◄Previous……Next►
pp.67,68,
" ...a false balance is not good "
- Proverbs 20:23 (KJV)
To describe the discrete energy which electron might possess, Neil H. D. Bohr made use " h bar " or ħ (i.e. Planck's constant divided by 2 π), so that Heisenberg's Uncertainty formula became
" If the errors in these are ∆x and ∆p , " according to Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science (p.15 World Book, Inc. Chicago,revised 1987) then
Thus, for Heisenberg, the uncertainties of the two determinations, when multiplied, would yield a value approximately that of Planck's constant.
This is interpreted as it is impossible to make an exact and simultaneous determination of both the position (x) and the momentum (p) of any body. (Momentum is mass m times velocity v . )
C) In the first place, he used errors as the foundation of his belief; and second, his formula is, in fact, a re-expressed de Broglie's equation, if accurate products are used. Third, the basis of creating his erroneous formula (i.e. the spectral lines as effects of revolving electrons) is, in fact, a misunderstanding of Neil Bohr about the spectrum.
Wikimedia Commons.)
What we can see are not wavelengths but stretched layerlengths (L).
A) In fact, even atoms, DNA, and viruses today have photographic evidence, but the so-called 'wavelength' has no photographic existence, nor it cast its wavy quantum.
" Prove all things ;
hold fast that which is good "
- 1Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)
(4) λ is wavelength ?
According to the 2nd scientific revolutionary belief the 'line' between successive crests is wavelength.
But the fact is, it's not a length of wave (i.e. wavelength) but a distance (length) between two consecutive crests of a wavy surface.
λ is NOT a wavelength, but a length (distance) between successive crests of a wavy surface.
(5) " the wavelengths of a particle "
- The Book of Popular Science,p.66, vol.9
λ is of MANY tinier PARTICLES and not of a particle.
naughty, or aggressive is a behavior which IS not a visible particle.)
Is a particle a behavior or an individual entity ?
To contradict particle with wave is obviously wrong. Because wave is a shape formed of many aggregating (aggregated) particles.
Particles can be shaped into a wave, but wave (triangle, square, circle) cannot be formed or shaped into a particle.
Not only that, radiation, quantum, and photon do not mean 'wave' as tradition subliminally tries to portray to us. They refer to particulate nature of their constituents.
Therefore, wave mechanics is not of quantum physics, if that 'wave' is the mystical wave of the 2nd scientific revolution.
The fact that the electron radiation of the Davisson-Germer experiment had a 50 degrees of peak of "scattering" when struck on a nickle crystal is the very evidence that the said electron radiation is composed of many tinier particles, which did the scattering and formed the diffracted region of the said ray.
According to the
a 15-gram bullet moving at the velocity of 4 x 10^-30 meter per second would have 1.104 344 8 centimeter wide wavelength. Can we see or detect that 1.1 cm-long wavelength ?
Unfortunately, No !
And why ?
Because, as we have learned earlier, λ is not a wavelength of a solo particle, but a distance between two successive crests of wavy aggregating particles.
We can only detect that λ 1.1 cm if we fire a radiation of bullets (15 grams each bullet) in outer space at the
speed of 0.ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo oo4 meter per second
each bullet.
(7) Big which means Tiniest ?
According to the Inflationary adherents, this measurement
0.ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo oo1 cm
is the radius of the BIG BANG.
How come that it is a "bang" (explosion) and it is "BIG" ?
The fact is, true Big Bang or Giant Explosion left a detectable 'fossil' in the vastness of the Universe too much bigger than our own Solar System.
(Image of Galactic Dust Emission Nebula at 94 GHz: The Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA) is a multi-mission NASA center of expertise for cosmic microwave background radiation research)
Fluctuations in Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation as seen by COBE
(Image: NASA/COBE)
Big mean 'big' and not the tiniest one. We have to correct our mind in thinking 'tiniest' as 'big'.
Explosion is explosion of something composed of atoms or ions or rutherfordic atoms.
(8) Black hole is not a hole .
(Image source: Michael carroll )
There is direct lying in this, because black hole is hole black in color.
