Neutrons and Gravity

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Poemander said:

A. This is the difference. All of science is based on irreducible hypotheticals, the original inductive beginning of a theory or model by which we attempt to derive deductions. If these latter remain consistent the theory gains support, else we need to revise or abandon hypotheses. Mainstream hypotheses are like fashion or worse until science becomes technology.

Please excuse me for ignoring much of your rhetorical ramblings and while you still fail in supplying any evidence for your hypothetical claims. While all theories certainly start off as hypotheticals, via experiments and observations, and subsequent gathering of evidence, those hypotheticals  become theories, the top accolade other then scientific laws. Those same theories being constantly tested over time, gain in certainty as they continue to pass those tests, as well as making continued successful predictions, such as GR for example and the discovery of gravitational waves. Others of course are invalidated and fall by the wayside, while others such as Newtonian mechanics while correct, is limited to non relativistic effects here on Earth. That's part and parcel of the scientific method. I also find it rather difficult that so many newbies with alternative propositions, fail to follow the clearly laid out rules and post in the mainstream sciences, while ignoring the speculation section. Perhaps its an ego thing?

Quote

A. As detailed, the pot calls the kettle black, with three fingers pointing back at itself! A spring cleaning of the entire hypothetical basis of all branches of science is required, where technology has yet to verify political/economic influence. This general swipe of snow and mist is by its nature unanswerable. I must restrict myself to specific questions with apologies.

No pot or kettle at all. I'm simply pointing out, [1] that you have posted in the wrong section, and [2] you supply no evidence for your hypotheticals. Now I would go back to square one and do some of your own spring cleaning then come back and see how you fare.

 

Quote

 Science seeks Truth, necessary for Justice, if you cherish your Freedom and trust in your God by whatever definition. In the wrong hands it is our mutual extinction.

What truth are you on about? And why bring some mythical being into a hypothetical science claim? Science seeks knowledge, and will continue to seek to improve and add to that knowledge as our technology allows. As I said previously, many scientific theories are now as close to certainty as we wish...the theory of evolution of life is the prime example...Others are close behind, such as SR, GR and the BB.

 

PS: Please take some time to learn how to use the quote function...it makes things far easier to read.

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by beecee

[Poemander]

Q. How are the opinions of a chess player relevant?

A. Excerpts from CHESS MANIAC-FRIDAY, JANUARY 23RD, 2015
Albert Einstein and Chess
In 1920, Einstein said there were but 12 men in the world who understood what he was talking about in regard to relativity. Emanuel Lasker was a critic of the theory of relativity at the time. Lasker thought Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong and that the speed of light was limited due to particles in space. Lasker did not think there was a perfect vacuum.
In 1927 Einstein and Emanuel Lasker were living in Berlin and they became good friends. Lasker lived virtually around the corner from the Einsteins, at Aschaffenburgerstrasse No, 6a, in the Schoeneberg district of Berlin.
In December 1928 Einstein wrote to Dr. Emanuel Lasker, congratulating him on his 60th birthday. Einstein wrote, "Emanuel Lasker is one of the strongest minds I ever met in my life. A Renaissance man, gifted with an untameable urge for liberty; averse to any social bonds.... As a genuine individualist and self-willed soul, he loves deduction; and inductive research leaves him cold.... I love his writings, irrespective of their content of truth, as the fruits of a great original and free mind."

In 1931 a pamphlet was written called One Hundred Authors Against Einstein. One of the authors was Emanuel Lasker.
Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker's critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker's keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexander, whom historians have dubbed "the Great," did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker's attempted solution was based on the following idea: "Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circumstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?"

To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: "It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtually independent of their density." Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot - if he is not satisfied with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers.

Q. Explain the three isotopes of hydrogen (all with different masses) with your conjecture. (or multiple isotopes of any element, and beta decay)

A. Hydrogen has one proton only, without necessity for relativistic binding nuclear electrons. Deuterium has two protons and one relativistic binding nuclear electron. Tritium has 3 and 2 respectively. The relativistic binding nuclear electrons at the required energies have sufficiently high frequency to create a binding flux between protons, akin to covalent bonds on the chemically binding scale. Any combination of protons and/or electrons may spontaneously depart the nucleus if the forces are out of balance as reflected by half-life. This voids the need for fanciful explanations concerning the 'particles', 'forces' and other strange hypotheses that have been spawned by Rutherford's assumption, a virtual panacea for research, hypothesising, and scientific 'advancement'.

