3rd Scientific Revolution

◄Previous……Next►

  "... keep  that  which  is committed  to  thy  trust,
                                                         avoiding  profane  and  vain  babblings, 
                      and  oppositions  of  science<  falsely  so  called : "  
   -    1 Timothy 6:20  (KJV)

 "... For  it is  written,
        He  taketh  the wise  in  their  own  craftiness  "  
                                                                        - 1Corinthians 3:19 (KJV)


  The  oppositions  of  falsely  so-called  science  :

(1)  "  You  could  not ...    ...measure  both  the  circumference
            and  the  speed  of  a  moving  basketball.
          " Something  very similar  happens  in  quantum  mechanics  when  we  attempt
            to measure  both  speed  of an electron  and  its  position  in space.
            In  1927  the German  physicist  Werner  Heisenberg  proved  that  it is  impossible
            to determine  with exactness, bot  the position  of  an electron  and  its  momentum. "
                                                                                      - The Book  of  Popular  Science,pp.67,68,  
                                                                                         vol.9 copyright 1976

   The supposition  is that  it is  impossible  to  accurately  determine  the speed  and  position  of  a thing  simultaneously.
    A) The misleading  example  suggests  that  the circumference is the position  of the  moving basket ball, and  that the position  is not  steady  but ambulant.
        Circumference, in  the first place, is  not  always  the position  of the ball. And if  the circumference  is  the  position, it becomes  more easy and precise  to locate  the ball  because  circumference  is  steady (and does not travel  to other  place).
     B)  The  fact  is:  it is possible  to simultaneously  determine  with  accuracy  the position  and  speed (or momentum)  of your  car on  earth  or  of  an airplane (or missile)  on the air.
           In fact, we cannot  separate  the speed, energy, and position  of a thing  because  all of these  are interrelated  on a thing, i.e.,  when  a thing  changes  in position, energy  and speed  are involved.
     The  reason  why  it becomes  impossible  for   Uncertainty  adherents  to locate  electron  when  moving  is because  they  are (1)  searching  a non-existing  'mystical'  planetary  electron   and  (2) using  wrong  formula.

"  ...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.







De  Broglie's  equation


    Imagine,  Uncertainty  adherents  are  erroneously  using  the  re-expressed  De  Broglie's  equation  to, in effect,  blind  the people  of  the world  including themselves. 
    Now  that  you  know  this,  are  you  going  to still  uphold  the errors  of  the  Uncertainty  Principle ?

(2)  According  to  a popular  belief  the dispersed  light  from  a prism  is like  the  image  below:


(Image:  Wikimedia Commons.)




But  the  fact  is  this:  

 
(Image:  Thomson Higher Education, copyright 2007)

  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.

(3)  Adherent  of the  2nd  scientific  revolution  believe  that the image  below  shows wavelengths 

where  in  fact  what  we  can see  are  the bigger, conspicuous  spectral  LAYERS,   and  the slender  spectral  LINES  ,    when  quanta  of visible  light  are  stumbled  upon  the  gaseous  element  at  two  different  directions.

  Neil Bohr  attempted  to interpreted the spectral lines  without realizing the more conspicuous spectral    LAYERS. According  to him, when  a planetary  electron  change  its  orbit  jumping  closer  to the  Rutherford's atomic nucleus, spectral line  is emitted. By this supposition, the  electron shells, which  are made  of  'nothingness', were  invented. (We all know  that  if  a thing  is a shell, it must be  made up of  tinier particles or contents  and  not  of  Nothingness. The mystical physics has shell which is composed of 'nothing'. This means  that  the said  electron  shell  is false  or does not  exist, because  if it exists, then  the entire atom  is made  up of  electron shells  because  of the spectral  LAYERS with their deflected spectral lines.)
   The fact  is, the tinier spectral lines  and  the bigger  spectral LAYERS  exist  at the  same  time  and from the same source  but  at different  directions (i.e.  atipic direction of lines  and bobongous direction of layers). Revolving  "planetary"  electrons  have nothing  to do  with  those  spectral  layers  and spectral  lines. APBR  has sketched  the phenomenon, like what is shown  in the image  above.