In fact, galactic black hole<<
(Image source: STScl/NASA)
is a hole or galactic womb dark in appearance because it has a strong arepellic (cold) field, which sucks or attracts object (e.g. drawing near star).
In fact, nebular black hole is a hole or shallow black in color.
(Image source of Horse Nebula - a nebular black hole: ESO)
(9) Light Wave
Water's Surface Waves
(Image:
catchawave@forgecommunications.com)
(Image: http://joanca.hubpages.com/hub/Science-for-Kids-Learn-About-Sound-and-the-Sound-Barrier )
(Image: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/audio-music/noise-canceling-headphone.htm )
"There are two types of waves in physics : longitudinal and transverse. The phenomenon of longitudinal wave propagation can be demonstrated with a long, large-coiled spring. When the spring is fixed at one end and the other end is moved backwards and forwards, alternating regions of compression (where the coils are bunched together) and rarefaction (where the coils are farther apart than normal) move along the spring.
"Transverse waves are those in which the vibrations occur at right angles to the direction in which the waves travel-as happens, for example, when a length of rope is moved regularly up and down to give it a wave-like appearance. Ocean waves...also travel by transverse propagation. "
- Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science,p.100.
World Book, Inc. Chicago, revised ed.1987
Mystical light waves do not fit to any of the transverse or longitudinal (undulatory) waves. The 2nd scientific revolution light waves are perpendicular intersecting mystical waves of electric & magnetic fields, suggesting that light waves are waves of electrons and magnetons (magnetic particles) mystically joining in series of vetices.
(
Image: http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_quantum_physics/zero_point_energy_and_scalar_waves-t9730.0.html)
A) It was Christian Huygens (1629-1699) who suggested that light could be interpreted as a wave undulating in the direction of its motion, as a sound wave did.
In 1803 Thomas Young had discovered that separate bands (or colors) of lights would appear if it's sent through a very narrow opening. from his study of sound he derived his conclusion for the so-called wave evidence of light.
What was the basis of his conclusion ?
He knew that beats happen when two different pitches of sound brought about periods of intensified sound produced by periods of silence, since the two pitches had different distances between waving air particles that at first might be temporarily in step and the two wave peaks would reinforce each other to produce doubled sound, and then they would fall out of step and the MOLECULES (particles) of air would be pushed in one direction by one waving of molecules and in the opposite direction by the other, with a net effect of motionlessness and -no sound.
Therefore, according to the wave adherents, if light rays were particles, they couldn't add up to produce darkness; but, if they were waves, they could.
Thus, Thomas Young (1773-1829) introduced light beams through two narrow orifices. The beams spread out and overlapped, forming a stripped pattern of alternating light and darkness, a situation (interference might be) precisely seemed to be analogous to beats in sound, suggesting that when light beam collided with another light beam, the result is an interference yielding a darkness.
The error came when this phenomenon was interpreted by wave proponents.
I) In fact, the sound beat experiment proves that the sound waves are composed of particles.
Why ?
Because the sound disappears when the peaks of waving aggregating air molecules (particles) fall out of step, pushing in one direction by one waving aggregation of air particles and in the opposite direction by the other, yielding to a net effect of motionlessness. It is the aggregation of air (gaseous) particles that does the waving and not the mystical non-existing 'waves'.
B) On contrary to his first conclusion, in 1817, Thomas Young wrote to Dominique F. Arago that the type of waves for light must be transverse (e.g. water wave) and not longitudinal (e.g. sound wave) for the reason that it could apparently explain the double refraction.
II) In factuality, the case of a light beam passing through a narrow orifice is different, much more when beams passing through two narrow orifices (or slits).
The surface atoms of the lips (rim) of the slit (orifice) have a tendency to redoña twist a portion of the hitting light beam. Thus, besides of the diffraction (extra expanding or spreading of the light's edge), a portion is also redoña twisting (or contralateral-advancing). When by two narrow orifices (or slits) exhibit this phenomenon, the result is a double duplication of lighted 'slits' on the monitor.
the slit appears as a lighted part on the monitor, whereas the screen in between two slits as a shadow or darkness. the screen's shadow double duplicates too as the lighted portions (from slits) double duplicate.