The lack of a 'neutron' in ordinary hydrogen may well explain the massive size of elliptical galaxies forming in the voids of the universe from materialised energies. They are new and so huge that dead galaxies (globular clusters and swarms remaining when the singularity ceases to be maintained) gather toward them. The gravitational forces would be weak. Their Mainstream explanation is, like quarks, unconvincing.

If you have followed my alternative Steady State Universe Theory, which could have been spawned from light (and dark energy) as per the ancient traditions of a bygone civilisation (historically Critias and Timaeus), there is a black hole at the centre  of our galaxy, that converts our matter and energy to dark energy (neutrinos) capable of materialising on encountering sufficiently high energy photons into, say, a positron and an electron. The positron will destroy the nuclear electron which released the photon, and the electron will have a range of energies depending on the incident neutrino (an alternative hypothesis). Otherwise the dark energies from the core will be repelled by the black hole and pass through matter unimpeded, to be focused normal to the galactic plane where incident positive energies will manifest hydrogen materialisation with the attracted opposite energies (eg. M82).

This would imply that some radioactive sources will manifest variable half-lives over time. Also, we have explanations for Hoag's Object, high gamma ray sources in some galactic cores like Centaurus A (an antigalaxy),  gamma ray bursts and much more besides.
 

[Poemander]

Q.  If you're rejecting existence of neutrons, then you are rejecting nuclear bombs and nuclear powerplants all together, as hoaxes, misinformation and world conspiracy?

Neutrons are essential for fission to work in nuclear powerplants..

If you bombard otherwise stable isotope by free neutrons, nuclei can capture free neutrons and change to other stable isotope or to unstable isotope which will decay after a while, or it can cause fission like in reaction of Uranium 235.

 

A.  A neutron is a combination of a proton and a relativistic electron. Mainstream holds that the neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino of the electron type. In the first step, a uranium-235 atom absorbs a neutron, and splits into two new atoms (fission fragments), releasing three new neutrons and a large amount of binding energy. This 'binding energy' has a source, the electrons that left as a part of the neutrons have surrendered some of the energy. We now suppose that the free neutrons release the remaining energy as an antineutrino of the electron type. But how certain is any of this. The energy carried away by neutrons would vary according to the source. Are we specifically talking about the neutron that Ra + Be emits. Is it the same as that formed by U235 -> Ba + Kr + 3n?

Energy will be emitted halving the total U Bomb blast energy every 10.3 minutes by the breakdown of neutrons of assorted energies. Furthermore I am inclined to believe that a neutrino is the 'antiparticle' of the photon with a range of energies the same, and completely symmetrical in behaviour to an observer within an antigalaxy. That observer will consider photons to be neutrinos, having little effect on that observer's type of matter. If these antiprotons are indeed symmetric, they must also be gravitationally attracted by antimatter, and repelled by matter. It is further likely that, like in materialisation, all or most means of generating photons also produce neutrinos, which go unnoticed. Can this be contested?

 

An hypothesis is not a manifestation of insanity. But it does require individuals like those we must thank for our science. "Most people are incapable of expressing opinions that are not a part of their social environment. Fewer still are capable of forming such opinions." A.E.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Poemander said:

 

Nonsense. Mainstream scientific theories become mainstream because they have passed all tests and have continuing evidence to support them and literally  have "run the gauntlet" so to speak. And as success of theories are maintained over time, they gain in certainty as I listed previously. I noticed somewhere you queried how the speed of light in a vacuum can be verified. Of course space is not a perfect vacuum but pretty damn close, and of course such speeds are measured in the Lab via lasers.

Again other then some rhetoric and an attempted  biased History lesson, you offer know evidence to support your baseless claims.

5 hours ago, Poemander said:

In 1931 a pamphlet was written called One Hundred Authors Against Einstein. One of the authors was Emanuel Lasker.

Yep, in Nazi Germany and the anti Jew racism that existed, and probably under threat and pressure.

Quote

But how certain is any of this.

