Lawrence Dawson

Censorship, censorship, censorship.

Recommended Posts

Can't talk about  blackbodies, thermal radiation, and the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and how it was derived and how it is currently used. Doesn't fit the standards a Moderator whose knowledge of science is suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to a more appropriate part of the forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Can't talk about  blackbodies, thermal radiation, and the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and how it was derived and how it is currently used. Doesn't fit the standards a Moderator whose knowledge of science is suspect.

Quit crying and show some math.  Surely there is at least some math in the 5 books you have written, that you could share.  So far all you are doing is making unfounded claims.

Show the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Can't talk about  blackbodies, thermal radiation, and the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and how it was derived and how it is currently used. 

... meaningfully without evidence in support of your position. Evidence, in this case, is the mathematical model you're using in your argument. If you read the rules you agreed to when you joined, you'd easily see this isn't a matter of censorship at all. It's a matter of rigor.

1 hour ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Doesn't fit the standards a Moderator whose knowledge of science is suspect.

But it fits the standards of a Moderator who is a physicist working with atomic clocks. Those are some rigorous standards, and we're very grateful for them, let me tell you.

 

Perhaps your publisher told you to stay away from the math in your books (I think Stephen King once said that each equation in your book cuts the readership in half), but here we need evidence to support arguments, especially if they run counter to mainstream science. Those explanations currently have the preponderance of evidence on their side, but here we'd be interested in discussing anything that supports what you're saying, as long as it follows a reasoned methodology. Does that make sense? Nobody is censoring you, nothing about our process is telling you you can't talk about something. We're telling you that, if you're going to make assertions, you need to support them in order for us to discuss them meaningfully. Imagination needs to follow the rules in order to be science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Can't talk about  blackbodies, thermal radiation, and the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and how it was derived and how it is currently used. Doesn't fit the standards a Moderator whose knowledge of science is suspect.

Your bio on amazon states youre an autodidact with zero formal education in physics and mathematics. What on earth made you think  you can write something meaningful on extremely complex subjects with zero formal knowledge? This is a sincere question, I want to know what made you decide you will spill out 5 books on QM physics without any education. 

In your place, if I had the money to pay publishers to publish my pseudoscience crap, I’d rather sponsor a student or a university somewhere. Instead, youre spreadig misinformation paying for it with your own money. What a horrible thing to do. 

Edited by koti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As to being an autodidact, my daughter was completely home-schooled. She did not enter a classroom until she entered College. She had the Second highest score in the State on the SAT and was a national merit scholar. When she entered a private college she was given a list of great books which she was told an educated person must read. She had already read half the books on the list. She is currently a PhD establishing a nursing major at NNU. Being an autodidact does not mean that I have "zero formal knowledge." I have tried to engage everybody in a serious discussion about Black body thermal radiation emissions.The Stefan–Boltzmann Law provides a constant as the solution to the calculus integral of the curve established by the the graph of wavelength to power output for Black body emissions at a specific temperature. Instead of serious discussions, I received only personal pejorative attacks without the slightest demonstration of the scientific competence which might make such attacks reasonable.

As to the mathematics behind quantum-dimensional geometry, I give the following operational premises. A quantum is defined as a unit of distance which cannot be subdivided. The quantum is composed as two end points separated by vacuum. The quantum end-points must be separated by a force establishing the vacuum distance between them. The force establishing the quantum dimension is proposed to be a potential energy component existing in time. This is a new theory of time which provides a function for it.

The quantum is unlike Euclidean distances which are established as structured distances. The quantum cannot be subdivided but can be differentiated by the negation of subdivision which takes the following form: "Q2 (1--1/n2) = quantum differentiated as a quantum-squared distance." This formula was first given by Jann Rydberg which predicted accurately the spectral lines for hydrogen. The quantum was the root wavelength of 91.143 nm. All other wavelength on the hydrogen spectrum were negations of subdivision for the root wavelength. The Rydberg formulation became the source for the electron orbitals used in the Periodic Table of Elements.The quantum-squared must integrate with a standard Euclidean dimension with a unit value equal to the quantum.