Thus, each slit redoña twists (or contralateral-advances) the penetrating, hitting light beam's portion, while the beam's remaining portion is diffracting forwardly. The same phenomenon happens to the other slit. Combining these identical (but 'contralatering') phenomena the result is double duplication of no-light (darkness) portion and lighted portions. The no-light (shadow) portion originates from the shadow in between the two parallel slits.
The both sides (of the contralateral duplications) have wider bands because these are the directions where expansion (diffraction) of light is greatly occurring.
In the midst of on the monitor will meet the two redoña contralaterally advancing light portions, forming a single slender lighted area.
On the left and right of this slender lighted area are casting the duplicated-shadow of the screen.
Therefore, the shadows (dark portions) are not produced by an interference; rather, they are 'duplicates' of the original shadow (darkness) of the central area (i.e. screen between the two parallel slits) of the screen.
(10)
This law was erroneously interpreted as "the wave length of the wave properties ( λ ) is directly proportional to Planck's constant (h)" and "it is indirectly proportional to the mass of the object (m) and to the velocity of the object (v). " (The Book of Popular Science, p. 66, volume 9), and it is interpreted for the so-called matter waves.
A) This equation is, in fact, the λ (distance between two consecutive crests of a waving aggregation of particles) is directly proportional to the h (Planck's constant) and inversely proportional to the product of the m (mass of each particle of the said radiation/aggregation of particles) and v (movability of each particle in the said radiation/beam).
B) The errors in the so-called De Broglie waves is when the λ is interpreted as (1) a wavelength of (2) a solo particle.
Firstly, λ is not a wavelength; rather, it is a DISTANCE between two successive crests of a waving aggregation of particles. Secondly, λ is not "of a particle " but of MANY PARTICLES of a radiation/aggregation. And thirdly, the equation does not necessarily mean the radiation/beam is waving-ly propagating, but it may also mean 'wave-ability' ('wavability') of a radiation, i.e., there is a tendency for the radiation/aggregation to wave or to form wave (i.e. in fact, to scatter) when after passing through a slit because its particles are not solid-ly constructed. It means that the radiation or aggregation is not solid, but could be a liquid, gas, plasma, or the like.
(11) Rutherford Nucleus, What it is ?
In 1906 Ernest Rutherford of New Zealand fired a beam of alpha particles (helium nuclei) at a thin sheet of gold foil only 0.oo5 of an inch thick. Most of the alpha particles passed straight through, some were scattering, and a few were deflected greatly at more angles. Since the gold foil was 2000-atoms thick only, and the particle radiation passed through, for the most part, undeflected, it would seem that the 'gold foil' was mostly empty space. since some alpha particles were deflected sharply, even at right angles and more, it meant that somewhere in the gold foil was a very massive positively-charged region capable of turning back the positively charged alpha particles. Rutherford had put forth the notion of the nuclear atom; that is, of an atom containing a tiny massive nucleus at its center with a cloud of light electrons located on the periphery.
A) The experiment had no error. It was the interpretation that has a flaw.
They thought that they were dealing with the gold atoms, where in fact they were dealing with a gold foil. Thus, as the thickness of the foil is increasing, the passing alpha particles are also thinning, so that there is a ratio between the foil's thickness and the amount of the trespassing radiation. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the (large) emptiness of the atom, but with the ratio between the foil's thickness and the amount of penetrated radiation.
B) The so-called nuclei surrounded by the clouds of electrons are, in fact, the (gold) atoms themselves, surrounded by the clouds of electrons, as what we can literally see from the factual STM photograph of (gold) molecules (or other solid-molecules).
(Gold atoms)
(Image : Dhirani Nanostructures Group)
(Image from : Science Photo Library/ Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science)
( Factual Atoms and clouds of Electrons of Solid Silicon)
(Image: IBM/Science Photo library / Guinness World Book of Records 1990) This is why in the 3rd Scientific Revolution, the atom itself is what we called the rutherfordic nucleus. this rutherfordic nucleus is theoretically a concentrical-like layer of alpha photons (protons) and of chadwick photons (neutrons).