As certain as any scientific theory until it is falsified as per the scientific method. If you have any evidence to dispute your claims, then you need to write up a a paper for professional peer review. But I believe you would be pissing into the wind, when one looks at the evidence and experimental results supporting the mainstream model.

Quote

If you have followed my alternative Steady State Universe Theory,

I believe that has been sufficiently rebuked and found wanting on many fronts.

 

Quote

Otherwise the dark energies from the core will be repelled by the black hole and pass through matter unimpeded, to be focused normal to the galactic plane where incident positive energies will manifest hydrogen materialisation with the attracted opposite energies (eg. M82).

DE is something related to spacetime  itself and acts against the gravity of the overall mass/energy density of the universe.....hence the observed acceleration, as DE remains a constant acting over all spacetime, while the mass/energy density is getting less...which also obviously poo poos any  Steady State notion.

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by beecee

[swansont]

 

Quote

Would he not simply think, well, there could be n+1 protons and n electrons in the nucleus, and a single electron in orbit? Do you not have to know about nuclear spin to reject this suggestion?

Or is the point to explain why higher isotopes than tritium are highly unstable? 

There is no mechanism for having an electron stuck in the nucleus — it's not consistent with QM. Two protons in the nucleus are not a stable configuration. It also does not explain why we also get an (anti)neutrino in beta decay.

Spin is also a problem, since you would expect to have excited states with higher spin values, which are not observed, but it's not the main reason to reject this model.

16 hours ago, taeto said:

I imagine to have to answer a high school student who asks "why neutrons in the nucleus, and not just protons and electrons?"

Do you have evidence to say that the OP has an understanding of physics which substantially exceeds that of said high school student?

That's irrelevant. The OP did not ask the question you have stated here. The OP has made an assertion, and is obligated to defend it.

11 hours ago, Poemander said:

 

A. 4.       For those who haven't heard the bomb (1945) yet - all force is one force - electric fields. Disturbances in the force are a result of the acceleration of charged particles. Magnetic force is a result of space contraction creating an imbalance in the fluxes from moving charges relative to the (observer protons) stationary charges. The mathematics reveals that (as suspected by Maxwell) the permeability constant (u) equals the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity constant (e) with the speed of light (c) squared. Electromagnetism is a very loose term and incorrect if I am right. We may need to rename light (in any inertial frame) as electro-magnetic-gravitational energy.

I'm sorry — "The mathematics reveals"? 

You haven't provided any mathematics. You have not given any kind of basis for your assertions.

11 hours ago, Poemander said:

Q. 4.       Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't.

A. 4. This is incorrect: F = G.m1.m2/r^2 looks much like F = 4.Pi.e.q1.q2/r^2. The difference is (present Mainstream) that m, unlike q, is only positive.

There are no magnetic monopoles, so you have dipoles, which are 1/r^3

11 hours ago, Poemander said:

I CONTEST THIS HYPOTHESIS, and have done so since I learned about antimatter in 1969. Einstein died in 1955. Antimatter (beyond positrons) was discovered in 1956, when the existence of the second material particle - the antiproton - became manifest to the scientific community. Without this Einstein was unaware that the universe consisted of both types of matter. Mainstream has voided this with 'evidence' of asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions to prop up Big Bang once again. The evidence seems very flimsy to me, considering the evidence of the exact opposite in so many ways. But antimatter balancing matter universally (materialisation from gamma rays indicates conservation of charge and mass by zero sum) was necessary to complete his Unified Field Theory. My proposal actually explains Einstein’s hypothesised gravitational and inertial mass equivalence principle, as well as the implied rest mass-energy equivalence as absolute potential energy in the gravitational fields of the universe.

There is no evidence of large amounts of antimatter.

 

6 hours ago, Poemander said:

 

Q. Explain the three isotopes of hydrogen (all with different masses) with your conjecture. (or multiple isotopes of any element, and beta decay)

A. Hydrogen has one proton only, without necessity for relativistic binding nuclear electrons. Deuterium has two protons and one relativistic binding nuclear electron. Tritium has 3 and 2 respectively. The relativistic binding nuclear electrons at the required energies have sufficiently high frequency to create a binding flux between protons, akin to covalent bonds on the chemically binding scale. Any combination of protons and/or electrons may spontaneously depart the nucleus if the forces are out of balance as reflected by half-life. This voids the need for fanciful explanations concerning the 'particles', 'forces' and other strange hypotheses that have been spawned by Rutherford's assumption, a virtual panacea for research, hypothesising, and scientific 'advancement'.