The first corollary of quantum-dimensional geometry is that the derivative of a Euclidean unit of measure is always it's quantum value . For example the derivative of the area  of a circle produces that diameter of the circle. The circle as a solid becomes a circle as a circumference line enclosing vacuum. The derivative of The area of a circle becomes it's quantum value. This works with other units of measure. The derivative of the volume of a sphere, for example, gives the area of the surface of the sphere, an area which circumscribes vacuum and is the quantum value.

Edited by Lawrence Dawson
typographical errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Can't talk about  blackbodies, thermal radiation, and the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and how it was derived and how it is currently used. Doesn't fit the standards a Moderator whose knowledge of science is suspect.

You were asked to discuss science. You chose not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I am wondering is; Why not (I am assuming not, but if you did then please post the articles) go through the peer review process and publish your findings instead of writing books where you cannot really be criticized for any potential mistakes you make? From your amazon page it seems you are a rebel against the scientific consensus etc, but... you do realize that there is a benefit to peer review (although it isn't without its flaws)? If we would have to believe every "genius" that has come up with a revolutionary theory, then we would be sitting here all day doing nothing. For some reason almost all of the people with new and novel ideas, which they do not let go through peer review, talk about how the current scientific community doesn't want their work to be published because it would go against their dogma. 

I think it would be a lot better if you go and write some articles, publish them and see if what other scientists think of them, instead of basically just promoting your books on this forum.
Especially since your response to "show us your model" is "look at the books you can buy on amazon that I wrote".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

As to being an autodidact, my daughter was completely home-schooled. She did not enter a classroom until she entered College. She had the Second highest score in the State on the SAT and was a national merit scholar. When she entered a private college she was given a list of great books which she was told an educated person must read. She had already read half the books on the list. She is currently a PhD establishing a nursing major at NNU.

Perhaps your daughter can show us the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Perhaps your daughter can show us the math." I suspect you do not understand how geometry works. It is built upon a set of propositions. Showing you some of these propositions for quantum dimensional geometry is showing you the math.

As to refusing peer-reviewed science, I reject the charge. We have conducted two revolutionary experiments with significant outcomes based upon quantum dimensional mathematics. We  have identified and measured the negative radiation predicted by Soliton nonlinear mathematics ("Negative radiation pressure exerted on kinks" Phys. Rev. D77:125012, 2008). We showed that the loss of temperature which occurs when 365 nanometer Black-Light bathes cotton. 365 nm is a direct sub-division of the root wavelength. The frequency does not represent a negation of subdivision orbital which the quantum requires. Since the quantum cannot provide the orbital energy, then energy from the nucleus must be supplied to reach the direct sub-divisional orbital and the molecule will cool. This energy  is output as the florescence caused by the Black-Light. When quantum mathematics were applied to the energy lost via temperature drop, Planck's Constant was derived with an accuracy of seven thousand of a percentage point. It was discovered that, in a negative-radiation sensitive hydrocarbon molecule, the loss of temperature is a function only of Plancks Constant and the number of the hydrogen bonds in the molecule. What peer-reviewed Journal would you suggest I submit this study to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

"Perhaps your daughter can show us the math." I suspect you do not understand how geometry works. It is built upon a set of propositions. Showing you some of these propositions for quantum dimensional geometry is showing you the math.

As to refusing peer-reviewed science, I reject the charge. We have conducted two revolutionary experiments with significant outcomes based upon quantum dimensional mathematics. We  have identified and measured the negative radiation predicted by Soliton nonlinear mathematics ("Negative radiation pressure exerted on kinks" Phys. Rev. D77:125012, 2008). We showed that the loss of temperature which occurs when 365 nanometer Black-Light bathes cotton. 365 nm is a direct sub-division of the root wavelength. The frequency does not represent a negation of subdivision orbital which the quantum requires. Since the quantum cannot provide the orbital energy, then energy from the nucleus must be supplied to reach the direct sub-divisional orbital and the molecule will cool. This energy  is output as the florescence caused by the Black-Light. When quantum mathematics were applied to the energy lost via temperature drop, Planck's Constant was derived with an accuracy of seven thousand of a percentage point. It was discovered that, in a negative-radiation sensitive hydrocarbon molecule, the loss of temperature is a function only of Plancks Constant and the number of the hydrogen bonds in the molecule. What peer-reviewed Journal would you suggest I submit this study to?