(12) A Shell which is not a shell
Electron shells are analogous reminiscence of Plato's crystalline spheres along of which the heavenly bodies were assumed to move. The spheres were thought to be literal and made 54 in number by Aristotle. Heavenly objects, including the planets and Moon, according to Plato were held by the perfect solid crystalline spheres.
The electron-shells, however, are more mystical than these spheres.
Electrons shells are hardly enough to reduce the penetrative power of a trespassing (coercive-ly intruding) X ray. Each shell may have one subshell or two. How a "planetary" electron can move inside this hard-like shell is a mystery. Probably, planetary electron is rolling on/inside the shell, as if it is a ball (wheel of a running car) on a road inside a hard (crystalline) air. What is made of this shell is another mysterious thing. And why this shell can hold an electron is another mystery. How each shell avoids to get in tangible contact with lower and upper shells is also a mystery.
With this mysticism, we can imagine that electron-shells of heavy element are full of holes through where planetary electrons can move from one atom to another in a molecule. How these shell holes formed is mystery.
The order of labeled electron-shells is calibrated according to the different bands of X-rays having passed through them. X ray of K band, for instance, means it has passed through the K electron-shell, of L band the L electron-shell, of M band the M electron-shell, and so on.
Electron shell is traditionally meant an "energy level" or a "path of an orbiting electron". There is a belief that 90% of the time electron is found in the orbital or subshell, so that 10% of the time that electron is mysteriously missing.
Is the "level" or "path" a shell or not ?
What material is made up of those shell? Those electron shells are made up of 'nothingness' and most possibly they don't exist, except in the playful mind of their creators & believers.
In fact, their creators said that atoms were not real and didn't have pictorialization.
But the fact that real atoms can be photographed is the very evidence that the creators of the mystical electron shells, mystical planetary electrons, mystical central atomic nucleus, and mystical planetary atom are wrong.
(13) Atoms which are NOT REAL
The most amazing of, perhaps, all mysticisms we may encounter is the atom of the 2nd Scientific Revolution.
(Image: Copyright © 2007 Dorling Kindersley)
(Image: copyright 2003. Elizabeth Anne Viau )
(Image : copyright 2003 Elizabeth Anne Viau)
This atom is a miniaturized version of the Plato-Aristotelian-but-Galilean solar system, with some mystical revisions.
According to tradition, atom is 99.999 999 999 999 9 % empty space, and yet at the same time & place it is filled in with shells or subshells. This might mean that the electron-shells are the "empty space" themselves which fills in the 99.999 999 999 999 9 % of the atom's volume. And yet, this empty space -or these shells- can reduce the penetrative power of the intruding X-ray.
The hard-like or X-ray-reducing & X-ray-emitting electron-shell is mysteriously expanding-but-expanding when its "planetary" particle-but-wave electron is absorbing external energy. The electron in an atom can orbit only in path in which its orbital angular momentum ( Iω ) has a fixed value (i.e. a multiple n of Planck's constant divided by 2π ).
At a particular height farther out from the nucleus the electron would give up (external) energy - thought to be become the spectral line- and as a result, that electron would drop back into the original lower orbit (called the ground state).
On contrary, according to the Uncertainty belief, when changing its position ( ∆ p), the mystical electron doesn't have a precise momentum ( ∆ x), or doesn't have an exact velocity (v) & mass (m), provided that the position (p) is also not precise and that the Planck's constant is exact.
Accordingly, the "planetary" electron is located in a particular region of the orbit, although Heisenberg could not locate where exactly in the atom. All electrons, say of gold, have particular positions respectively of a particular condition (or energy) and those electrons are too tiny to compare with the size of the host atom. If the diameter, for example, of
a gold atom (is presumed) 288 000 fermi
and of the electron is (assumed) 5.635 880 653 4 fermi
then gold atom is 51101.153078 times bigger than electron.
Thus, when the faster light ray hit a gold atom, the slower electrons will appear 51,101 times smaller, each, than the atom.