As Sensei has pointed out in some detail, you get the wrong mass of you just use a proton and an electron as a substitute for a neutron.

The rest of this is word salad. "relativistic binding nuclear electrons"? What does that mean? Why does it matter if they are relativistic? If they have enough energy to account for the mass difference, they would not be bound to the proton. We already know that electron binding maxes out at 13.6 eV with a proton.

"sufficiently high frequency to create a binding flux between protons" explains nothing. There's no model, and no way to test this. You claim it's electrostatic. Use the electrostatic interaction in QM to show this would work.

 

6 hours ago, Poemander said:

The lack of a 'neutron' in ordinary hydrogen may well explain the massive size of elliptical galaxies forming in the voids of the universe from materialised energies. They are new and so huge that dead galaxies (globular clusters and swarms remaining when the singularity ceases to be maintained) gather toward them. The gravitational forces would be weak. Their Mainstream explanation is, like quarks, unconvincing.

There's a huge gap, jumping to this, when you have done little to support your original hypothesis.

6 hours ago, Poemander said:

If you have followed my alternative Steady State Universe Theory, which could have been spawned from light (and dark energy) as per the ancient traditions of a bygone civilisation (historically Critias and Timaeus), there is a black hole at the centre  of our galaxy, that converts our matter and energy to dark energy (neutrinos) capable of materialising on encountering sufficiently high energy photons into, say, a positron and an electron. The positron will destroy the nuclear electron which released the photon, and the electron will have a range of energies depending on the incident neutrino (an alternative hypothesis). Otherwise the dark energies from the core will be repelled by the black hole and pass through matter unimpeded, to be focused normal to the galactic plane where incident positive energies will manifest hydrogen materialisation with the attracted opposite energies (eg. M82).

To reiterate: you are getting ahead of yourself. You need a model of electrons and protons in a nucleus, and some sort of falsifiable test/confirmation of your model, first. You have barely started down that path.

 

5 hours ago, Poemander said:

 A.  A neutron is a combination of a proton and a relativistic electron.

For which you have no evidence and have provided no model, and the evidence that exists tells us that this cannot work. (see above)

 

 

[taeto]

14 hours ago, Poemander said:

There is no umpire in a chess game, if you wish to test your logic objectively.

So I can throw away my official chess arbiter license card now? 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Yep, in Nazi Germany and the anti Jew racism that existed, and probably under threat and pressure.

Nazi Germany had not been invented yet in 1931 though. It is the name used for Germany 1933-45. 

[taeto]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Yep, in Nazi Germany and the anti Jew racism that existed, and probably under threat and pressure.

Very unlikely in 1931. Moreover, already in 1928 Lasker published "Die Kultur in Gefahr", in which he wrote as his concluding statement:

Die Relativitäts-Theorie als Ganzes, als ein System der Erklärung der Wirklichkeit, ist irrig sowohl in ihren Methoden wie in ihren Ergebnissen.

The relativity theory as a whole, as a system of explanation of reality, is erroneous both in its methods and in its results.

Before the start of the Great Depression in 1929, there were few people who took the Nazi Party seriously as a threat. It is quite improbable that a celebrity such as Lasker could have been under any pressure from that or any other side.

Edited March 12, 2019 by taeto

[Sensei]

10 hours ago, Poemander said:

A.  A neutron is a combination of a proton and a relativistic electron.

That would be instant violation of Lepton number conservation.

Electron has Lepton number +1. Antimatter, antiparticle of electron, positron has Lepton Number -1.

Neutrino has Lepton number +1. Anti-neutrino has Lepton Number -1.

While beta decay minus there are emitted electron and anti-neutrino. Lepton numbers +1-1=0. Still zero.

While beta decay plus there are emitted positron and neutrino. Lepton numbers -1+1=0. Still zero.

While typical double beta decay minus there are emitted two electrons and two anti-neutrinos. Lepton numbers +1+1-1-1=0. Still zero.

While typical double beta decay plus there are emitted two positrons and two neutrinos. Lepton numbers -1-1+1+1=0. Still zero.

