So are you saying about the atom is only nucleons and magnetic particles ? No protons ? and these magnetic particles have no names ? like for ex. electrons. What is wrong with the name electron ? I'm sorry but your presentation is kind of dubious.
I am amazed as to how much your diagrams resemble ancient symbols, tells me your on to something here, see part 6 of my video series to see what I mean. Keep up the good work, very insightful.
Ancient philosophies & mythologies (still current in Asia) explain most everything regarding the cosmos, so long as you can see it for metaphor instead of taking it literally. No "particles" whatsoever, all energy, same substance/medium. Polarity, yes, but one "pole" is "stronger" than the other (still one substance) giving rise to vibrations & vortex actions, all fractal in nature. The universe & everything therein is astral music; varying frequencies & amplitudes of longitudinal waves [:
I like your magnetrons path ways, they interlock very well in a beautiful pattern, but have you tried creating it in 3d see what it looks like. I reconnized the pathways, the sort of ''s'' shape is the same as seen on ed. Leedskalnin's front page of his magnetic currents. sz
I like your magnetrons path ways, they interlock very well in a beautiful pattern, but have you tried creating it in 3d see what it looks like. I reconnized the pathways, the sort of ''s'' shape is the same as seen on ed. Leedskalnin's front page of his magnetic currents.
Where is the MECHANISM for all of these unique powers the electron has? Why should an electron be able to absorb a photon when its exists as a "probability". Can a probability even be said to be objectively real?
Its all well and good to just say the electron has all these powers but like all of quantum physics there is no mechanism is ever provided.
Furthermore, two electrons needn't have the same energy by virtue of them being "identical". A motionless electron has far less energy than one moving at great speeds just like a motionless ball has less energy than an otherwise identical moving ball.
@markstringf Granted I was exaggerating a bit to illustrate the point that there are a LOT of problems with the electron as we have observed it. Lets list a few:
1. It can interfere with itself (2 slit experiment)
2. It needs a "pocket" that can store a photon and release
3. IT turns into a "cloud" or probability as you approach the neucleus
3. Electrons can change their orbits INSTANTANEOUSLY (this should be a dead give away)
I might edit the video to list the above points instead.
1) Self interference has been observed with things far larger than a single electron. De Broglie was onto something. Little balls interfering with each other doesn't make sense, you're right. It's been decades since physicists have thought of electrons as little charged balls.
2) Do you have a problem with photons? Consider pair production: Do photons need a "pocket" for the electron-positron pair?
@markstringf "In summary, I think you have a problem with the standard model in general, not just the electron."
I do have a problem with the entire model. The model I am proposing boils down to this: The entire universe is made up of neutral matter (photons) and magnets.
The inner shell electrons don't 'have' more energy. They require more energy to be freed from the nucleus. An analogy is that a human being on the surface of the earth requires more energy to be lifted away (to some arbitrary point) from the planet's surface than the same human 1000km from the surface. Another analogy is two magnets stuck together require more energy to be moved to some arbitrary distance away from each other than two magnets starting further apart.
"They never really explained why they can only go in these shells"
Yes 'they' do --in any introductory quantum physics text book. The understanding of what you claim isn't 'explained' is how we have all these amazing semiconductor devices such as such as LEDs.
"Nobody really knows"... "I'm going to give you an explaination why"
Interesting theory! I believe there is some truth in everything it is almost as if the act of believing makes it true for that person. But it is difficult to understand how a physical process could create such a reality. Only an infinity of possibilities could create the beauty we see, so have fun my friend it’s an infinity!
@delphinny Thanks!. I have fleshed out this theory much more since I first made this video. I have much more to share. Photons for example, which are emitted as the magnets pass through the nuclei, are actually just the tiniest particles of the neutral matter. Magnets sheering of tiny slices of matter is how Mass really turns into Energy. E=MC^2 still holds. And if we mechanically create a short of this magnetic current through the nucleus of some plutonium...all the mass converts to energy.
first time I see someone makes it simple enough that it resonates with me correctly. Been studying Leedskalnin's work for a while and this is how I got to understand it as well for the most of it. In essence a "permanent magnet" is the PMH he describes but inside the steel it self creating the surplus magnets in the matter making it a "living thing". Now the question is how to get of this big magnet called planet earth using this know how :-)?. Great post thanks,
It's an entertaining theory of something, but maybe not the atom! Maybe crystals.
