Balmer Hydrogen Data Compared to Theory

[sb635]

I cannot find my past posts on this topic in the Quantum Physics forum. I fully anticipated on my very first post on this topic, that my posts would be moved into the Speculations form. I have searched the Speculations forum, and cannot find my past posts anywhere. Perhaps I have simply missed seeing something, but I looked fairly well in these forums, and for significant times in the past, and I do not see my posts describing this geometric revolution in atomic modeling. Perhaps the quantum physicists list managers reading my work, who are undoubtedly "hard core" QM physicists, are afraid. The physical truth is deterministic chaos, not white noise QM. This probably intuitively instills a great fear in QM physicists. Their guts tell them that QM is fundamentally incorrect. But any data suggesting this is true will be dismissed, because of their fanatic "religious" belief in QM. Any theory that states dead people can come back to organic life after 3 days of death, with a nonzero probability of that occurring, obviously allows miracles "in theory." Any theory which allows physically disallowed miracles to occur with nonzero probability, is not a scientific theory.

 

The essence of QM as envisioned by the "priests" of QM simply cannot be incorrect. QM physicists have effectively a "religious faith" in the validity of QM. This must be so, because virtuality can only be a "belief." It cannot ever be observed.

 

Have I been effectively banned from these forums, even the Speculation forum? I was hoping the Baltic/Slavic/Russo atomic physicist, who to me have a much more pragmatic view towards atomic modeling, would have viewed my deterministic ideas as at least interesting. With not one response, for over 700 views, I feel my theories are dismissed by everyone, which I find very strange. All readers of these forums, I bet, consider themselves to be "good" scientists. I have proven my theories perform better than the best QM theory to date, namely QED. Does anyone dispute that? If you do, please provide as much theoretical and experimental proof as I have presented, for your hypotheses. I challenge all QM physics: Formulate a better mathematical model for hydrogen than I have done. Describe your theory, and compare it to hydrogen’s Balmer data, and prove me wrong. My theories heralded a revolution in atomic physics. Prove me wrong with theory compared to data.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Your inability to find stuff is not the site's problem.

I clicked on your name, then on the button marked "posts" and found this

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79136-comparison-of-atomic-theories-to-hydrogen-balmer-data/

 

So your bizarre speculation about priests or that the ""hard core" QM physicists, are afraid" seems a bit empty of reason.

 

Now that I have given you a signpost to your post, perhaps you would like to answer the point I made there about units.

Incidentally, the fact that your units don't make sense might be the real reason for this "I feel my theories are dismissed by everyone, which I find very strange."

Edited April 4, 2014 by John Cuthber

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

We don't censor anything, we don't delete anything, and we're not afraid of new information on this website, unless this would violate our rules, which are no secret and can be checked by anyone. The rules do not mention anything about any particular topics being illegal, with the exception of those mentioned under section 2.3, such as drugs and dangerous chemicals (such as explosives).

 

Sometimes however, we do close a thread. For example, when a member couldn't find something, and created a new thread to ask assistance to retrieve some information: we close that thread once the information was found.

 

In other words, please continue your conversation in the other thread... this one is closed.