While annihilation of electron and positron there are typically created two gamma photons. Lepton numbers +1-1=0+0. Still zero. Before reaction and after reaction. That's what is quantum number conservation.

There are cases in which quantum number conservations are violated, and quantum physicists and scientists are working hard to try prove some violation, but this one case is not..

 

[swansont]

A neutron decaying into a proton and electron would violate conservation of energy, since it would be missing the energy the neutrino carries off. Further, conservation of momentum would dictate a fixed value for the electron KE, which is not observed. (This on top of the energy issues raised earlier)

A neutron has spin 1/2, which is impossible with a proton — electron bound system. 

 

The model can't suffer any one of these problems that have been described, and it suffers from all of them.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, taeto said:

Very unlikely in 1931. Moreover, already in 1928 Lasker published "Die Kultur in Gefahr", in which he wrote as his concluding statement:

Die Relativitäts-Theorie als Ganzes, als ein System der Erklärung der Wirklichkeit, ist irrig sowohl in ihren Methoden wie in ihren Ergebnissen.

The relativity theory as a whole, as a system of explanation of reality, is erroneous both in its methods and in its results.

Before the start of the Great Depression in 1929, there were few people who took the Nazi Party seriously as a threat. It is quite improbable that a celebrity such as Lasker could have been under any pressure from that or any other side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power  advocating of course virulent anti-Semitism.  Taking that in association with the Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923 and the later release of his book Mein Kampf and the fact that the Nazis  became the largest political party in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity

 

[John Cuthber]

17 hours ago, Poemander said:

In 1931 a pamphlet was written called One Hundred Authors Against Einstein. One of the authors was Emanuel Lasker.

Einstein's reply was something along the lines of, "if they had a point, it would only need one author."

Can we get back to science now?

Edited March 12, 2019 by John Cuthber

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Einstein's reply was something along the lines of, "if they had a point, it would only need one author."

Can we get back to science now?

Bingo!

[John Cuthber]

16 hours ago, Poemander said:

A neutron is a combination of a proton and a relativistic electron.

Last time I checked, that was a hot hydrogen atom, rather than a neutron.

[beecee]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

A neutron decaying into a proton and electron would violate conservation of energy, since it would be missing the energy the neutrino carries off. Further, conservation of momentum would dictate a fixed value for the electron KE, which is not observed. (This on top of the energy issues raised earlier)

A neutron has spin 1/2, which is impossible with a proton — electron bound system. 

Not sure how relevant it is or whether the subject for another thread, but as a star exhausts its available fuel and collapses, we get White Dwarfs held up by Electron degeneracy pressure, but virtually cheek to cheek with the protons in the nucleus. Further collapse sees electrons [and I hope this is the right description] forced to join with protons and forming neutrons, which is held up against further collapse by Neutron degeneracy pressure. When this final hurdle is overcome by gravitational collapse we then have aour BH's

[Poemander]

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all who have participated in this thread. Those who trust all of the hypotheses underlying Mainstream may or may not have critically assessed their validity independently, and I am now too old for such an undertaking. If any who read are so inclined and have not hired out all their available time beyond other commitments, you may consider variants of my ideas. I simply can not accept Big Bang as more plausible (or rather as less preposterous) than Steady State. To this end I pin a letter I have sent to Nexus Magazine.

PS How do I put an icon up for a little more notoriety?

Nexus (Pseudoscience).pdf

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, Poemander said:

 Those who trust all of the hypotheses underlying Mainstream may or may not have critically assessed their validity independently, and I am now too old for such an undertaking.

Me too...too old that is to assess validity. So I read plenty of reputable stuff from reputable scientists, who many times disagree over certain details. Then not being one to fall for conspiracy nonsense or ad hoc alternatives from unqualified people, yes, then I certainly trust the hypotheticals that have become mainstream theories. Perhaps if you were able to recognise that all current mainstream theories were at one time hypothetical, and that even those near certain are continually undergoing tests and knowledge in their precision aspects, you would not be so quick to dismiss the BB in favour of something that has been dismissed and for which we have no evidence for.

Best of luck with Nexus anyway.