That's not the real phenomenon. When a faster light ray hit an atom, the supposed electrons appear as big as the atom and in the entire surface of the atom.
A) The fact is, no planetary atom can be photographed either by STM (scanning tunneling microscope) or powerful electron microscope, X ray microscope or light radiation, quantum gas microscope or AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy).
In the midst of the mystical atom were a tiny infra-nucleus, tinier than electron (if compared to classical electron radius). This atomic nucleus is busy in controlling the traffic system of the orbiting "planetary" electrons.
Electron is attracted to proton. Thus, if electron is orbiting it must be by the attracting proton. If all electrons in the atom are revolving, then all protons -by which originate the control- must be revolving too in the nucleus so that a particular electron can follow a particular proton (since layered shells must be also present in the atomic nucleus, so that a particular proton in a particular nucleon shell in the nucleus holds a particular electron in a particular electron shell); otherwise, the electron would lost its way and can cause a traffic chaos & jam in the atom. What causes the protons to revolve and rotate while in the nucleus are a mystery, that not nature nor physics can answer.
The most amazing activities of the mystical planetary electron are when it is revolving, it is not orbiting, and when it is spinning, it is not rotating. Not only that, electron were a particle-but-a-wave-but-an-electron-point, so that electron were a particle-that-is-not-particle.
Mysterious ?
Excruciating for mind ! (Don't think, advise by others. )
According to Schrödinger's theory : was not revolving about the nucleus but was merely a "standing wave" formed about it.
Standing wave means a wave of string of aggregated particles holds at each end of the string by a waving pole (stand). Continuous external force must be needed to wave or vibrate continuously the stands of the string, and in this case, the stands of the continuously waving electron. (Others think of an electron as a standing wave that does not wave, so that mystical electron were a wave-that-is-not-a-wave.) According to De Broglie waves, electron is waving after passing through a slit, implying that the entire atom is full of slits; otherwise, electron would not exhibit wave in the areas where slits are not present. Imagine a shell or subshell full of slits or orifices! Nevertheless, no one knows why mystical electron is continuously waving standing-ly.
But one thing is for sure, the fabricators of these atoms knew for a fact that their created atoms are NOT REAL, and the effort of the rest of the world to believe with those atoms as real is actually a waste of effort.
Who deceives ? The fabricator of those 'not real atoms' or the believer ? Once you have known that these atoms are not real and yet you still believe them to be real, you are deceiving your own self.
Many scientists, physicists, professors, teachers, researchers, and students get wrong when quoting Neil Bohr and Werner Heisenberg about the atoms.
What About Paying Our Attention to Factual Atoms and Electrons ?
In the first place, is there a factual atom and factual electron ? If there are factual atoms, are they similar to the 'not real atoms' of the 2nd scientific revolutionary adherents ? If not, then we have to start sketching the model out of the factual atom as the instruments to clearly dissect it are not yet invented, and calibrate our model based on the latest and well defined photographs of the atom.
1) Fact
Ball-and-Stick Molecule
Space-Filled Molecule
Ball-and-stick molecules and space-filling molecules are factual. The same element of the same piece may have both ball-and-stick and space-filled molecules.
A) From this fact we can derive our ball-and-stick and space-filling models for all elementary molecules.
(Carbon dioxide cold state)
2) Fact
Pengraletic-electron, like of what we can see on the scientific photographs, is like "iron filings" and is projected from the host-atom's heisenberg and attracted to the partner-atom's heisenberg passage.
Facts about pengralet (pengraletic electron)
1) it is composed of many tinier particles, as if it is 'iron filings' on a magnet;
2) it seems to be stretchable, so that atoms can have different distances on one another;
3) it seems penetrating at specific location on the atom (piercing in the neighboring or partner atom);
4) it appears thinner when stretched at a long distance between host-atom and partner-atom;
5) it is thicker when its host-atom is nearer on its partner-atom.
