An Investigation of Modern Physics by Brian Williams
RSS icon Home icon
  • Basics of an Atomic Theory

    Posted on July 16th, 2010 Brian No comments

    The construction of an atom model that satisfies all the requirements of scientific knowledge regarding both physical and biological facts must be our starting point. It must be able to explain colour, weight (mass), state (i.e. solid, gas or liquid), changes due to temperature, changes due to pressure, hardness, and softness, rigidity and flexibility, chemical reactions, gravity, magnetism, and most importantly, life.

    The physics establishments ‘hypotheses’ do not explain any property of matter therefore they do not qualify as theories.

    My atomic theory explains all known properties of matter. (It therefore passes the requirements of a theory.)

    I may be wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the Physics Establishment.

    The reader will have problems due to fact that I go against all the current atomic hypotheses that he/she will have been taught or accepted. I can understand this because I had the same problem myself, many times over the years finding it difficult to believe my own results. Eventually it was easier to consider existing hypotheses only to pinpoint where the problems were. This was a case of selecting any particular hypothesis proposed by the physics establishment, assume it is wrong, and work out alternative hypotheses and then produce a working theory. 90% of current hypotheses cannot even satisfy the title of theory because there are no explanations of how they could work.

    One of the main reasons for physicists opting for whizzing high-speed electrons is an attempt to explain the energy of an atom.

    However, all energy is stored in one of two states, momentum or stress. (Occasionally it is stored as a combination of both)

    The energy of atoms is stored as stress.

    The reader may find this statement difficult to accept but it is true, whether you are considering chemistry, radiation, mechanics or biology. However, if you ask a physicist to explain how his model/hypothesis of the atom explains any of the physical or biological facts of reality, he will only mumble that you will not understand the explanation, being a mere mortal, but will then brighten up and go into the fantasy world of physics in the form of time dilation, rubber sheet universes, black holes, time travel etc. things that are basically fairy stories to amuse the public.

    Can you remember anything produced from physics hypotheses? Forget atomic energy which was a discovery by SCIENTISTS not PHYSICISTS. The physicists were brought in to attempt to find an explanation, with which they are still struggling. The atom bomb and controlled atomic energy were produced by scientists and engineers, with the physicists hanging about trying to look important. Note; We have atomic energy not nuclear energy.

    What we consider to be atomic energy is only another step along the way from rubbing two sticks together to create fire, energy from coal and gas, dynamite, all of which are atomic reactions. The Atom bomb and its derivatives are toys relative to the energies that could be released if we inadvertently hit something that is a lot more stressed than the radioactive materials that are being used today. Radioactive ‘elements’ are already breaking down and are unstable. The more dangerous elements will not show this breakdown, and we will not be aware of their danger until too late. The pointless experiments with the so-called Hadron collider will not produce any useful knowledge, but could inadvertently blast a huge hole in the centre of Europe

    From Section 3, Physics or Fantasy

    Leave a reply