Molina Martinez patent

[HopeForHumanity]

How about we stop derailing the thread and get him to build his generator. This science experiment will disprove or verify. If it works, then the particle duality has been proven completely

[pauldude000]

@retroworm

I have determined from your statements that you actually enjoy attacking other for no real reason. Most people I have met with this attitude tend to gravitate to bars, and reside there half-drunk looking for fights.

If your idea is to attack and insult those whom simply do not agree with you, then by all means do not respond to my posts, as I will not answer you after this post.

I consider you of a somewhat weak mind to entertain and hold such a weak attitude.

Why weak? It is pure self-justification towards an unrational baseless attitude of hatred.

"Sorry for nitpicking, but you sounded like those creationist nuts I like to argue with, had to jump on this"

1. "Sorry for nitpicking" and "had to jump on this" demonstrates a compulsional need to attack.

2. "you sounded" demonstrates further the compulsion, as no proof was provided for the desire to attack me.

3. "those creationist" shows the base objects of your rage.

4. "nuts" your best qualification for attacking whomever. You think them insane, so they must be insane??? (baseless)
It is also your only justification for your attacks.

5. "I like to argue with" Ahhh, the true reason emerges, in that you enjoy arguing, or starting verbal fights with these people, and obviously anyone whom even in your words "sounds like" them......

What, did you think yourself in some manner superior to someone else? Intellectually? Morally?

Intellectually:

"Sarcasm is the refuge of a weak mind" Very famous quote made by a very acceptedly intellectual person. Look it up.

The intellect is the ability to think. There is no real tangible thing called "intellectual superiority", unless you compare yourself to animals, or those whom have suffered physical brain damage.

There is however terms for those whom place themselves into such a category. "Egocentric" and "Egomaniacal" both fit quite well by definition. Especially when they perceive those whom do not agree with them as "insane" ("nuts" in other words.)

Morally:

Did I or anyone else whom you have attacked, do anything whatsoever to warrant an attack beyond stating something which you disagreed with?

If not, what moral base can you claim at all? You have proven by demonstration that the ones you attack are superior in this to you.



NOW concerning "Law & Theory"......

Go to wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia, or a physics textbook for that matter, and look it up so that YOU know the difference between a law and a theory. (Though wikipedia is not a very good source, necessarily, it is good enough for this.)


If you wish to speak civilly, responsibly, and without intended antagonism towards me, I will respond.

Otherwise, you shall just be mentally shadow boxing.

Paul Andrulis

[retroworm]

Uhf, what's with the hostility. I just spotted an incorrect statement while I was reading and decided to correct it to my best abilities. It had nothing to do with attacking you personally or showing superiority on my part. Besides, I don't see what your point is, the wikipedia article says exactly what I just said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To stay on topic though...

Collided photons disintegrate into a variety of subatomic charged particles and antiparticles, matter and antimatter. These subatomic particles and antiparticles can not be stopped by mirrors, for which they will abandon the photonic collider through its walls. 

My undestanding in particle physics might be flawed, but wouldn't the antiparticles just annihilate when they try to go through the mirror? That would degrade the mirror over time for sure, but depending on how fast, you could still probably capture the radiation and heat into electricity.

[pauldude000]

@retro

Good. Much better. Now we can hold an intelligent conversation. I really dont mind when people disagree, as I tend to weigh their statements by the statements own validity to demonstrable reality.

All quotes from your previous post.

"There's no real difference between law and theory."

A law does differ from theory. To quote from wikipedia from the topic "Scientific Law":

"A scientific law concerns the physical world. It therefore must have empirical content and consequently be capable of testing and potentially of disproof. Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories.

The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."

And to quote same source from "Physical Law":

"Physical laws are:

    * True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
    * Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
    * Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
    * Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
    * Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws?see "Laws as approximations" below),
    * Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
    * Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
    * Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
    * Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)"


As you can now see, there is a large ACTUAL difference between a theory and a law. You were mislead, by only reading the posting on "Theory".