      This is why  I  am  wondering  how people  now  know  this  fact  can get  sleep  without  bothering themselves about  their  children or students, who are spending a lot of effort, thinking, and money  in schools or universities  only  to  learn  and uphold  wrong  teachings as right ones.
      What is the value  of expelling  the  previous errors  of Ptolemaic adherents' beliefs  if we today  are strictly upholding  the 2nd scientific revolutionary errors? Is that good  to  uphold  all those  errors  as  right  ones ?

                  " 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.








Because  true  wavelength  is  shown   below :



     Therefore, 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


       Since   the phonically-disturbed  gaseous  molecules  and  the light beam  show  diffraction  after  passing  in  a screen's slit (opening),  the formula  

                                                  


is  applied  both  for  the sound (phonically)-disturbed  gaseous (or liquid) aggregation of molecules  and  the  light  ray.
  A)  The question  is  this :   Is   the  radiation, beam, gas,  or  liquid  composed  of  a single  particle  or  of  many  tinier  particles ?
      The old  persisting contention  is that, the  radiation  is composed  of  a solo  particle, that's  why  they  have  'wavelength   of  a particle'. 
      But  the fact  is:  a  beam, radiation, gas  or liquid  is  composed  of many  tinier  components (particles). 
   An   electromagnetic  radiation  is composed  of many  quanta (bundles of energy), and  an ordinary  quantum  is  composed  of many  tinier  particles (photons), whereas  electron  radiation  is  a radiation  of  electrons  or  is  composed  of electron's  tinier particles (beta photons). Gas  is not  composed  of  a solo atom (molecule)  but  of  many  particles (atoms, molecules); likewise, liquid (or even  the string of a guitar) is containing  many tinierparticles.

    Therefore,    λ    is    of  MANY  tinier   PARTICLES  and  not  of  a  particle. 


6)  Wave  a   particle  or  not  ?

   The dilemma  of wave theory  was  started  when  Robert  Hooke  had  tried  to partly contradict the particulate  theory  of  Isaac  Newton.
       Wave  is not  a  particle !  Wave  is  a shape  formed  of  a  group  of  particles! 
 However, this  fact  is seemed to disorient  by defining  particle  as  a  'SOLID  object'  - so that, in effect, molecules  and very  minute dust components   of  a  smoke, mist  or gas  are  not  particles,  because they are not  solid.  This (latter) thinking  is  obviously  wrong, because  solidity  is limited  by  the 'defining'  human  senses, whereas  being particle  is not dependent  on the human  senses' viewpoint. A  solid  for virus, bacterium, or minute  organism  might  not  be  solid  for human senses. But  a particle  for virus, bacterium, or lilliputian  organism  is also  a particle  for man.

      Wave  is visible  if  a  shape  formed  of  a group  of  particles.
     Sound  is  audible  and  not  visible. Therefore, sound  wave  is not  a wave  of sound, but a wave  of gaseous or liquid (or string's)  molecules  disturbed  of sound.
     Therefore, the so-called  sound wave  is  composed  of many  tinier  particles, which  scatter when  passing  from  a screen's  slit (opening). It is the  particles that  scatter, showing  a diffracted  part  of  the  radiation.
     Sound  wave  and  light   are  visible,  and  yet  the so-called   'light  wave'  is  not  see-able  and  does not  have  a photographic  evidence  or detectable existence.  The  reason  why ?
      Because   light  wave  is  a hoax  of  the  quack  science.  To  hide  the fraudulence  of this  light wave, they  define  it  as  a  'BEHAVIOR'    and  not  as  an existing entity. (Of course, moody,  tolerating, naughty, or  aggressive   is a behavior  which  IS  not  a visible  particle.)
      With  this  dilemma, they  coerce   'particle'  to  mean  a  'behavior'  too.

  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

   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