So when you say "we", do you mean yourself (you aren't in that paper right?)? Also I don't get it, if you have shown these things, then just like the article you have linked now, you can publish it? I have no clue where you could submit it, but I presume there are plenty of journals that publish papers in this field. I don't really get what you are saying to be honest; Either you have done revolutionary experiments and have produced great results which lead you to propose new models (all of this is publishable), or you have done experiments and couldn't publish them, or you haven't tried publishing. So what is the point of putting it in your books if I can't even find these terms in scientific articles.
Another question: "negative-radiation sensitive hydrocarbon molecule" means what exactly? 
Could you provide citations when you say "it was discovered that"?

-Dagl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let me peer-review this claim..

1 hour ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

We have conducted two revolutionary experiments with significant outcomes based upon quantum dimensional mathematics. (...) We showed that the loss of temperature which occurs when 365 nanometer Black-Light bathes cotton. 365 nm is a direct sub-division of the root wavelength.

Due to relativistic Doppler redshift and blueshift any photon can have such frequency and wavelength. It depends on direction and velocity of body which emits photons or receives photons.

Additionally ~ 365 nm is UV light with energy ~ 3.4 eV (four times less than ~13.6 eV i.e. Hydrogen ionization energy ). UV photons have energy enough to ionize matter. i.e. eject electrons from some atoms and molecules.

If you apply (slightly modified) Rydberg formula i.e.

E = 13.6 eV * ( 1/n12 - 1/n22)

with n1=2 and n2= "infinity" or simply "very large value", you will get ~3.4 eV

E = 13.6 eV / 22 - 13.6 eV / 10002 = ~3.4 eV

so if the Hydrogen atom is in a slightly excited state, and you hit it by ~ 3.4 eV photon, the electron will be ejected. Once it's acquired back, ~ 13.6 eV of energy is emitted (in the form of a single photon or multiple photons with energy sum of ~13.6 eV).

Add to it a bit of Doppler shift, caused by the motion of matter sometimes toward the light source, sometimes in opposite direction, and you have effect known as laser cooling:

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

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps your daughter can show us the math.

His daughter is probably biting her nails so her father doesn’t write yet another book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

 As to refusing peer-reviewed science, I reject the charge. 

And yet, you have not provided any evidence that you have published in a peer-reviewed publication. So logically, if you have not published but reject the charge that you refuse to publish, logically one concludes that you have tried and been denied. As if your work has no merit when reviewed with a critical eye.

But how would we know since you have not posted anything to critique? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

As to being an autodidact, my daughter was completely home-schooled. She did not enter a classroom until she entered College. She had the Second highest score in the State on the SAT and was a national merit scholar. When she entered a private college she was given a list of great books which she was told an educated person must read. She had already read half the books on the list. She is currently a PhD establishing a nursing major at NNU

And my mum taught one of the Spice Girls, but that doesn't make me a pop star.

How did you come to the conclusion that someone else's education was relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ?
My favorite was Melanie Chisholm ( sporty ), the others all seem 'flaky'.
She also seems intelligent enough to have attended school, and not relied on looks/sex to gain fame.

I  just thought I'd discuss something important, as all the 'bashing' from one side, and the feigned outrage from the other ( while providing no discussable evidence ), is getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really ?
My favorite was Melanie Chisholm ( sporty ), the others all seem 'flaky'.
She also seems intelligent enough to have attended school, and not relied on looks/sex to gain fame.

I  just thought I'd discuss something important, as all the 'bashing' from one side, and the feigned outrage from the other ( while providing no discussable evidence ), is getting old.

I had a crush on Shania Twain in the 90’s. I guess that makes me a country & western expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't feel bad.
I still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, MigL said:

Don't feel bad.
I still do.

Please don’t. Sporty wasn’t classy enough but there are worse than her. 

Edited by koti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You use the phrase "negations of subdivision" a lot.

It would be better if you used one with a meaning.