3) Fact
X - ray Bands
Alpha-photons (proton) of a pauli layer has a tendency to shield inner portion of the atom from foreign intruding X ray. The pauli layer can partially scatter the colliding X ray. It was Karl Manne Siegbahn of Sweden who serendipitously discovered the precise measurement of this phenomenon after knowing different bands of X rays for each element, labeling them (now, from K, L, M, N, O, P to Q) in order of weakening bands (and of increasing protons or pauli layers).
A siegbahn (K, L, M, N, O, or Q) is composed of pauli layer or of pauli layers. Pauli layer is made of a proton & neutron(s).
" By what way is the light parted,
which scattereth the east wind ... "
- Job 38:24 (King James Version)
When light ray hit a gas or the air, the air molecules will scatter (changing air into wind).
Now, let us change the gas with solid. The force or energy of the light ray is possibly not enough to push the solid (tightly, pengraletically hold molecules), so that, in effect, the light ray will be parted. Few of the quanta of light will coerce to enter the heisenbergs (becoming "tartar" there) and the rest will be reflected from upper layer of the said solid object and scattered to divers directions. this hindering phenomenon against light ray is happening down to the atomic level (or upper pauli layer). Shadow of atom will be cast on a monitor when light radiation is fired on the suspended ytterbium atom, as what the researchers of the Griffith University in Australia of the Aussie team have done.
The electrons of that atom do not show themselves as planetary dots (shadows).
4) Fact
A) It is a fact that electric resistance ( Ω ) increases in tinier direction (i.e. increased length of a conductor in a constant cross-sectional area).
By deduction, electric wire is made up of conductive atoms, so that those atoms are electric conductive.
Capacitoric elevation ( < ) is linear in direction in the atom and we can get it by subtracting the pierced-heisenberg's length L (or the length of the electron denture) from the atom's radius ( r ).
< = r - L
Theoretically, as the denture ( L ) of the electron is farther away from the internal center of the atom, the stronger the capacitoric electric resistance ( Ω ), so that electric attraction is capacitorically stronger in the deeper region of the atom (requiring stronger/higher voltage to pull out the root of the piercing-electron from that region or layer of the atom). If this is correct, then we can calculate the capacitoric (internal atomic) electric resistance ( Ω ) possibly by the equation
Ω = ρ < / π r 2 ,
where ρ is the conductor's electric resistivity (in ohm meter), < is the capacitoric elevation (in meter), π is the constant pi, and r is the atom's radius (in meter).
The deeper, the more electrically active (for electrons).
B) It is a fact that electric resistance ( Ω ) grows weaker in voluminous direction, if linear length is constant at certain limit.
In an atom, this voluminous direction is equivalent to concentrical (pauli) direction.
The deeper the pauli layer, the higher its pauli electric resistance ( Ω ) , so that electricity cannot easily disturbed the deeper layers of the atom.
If this formula is correct ,
Ω = ρ r / π d 2
( where r is the atom's radius, and d is the distance of the pauli layer from the internal center of the atom), then we can calculate the pauli electric resistance of a pauli layer in the atom.
Thus, the deeper, the lesser electrically active (for rhutherfordic nucleons).
5) Fact
Electron radiation, if emitted from a conductor (cathode), is composed of many beta ions (electrons), depending on the number of the atoms that ejected them and the number of ejected electron(s) per atom.
this is why, electron radiation or e-ray varies in thickness depending on the quantity of its beta ions or ionic electrons. Lightning has thicker electron ray, whereas electric shock has thin. The e-ray ejected from STM (scanning tunelling microscope) to move a single atom may contain a single or four individual pengraletic electrons.
E-ray that can move a single hydrogen atom is the e-ray that really composed of a single veritable pengraletic electron, and it is not yet experimented with by STM.