I remember doing Millikans Oil drop experiment in Physics and bending cathode rays with magnets, and both won't work without electrons. Neither would thermionic valves or old TVs!
But it's an elegant theory. You have a creative streak, and it's easier to understand than Quantum Mechanics. Thanks for sharing. LOL
@stevep187 Thanks for the nice comment Steve. I am in radiation so I am very familiar with the idea of thermionic emissions, since we use them to create x-rays. This theory perfectly explains thermionic emissions actually, but I dont have enough room to tell you about it here. Never fear though I am making another video to get even more in depth as to where this goes.
@stevep187 Also since you brought up crystals, crystal are perfect examples of harmonic arrangements of atoms, all matter is arranged in a (messy) harmonic pattern but crystals are like harmonic perfection.
"they" do explain why. Its because of the antisymetry of a fermion wave function yielding a pauli exclusion principle for indestinguishable fermions such as electrons. At least learn what we already do know before asserting you've solved a nonproblem.
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics The Pauli exclusion principle gives no explanation for why there is this asymmetry, he just says it exists because the math works if you believe it. This principle notes there is a big problem when trying to make electrons use outer shells instead of congregating to inner shells, so it assigns special powers to the electron to force it to go out there. Just get rid of the idea that you need an electric particle to see an electric field and there is no need for all of this.
So are you saying about the atom is only nucleons and magnetic particles ? No protons ? and these magnetic particles have no names ? like for ex. electrons. What is wrong with the name electron ? I'm sorry but your presentation is kind of dubious.
lilisigel 1 week ago
what, in this case is the force carrying particle of the magnet? this is all bullshit...
BIGWUNuvDbunch 2 months ago in playlist More videos from vizierfennin
I am amazed as to how much your diagrams resemble ancient symbols, tells me your on to something here, see part 6 of my video series to see what I mean. Keep up the good work, very insightful.
projectmoses69 3 months ago
Ancient philosophies & mythologies (still current in Asia) explain most everything regarding the cosmos, so long as you can see it for metaphor instead of taking it literally. No "particles" whatsoever, all energy, same substance/medium. Polarity, yes, but one "pole" is "stronger" than the other (still one substance) giving rise to vibrations & vortex actions, all fractal in nature. The universe & everything therein is astral music; varying frequencies & amplitudes of longitudinal waves [:
BloodyAkuma 6 months ago
I like your magnetrons path ways, they interlock very well in a beautiful pattern, but have you tried creating it in 3d see what it looks like. I reconnized the pathways, the sort of ''s'' shape is the same as seen on ed. Leedskalnin's front page of his magnetic currents. sz
thijid 7 months ago
I like your magnetrons path ways, they interlock very well in a beautiful pattern, but have you tried creating it in 3d see what it looks like. I reconnized the pathways, the sort of ''s'' shape is the same as seen on ed. Leedskalnin's front page of his magnetic currents.
thijid 7 months ago
Where is the MECHANISM for all of these unique powers the electron has? Why should an electron be able to absorb a photon when its exists as a "probability". Can a probability even be said to be objectively real?
Its all well and good to just say the electron has all these powers but like all of quantum physics there is no mechanism is ever provided.
vizierfennin 8 months ago
In summary, I think you have a problem with the standard model in general, not just the electron.
markstringf 8 months ago
Furthermore, two electrons needn't have the same energy by virtue of them being "identical". A motionless electron has far less energy than one moving at great speeds just like a motionless ball has less energy than an otherwise identical moving ball.
markstringf 8 months ago
@markstringf Granted I was exaggerating a bit to illustrate the point that there are a LOT of problems with the electron as we have observed it. Lets list a few:
1. It can interfere with itself (2 slit experiment)
2. It needs a "pocket" that can store a photon and release
3. IT turns into a "cloud" or probability as you approach the neucleus
3. Electrons can change their orbits INSTANTANEOUSLY (this should be a dead give away)
I might edit the video to list the above points instead.
vizierfennin 8 months ago
@vizierfennin
1) Self interference has been observed with things far larger than a single electron. De Broglie was onto something. Little balls interfering with each other doesn't make sense, you're right. It's been decades since physicists have thought of electrons as little charged balls.
