must be used when explaining simple molecular structures. As a knowledge virus, the electron cloud atomic model fails Science, with poorly conceived, illogical and invalid atomic-chemical theory presented as fact.

According to Bohr's version of the electro-chemical theory, each atom tends to form a complete inert atom, and so requires a total of eight electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell to satisfy the molecule's over-all atomic structure. This means that each atom must share one or more electrons, so that each atom in the molecule effectively carries '8' electrons in the outer shell. When satisfied, the reaction ceases, as the molecule can no longer enter other reactions. This naive, mystical, and mythical belief established itself in the foundation stone of the modern periodic table and Chemistry. However, since the animated Rutherford atomic model fails to explain simple chemical reactions and molecular alignment, in adopting many of Chemistry's invalid notions, and whatever else fitted, Chemistry gave birth to a mutant off-spring, Quantum Theory. Through a process of guesstimations and closest-fit approximations, Niels Bohr determined the Periodic Table's present shape.
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14145
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Empty Re: Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr

Mesaj Scris de Abel Cavaşi la data de Lun 17 Noi 2008, 22:55

@sandokhan a scris:Ar fi fost de preferat ca mesajele mele sa fie incluse la subiecte stiintifice si nu aici, poti inca face the switch.
Şi aici poţi să le consideri subiect ştiinţific. Conspiraţiile pot fi analizate şi ştiinţific. Toată lumea poate avea acces şi aici, aşa că nu trebuie să consideri că ar fi într-un „colţ” al forumului. În plus, aici ai mai multă libertate de exprimare, din moment ce avertizăm cititorul că este o secţiune hard. Very Happy
Abel Cavaşi
Abel Cavaşi
Fondator
Fondator

Mulţumit de forum :
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Left_bar_bleue9 / 109 / 10Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Right_bar_bleue
Prenume : Abel
Numarul mesajelor : 7007
Puncte : 26445
Data de inscriere : 28/02/2008
Obiective curente : Sunt în căutarea unei aplicații a Fizicii elicoidale.

http://abelcavasi.blogspot.com/

Sus In jos

Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Empty Re: Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr

Mesaj Scris de sandokhan la data de Sam 14 Feb 2009, 18:12

Iata un supersite deosebit, care ne arata ca DOGMA introdusa de cuplul de ignoranti Rutherford-Bohr, si anume conceptul de model atomic planetar, este complet fals; vezi si cartea The Case Against the Nuclear Atom din primul mesaj, semnata Dewey Larson; veti descoperi detalii suprinzatoare si citate de exceptie...cuprinsul din lucrare aici:

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm

Did the Michelson-Morley experiments prove there was no 'aether wind'?

Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been 'generally accepted'?

Did Einstein discover E=mc2?

Did quantum theory 'predict' that 'black body radiation curve'?

Does the photoelectric effect prove the existence of photons?

Has Compton's 'photon' model of scattering ever been confirmed experimentally?

Who was William Crookes anyway? (On 'radiation pressure' etc in high vacua)

Was Quantum Theory necessary to explain the 'anomalous Zeeman effect'?

Has it ever been proved that gravity is proportional to mass?

Did Hubble think the cosmological red shift was a Doppler shift?

Did Quantum Theory help in the discovery of the laser?

Did Newton believe in action at a distance?

Did Millikan's oil drop experiments prove the constancy of the charge of the electron?

CITITI IN SPECIAL SECTIUNILE:

Does the photoelectric effect prove the existence of photons?
Has Compton's "photon" model of scattering ever been confirmed experimentally?
Was Quantum Theory necessary to explain the "anomalous Zeeman effect"?
Did Hubble think the cosmological red shift was a Doppler shift?
Did Millikan's oil drop experiments prove the constancy of the charge of the electron?
sandokhan
sandokhan
Activ
Activ

Mulţumit de forum :
Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Left_bar_bleue10 / 1010 / 10Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Right_bar_bleue
Numarul mesajelor : 795
Puncte : 14145
Data de inscriere : 16/11/2008
Obiective curente : Acum mă preocupă următoarele:-1)...-2)...

Sus In jos

Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr Empty Re: Badea E. Rutherford si nenea N. Bohr

Mesaj Scris de Continut sponsorizat


Continut sponsorizat


Sus In jos

Sus


 
Permisiunile acestui forum:
Nu puteti raspunde la subiectele acestui forum