14) Black Hole
(Image from: Science Photo Library/Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science)
Galaxy M 87
(Image: ESO)
Galaxy M 87 in Virgo cluster of galaxies
(Image: Origin and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory by Paul Hollister, M.D. Copyright 2004)
Universe, like a sample of an unstable element, has a half-life too. And every galaxeone, as if an atom version which emits instability-causing content, will become galaxy after emitting a guasar (i.e. galactic quasar).The place where the guasar has had evacuated becomes a dark womb (well known as black hole). As the hot guasar leaves its hot mother galaxy a phenomenon hole darkening effect happens in the womb; and tribons in that hole will become strong arepellic (inwardly extracting), so strong that the dark hole can attract nearby stars and squeeze them into bearable possible tiniest size. The attractive force of the arepellic galactic hole plus the gravity of the squeezed celestial objects are collectively called gravitational force of the black hole, leading to the erroneous belief that black hole is not the hole but the squeezed celestial object.
By misapplying a re-expressed Newton's law of gravitation , the 2nd scientific revolutionary astrophysicists concluded that the ascribed 'mass' of a galactic hole is the mass of an object and not of the hole.
An example of a giant object is the planet Earth. By the said formula (here in the photo), a falling object (1 kilogram) reveals the acceleration ( g ) due to Earth's attraction (i.e. 9.8066 m/ss or 32.164 feet per second per second), the Earth that the equatorial radius ( r) is 6,378.1370 km (3,963.1906 miles),giving the Earth's mass (M) 5.97219x10^24 kg.
The said formula can be erroneously applied even to any attracting thing (e.g. arepellic hole, magnetic or electrostatic object).
A cloud attracting by sucking hole from an exhaust fan or a vacuum cleaner is erroneously believed to be attracted by an object. Imagine a collection of clouds attracted by the galactic black hole is said to be attracted by an object and not by the hole.
It seems that a cloud attracted by a hole is expressing an acceleration due to gravity ( g ) of the hole. Is that right ? And after that wrong ascribing, they will use that " g " into the said formula
where " r " is the radius of the hole.
As there is a proper formula for the vacuum cleaner sucking tube in attracting cloud of dust, so does for the galactic black hole attracting clouds & stars.
Arepellic (cold) field is involved in the strong attracting force of the galactic black hole, let's our cryo-physicists formulate an equation for this phenomenon. We have to encourage anybody to make a formula for this arepellic phenomenon.
WAVES
"But the YHWH sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea,.." - Jonah 1:4
"But I am the YHWH, thy el (Force), that divided the sea, whose waves roared: the YHWH of hosts is His name " - Isaiah 51:15
"...when the waves thereof arise,..." - Psalms 89:9
"...all thy billows and thy waves passed over me " - Jonah 2:3
"...the noise of the sea, the noise of their waves:... " - Psalms 65:7
Waves are not the "noise" (sound); rather, they have/carry the sound. when the 'wind' divides the water's surface, waves are formed and started to propagate.
It appears that wave of particles is a vehicle of a sound to be transferred from the source to the eardrum and its load's (sound's) speed depends on the speed of the propagating waving particles.
Wave is wave of something, and that something is composed of many tinier particles. Without those particles (or a medium), no sound can be transferred form one place to another. This fact was proved by a German physicist Otto von Guericke (1602-1686) by letting a bell to ring inside an air-evacuated vessel, and hearing no sound, and proving, too, the Aristotelian contention that sound could not be conducted in the absence of air (from the source to the eardrum). Aristotle was correct that the sound travels by a succession of impacts in air, and actually not only in air but also in any possible medium (liquid, solid, etc.).
Sound, in fact, can be defined as a 'transferable impacts, vibrations, or disturbances to the auditory system of the living organisms.'
Sound is a phonical vibrational disturbance on and in a medium (particles). the shapes form by the phonical vibration vary depending on many factors. They could be wavy, zigzag, etc.
(Image: http://parentteacher.uskidsmags.com/2012/11/26/making-sound-waves/ )
But all of these shapes when transferred on the water's surface, either by speaker or vibrating stick (or plate), take one kind of shape, that is, the wave of wave. Both air and water, and even solid materials (like guitar's string, cymbals, drum, etc.) are all composed of many tinier particles. And those aggregated particles form a wavy shape when vibrated.
But because of war of prominence, people during the days of Sir Isaac Newton and afterward were erroneously defining 'particle' as a 'solid ball' and the "wave" as a 'not solid, not ball', where in fact wave is a shape forms of the waving particles (e.g. of the water's surface).