On 7/23/2019 at 7:40 PM, MigL said:

Really ?
My favorite was Melanie Chisholm ( sporty ), the others all seem 'flaky'.
She also seems intelligent enough to have attended school, and not relied on looks/sex to gain fame.

 

Strictly speaking, my mum taught a class from which Mel C was skiving.
Lack of attendance does not seem to have hld her back much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

This reads like word salad. Cotton hydrogen bonds? I know Sensei mentioned laser cooling in the context of the Doppler shift, but what all does that have to do with anything regarding the research you cited? 

Sensei was pointing out that 3.4 eV is not nearly enough to ionize a bare hydrogen atom in its ground state. Nothing about hydrogen bound to anything else.

Why did you make all of these links to Sensei's profile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Only "Sensei" replied to my post outlining "our" negative radiation study with authentic Scientific vigor. (I say 'our" because it was conducted by the staff of the Snake River N-Radiation Lab. Now shut down due to lack of funding). "Sensei" seems to be arguing that the electron voltage of the blacklight photon stimulates a vaguely-described effect upon the cotton hydrogen bond such that laser cooling is initiate. Nice try. The problem is that bathing Cotton with legitimate  negation-of-subdivision light does not produce the same cooling. This is true of Rydberg negations-of-subdivision which have greater then the 3,4 eV of 365 nm blacklight. For example, the (1-1/82 ) Rydberg negations-of-subdivision ultraviolet has 13.3875 eV  (or -13.3875 eV if you are addicted to the Bohr model of "electrons falling between orbits to output light photons"). It seems to me that this greater electron voltage of the proposed photon should be even more capable of stimulating cotton bond molecules to the alleged laser cooling State. We do not find this to be true however.  Rydberg negations-of-subdivision frequencies do not cause the molecule too cool. ?

Seems like you don't understand principles of laser cooling. It's wrong energy (13.3875 eV) for laser cooling.. you should try 1.5111 eV instead (13.6 eV / 3^2 - 13.6 eV/ 1000^2 = ~ 1.5111 eV).

Photon with 13.3875 eV will excite atom from ground-state n=1 to excited-state n=8. Then it'll fail back to n=1. Nothing you will gain. No additional energy will be emitted.

If you have slightly excited atom, not in ground state, like n=2, and you hit it by 3.4 eV, it's already present 10.2 eV plus incoming 3.4 eV = 13.6 eV. Photon with 13.6 eV could by made and emitted, when electron will be reacquired back.

So you spend ~3.4 eV, and emitted is ~13.6 eV, and decrease of internal energy of matter under test is 10.2 eV total.

35 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

We do not find this to be true however. 

...I seriously doubt you checked it at all...

...not to mention it must be precisely fine-tuned to utilize Doppler shift effect and relative motion..

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why did you make all of these links to Sensei's profile?

Probably error in quoting..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If they checked it at all they should post the mathematics and results instead of a word salad.

 I would be curious if the OP is aware of how the Fermi-Dirac Bose-Einstein distributions and Maxwell-Boltzmann plays a part in determining particle number densities from Blackbody temperatures. Somehow I don't feel he doesn't from what I have seen of his posts.

Course the OP can always show me wrong by posting the math of his model 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum mechanical mishmash explanations of black body radiation are pointless. They do not depend upon objective data. My inability to repeat the mishmash is due to a desire not to waste time. I thank "Sensei" for his further illumination of the "laser cooling" theory. If you have stated before that the 3.6 eV 0f 365 nm black light could be combined with "already present 10.2 eV" to create 13.6 escape eV  I might, at least, have understood your argument better. Two things I need to say about that. First the quantum dimensional model of electron orbitals is not the Bohr model. The lowest orbit is the "1s" with an electron voltage of  "0.065 eV." I am using the shell/subshell model of electron orbitals which is used by the Periodic Table of Elements, not the Bohr model. Secondly, it is not only the subdivision of the root frequency by "22 "which creates fluorescence and cooling. It is also the subdivision of the root frequency by "3"which fluoresces and cools. This is infrared at 820.3 nm with an electron voltage of 1.511 eV. I doubt if your theory can explain the fact that all direct subdivisions of the root frequency produce florescence and cooling. The simplest explanation is often the correct explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.