Edited March 13, 2019 by beecee

[Poemander]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Me too...too old that is to assess validity. So I read plenty of reputable stuff from reputable scientists, who many times disagree over certain details. Then not being one to fall for conspiracy nonsense or ad hoc alternatives from unqualified people, yes, then I certainly trust the hypotheticals that have become mainstream theories. Perhaps if you were able to recognise that all current mainstream theories were at one time hypothetical, and that even those near certain are continually undergoing tests and knowledge in their precision aspects, you would not be so quick to dismiss the BB in favour of something that has been dismissed and for which we have no evidence for.

Best of luck with Nexus anyway.

BEECEE it is quite possible to construct a theory based on a false hypothesis, and continue to create further ad hoc hypotheses to cover an entourage of anomalies as long as they keep on coming up with them. This situation is true for both Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory. Would you grant that Albert Einstein is a reputable scientist that has produced reputable stuff. Have yoy read that he both conceived of the quantum of electromagnetic radiation having E = planc's constant times frequency to explain the emission of electrons only by a minimum threshold frequency? Yet he said that "the further they go with quantum physics the more laughable it gets." And lately "Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang" has been uncovered:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/#.XIihhyIzZhE

He was too old to survive to see the anti-proton detected in 1956.

We don't just need to make new discoveries to advance science. We need to overturn hypotheses that, firstly contradict established hypotheses, or choose between conflicting hypotheses. Secondly, we need to choose to abandon or modify hypotheses that yield anomalies. Those hypotheses that spawn successful technologies are trustworthy, while many steal their credence unworthily by assuming the title Science as described above, to the deception of Civilization and may pay the price. Perhaps, until we are back far enough to see the forest, we cannot see enough trees yet to make a sound judgement. Einstein was there in spades, and had read the Bible and the Talmud forming an opinion about Jesus shared by few in this time of extreme specialisation, including prelates.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Poemander said:

BEECEE it is quite possible to construct a theory based on a false hypothesis, and continue to create further ad hoc hypotheses to cover an entourage of anomalies as long as they keep on coming up with them. This situation is true for both Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory. Would you grant that Albert Einstein is a reputable scientist that has produced reputable stuff. Have yoy read that he both conceived of the quantum of electromagnetic radiation having E = planc's constant times frequency to explain the emission of electrons only by a minimum threshold frequency? Yet he said that "the further they go with quantum physics the more laughable it gets." And lately "Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang" has been uncovered:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/#.XIihhyIzZhE

He was too old to survive to see the anti-proton detected in 1956.

We don't just need to make new discoveries to advance science. We need to overturn hypotheses that, firstly contradict established hypotheses, or choose between conflicting hypotheses. Secondly, we need to choose to abandon or modify hypotheses that yield anomalies. Those hypotheses that spawn successful technologies are trustworthy, while many steal their credence unworthily by assuming the title Science as described above, to the deception of Civilization and may pay the price. Perhaps, until we are back far enough to see the forest, we cannot see enough trees yet to make a sound judgement. Einstein was there in spades, and had read the Bible and the Talmud forming an opinion about Jesus shared by few in this time of extreme specialisation, including prelates.

You have totally and completely missed the point. You need to go back and read my posts and others again, and stop making excuses.

And please stop trying to drag religion or similar beliefs into this. If you need to discuss Einstein's beliefs in such, start a thread. They are well known actually and certainly did not pertain to any magical pixie in the sky.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Poemander said:

BEECEE it is quite possible to construct a theory based on a false hypothesis, and continue to create further ad hoc hypotheses to cover an entourage of anomalies as long as they keep on coming up with them. This situation is true for both Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory. Would you grant that Albert Einstein is a reputable scientist that has produced reputable stuff. Have yoy read that he both conceived of the quantum of electromagnetic radiation having E = planc's constant times frequency to explain the emission of electrons only by a minimum threshold frequency? Yet he said that "the further they go with quantum physics the more laughable it gets." And lately "Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang" has been uncovered:

Einstein was wrong about several aspects of QM.

Quote

 We don't just need to make new discoveries to advance science. We need to overturn hypotheses that, firstly contradict established hypotheses, or choose between conflicting hypotheses. Secondly, we need to choose to abandon or modify hypotheses that yield anomalies.

And yet you have not acknowledged that your hypothesis contradicts established theory, and experimental evidence. Since you have indicated that you will not be doing this, we're done.