In fact, no wave without particles.
The equation d sin θ = λ , d sin θ = nλ , and wd / D = λ do not prove wave, rather, they prove that the entity fired or irradiated on slit(s) is 'not solid' and is composed of aggregating/aggregated tinier particles.
(Image:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/davger2.html#c1/ http://phy204gs2011.blogspot.com/)
(Image source: http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/davisson-germer)
In fact, what was seen on the Davisson-Germer experiment was not wave of electron radiation but the 500 of peak of scattering of the particles (jumping electrons) of the radiation when struck on a nickel crystal, whose lattice spacing was said to be 2.15 angstroms. The experiment was, in fact, proving that the radiation was composed of scatter-able tinier particles. And if we can visually detect the angstrom view of that radiation, what we may see is the λ (distance of successions) of the emitted particles being pushed by the force of 54 volt, provided that the momentum of each particle (jumping electron) in the radiation was 4.0 x 10-24 kilogram-meter per second.
This means that electrons in that radiation are emitted in successions. If they are emitted from a spherical source, e.g. star, they could form an expanding spherical-front (traditionally called wave-front). the distance between two successive spherical-fronts is what the symbol λ represented. Likewise, radio emission, X ray, gamma ray, light ray, and all other electromagnetic rays are emitted in successions (i.e. quanta) and form series of vault-fronts (if the source is not sphere) or of spherical-fronts (if the source is spherical).
SPLIT OF A GALAXEONE OR QUASAREONE
" That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted,..." - Mark 4:12 (KJV)
(Image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_A )
(Image: from a book authored by Leo Vuyk)
The obvious split (dissociation) to release instability-causing material and which results to a loud cry of electromagnetic radiation in radio bandwidth is not perceived by the 2nd scientific revolutionary astronomers on this Cygnus A. For them it is a collision (clash) of the galaxies rather than a powerful split.
"The famous Cygnus A source was only identified with a visible object after the optical astronomer was told precisely where to look with his powerful telescope. It then turned out that the powerful radio emission came from a faint double-structure nebula, which is now known to be two galaxies in collision. The light and radio waves emitted by Cygnus A take 550 million years to reach the earth.
" Radio astronomers have now identified some thousands of radio stars in the universe; but Cygnus A still appears to be the most powerful of them. "
- Sir Edward V. Appleton, Radio Astronomy The Study of Radio Waves from Outer Space.The Book of Popular Science,pp.209-210,vol.9. Grolier International, Inc. Canada, 1976.
Troisième Révolution Scientifique -French
第三次科技革命 - traditional Chinese
Drittens wissenschaftlichen Revolution -German
Третья научная революция - Russian
الثورة العلمية الثالثة -Arabic
第三科学革命 - Japanese
Tercera Revolución Científica - Spanish
Tredje vetenskapliga revolutionen - Swedish
Terza Rivoluzione Scientifica - Italian
Ketiga Revolusi Ilmiah - Malay
셋째 과학 혁명 - Korean
המהפכה המדעית השלישית - Hebrew
Üçüncü Bilimsel Devrim - Turkish
Tredje vetenskapliga revolutionen - Swedish
Τρίτη επιστημονική επανάσταση - Greek
तीसरा वैज्ञानिक क्रांति - Hindi
Derde Wetenschappelijke Revolutie - Dutch
Derde Wetenskaplike Revolusie - Afrikaans
Трета научна революция - Bulgarian
მესამე სამეცნიერო რევოლუცია - Georgian
انقلاب علمی سوم - Persian
Ketiga Revolusi Ilmiah - Indonesian
Réabhlóid Tríú Eolaíochta - Irish
Tretí vedecká revolúcia - Slovak
Mapinduzi ya kisayansi ya tatu - Swahili
Երրորդ Գիտական հեղափոխություն - Armenian
Cách mạng khoa học thứ ba - Vietnamese
การปฏิวัติทางวิทยาศาสตร์ที่สาม - Thai
>>Electromagnetic ray unexpressed mass