2) Do you have a problem with photons? Consider pair production: Do photons need a "pocket" for the electron-positron pair?
3) Where is the problem? Electrons are not balls.
4) Who is making such a claim?
markstringf 8 months ago
@markstringf "In summary, I think you have a problem with the standard model in general, not just the electron."
I do have a problem with the entire model. The model I am proposing boils down to this: The entire universe is made up of neutral matter (photons) and magnets.
vizierfennin 8 months ago
The inner shell electrons don't 'have' more energy. They require more energy to be freed from the nucleus. An analogy is that a human being on the surface of the earth requires more energy to be lifted away (to some arbitrary point) from the planet's surface than the same human 1000km from the surface. Another analogy is two magnets stuck together require more energy to be moved to some arbitrary distance away from each other than two magnets starting further apart.
markstringf 8 months ago
"They never really explained why they can only go in these shells"
Yes 'they' do --in any introductory quantum physics text book. The understanding of what you claim isn't 'explained' is how we have all these amazing semiconductor devices such as such as LEDs.
"Nobody really knows"... "I'm going to give you an explaination why"
xD
markstringf 8 months ago
Interesting theory! I believe there is some truth in everything it is almost as if the act of believing makes it true for that person. But it is difficult to understand how a physical process could create such a reality. Only an infinity of possibilities could create the beauty we see, so have fun my friend it’s an infinity!
nickharvey7 8 months ago
would like to have a discussion with you about your theory. how we can share ..
Indagatoroculi 8 months ago
@Indagatoroculi email me at navyrob@gmail.com and ill give you my skype handle.
vizierfennin 8 months ago
I think its great, it explains the "Magnetic Glue" which was talked about by Pier Luigi Ighana.
delphinny 8 months ago
@delphinny Thanks!. I have fleshed out this theory much more since I first made this video. I have much more to share. Photons for example, which are emitted as the magnets pass through the nuclei, are actually just the tiniest particles of the neutral matter. Magnets sheering of tiny slices of matter is how Mass really turns into Energy. E=MC^2 still holds. And if we mechanically create a short of this magnetic current through the nucleus of some plutonium...all the mass converts to energy.
vizierfennin 8 months ago
first time I see someone makes it simple enough that it resonates with me correctly. Been studying Leedskalnin's work for a while and this is how I got to understand it as well for the most of it. In essence a "permanent magnet" is the PMH he describes but inside the steel it self creating the surplus magnets in the matter making it a "living thing". Now the question is how to get of this big magnet called planet earth using this know how :-)?. Great post thanks,
RayJoel2007 9 months ago
It's an entertaining theory of something, but maybe not the atom! Maybe crystals.
I remember doing Millikans Oil drop experiment in Physics and bending cathode rays with magnets, and both won't work without electrons. Neither would thermionic valves or old TVs!
But it's an elegant theory. You have a creative streak, and it's easier to understand than Quantum Mechanics. Thanks for sharing. LOL
stevep187 9 months ago
@stevep187 Thanks for the nice comment Steve. I am in radiation so I am very familiar with the idea of thermionic emissions, since we use them to create x-rays. This theory perfectly explains thermionic emissions actually, but I dont have enough room to tell you about it here. Never fear though I am making another video to get even more in depth as to where this goes.
vizierfennin 9 months ago
@stevep187 Also since you brought up crystals, crystal are perfect examples of harmonic arrangements of atoms, all matter is arranged in a (messy) harmonic pattern but crystals are like harmonic perfection.
vizierfennin 9 months ago
Very interesting stuff, it made me thinking about chemistry again and your theory makes a lot of sense.
Ps. How is your new Sivir guide doing?
grandkill4 9 months ago
"they" do explain why. Its because of the antisymetry of a fermion wave function yielding a pauli exclusion principle for indestinguishable fermions such as electrons. At least learn what we already do know before asserting you've solved a nonproblem.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 9 months ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics The Pauli exclusion principle gives no explanation for why there is this asymmetry, he just says it exists because the math works if you believe it. This principle notes there is a big problem when trying to make electrons use outer shells instead of congregating to inner shells, so it assigns special powers to the electron to force it to go out there. Just get rid of the idea that you need an electric particle to see an electric field and there is no need for all of this.
vizierfennin 9 months ago