"There's a bit of a grey area in cosmology/astrophysics/particle physics where they use the word theory a bit too generously to my liking. A lot of that stuff is really hard to test so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they got a lot of things wrong."

You need to add "Theoretical Physics" to this list.

The main problem is that the concept of a "theory" is mixed up BOTH in popular useage, AND in the scientific community. You can see this by the actual definition of "theory", verses the academic applied statements about said. Reading the wikipedia article on "Theory" startled me, as they actually came very close, and actually quoted the academic position.

The problem with a "well established theory", is that it IS "well established", or thought of and taught as a law, not by emperical evidence but by tradition, preference, and longevity. When conflicting evidence raises its ugly head to these, its is readily and rapidly "explained away", as either non-applicable, error in observation, "within the limits of tolerance", "virtual or apparent", or worse. 

Apparent mass in a photon is one such excellent example, and as classic as the day is long. The "mass" HAS to be apparent to these people. WHY?

1. Because the photon definitely demonstrates the quantity of mass.
2. Well established theories (more than just one) state that it cannot have mass.

Here is the basic problem in a nutshell, a photon has empirically by repeatable means through rigorous testing been shown to have mass. Miniscule, extremely small, but EXISTENT.  If the mass is real, the theories are flawed and need revision. It is MUCH simpler to scoff, denounce, or relegate as somewhat "non-existent" then examine the real problem existent with the theory itself.

When ONE of the theories already gives the clue to understanding. Namely E=MC^2

Why would mass have any relationship with the constant C (speed of light in a vacuuem), OR the lorentzian transformations in the motional form of the equation? Both have everything to do with electromagnetic radiation, and NOT supposedly anything to do WITH matter! YET MASS IS A (one of) DEFINING ASPECT OF MATTER!

Einstein almost had the whole understanding. His equation demonstrated that matter is energy, which is nothing new. YET no one has seemingly bothered to equate the necessarily true implication of this statement. Matter IS energy, there is no separation between the two concepts.

Where the mental loophole exists for the continued separation between the two concepts is the completely worthless definition of "pure energy" or E.

Either "pure energy" IS "pure energy", which means that E=E, or "pure energy" is NOT "pure energy" and E is NOT = E. It truly is as simple as that. If the definitions match, and matter is energy, then Mc^2/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2) does indeed equal hf, or one or the other equations is unbalanced.

It is therefore no surprise whatsoever to find a form of energy containing aspects of matter, or vice-versa. That is, so long as you accept E=mc^2 as true.......

What science as a whole needs today is to LOSE the egotistic attitude as a whole, and accept what it does not understand, so that it may actually seek to solve the problems in the theories, and not merely explain them away.

Thought tends to be like electricity, in that it seeks the path of least resistance. It is simpler and easier to rely upon the thoughts and ability of others than to do the thinking yourself using your own ability. I call it mental laziness.

Paul Andrulis

[Alberto Molina M.]

Hello everyone,

Antimatter may be part of our daily life and we haven?t noticed!

When a charged particle crosses through matter at rest, ion pairs are created, this is: electrons and positrons. What the crossing of the charged particle is actually doing is creating a fast moving magnetic field within said matter at rest.

The similarity with the way we create electricity by making a moving magnetic field cross through a conductor, has led me to propose a new theory of electricity.

It is commonly accepted that electricity consists of the flow of electrons traveling from the negative pole to the positive pole, phenomena some how created by the crossing of a magnetic field through a conductor. But, is it true?

If a fast moving magnetic field creates ion pairs dissociation, why wouldn?t a moving magnetic field do the same on the constituent matter of a conductor?

Electricity must be the flow of both, electrons and positrons, in opposite directions along a conductor.

As equal charges repel, both, electrons and positrons, will physically occupy all the available space in their respective segment of the conductor, being the electrical potential or voltage the concentration or density of free electrons, positive or negative, occupying said available space. The more electrons repelling others are present in the volume of the conductor, the more the ?pressure? (voltage) will grow. In alternating currents the phenomenon just inverts every half cycle.

As opposite charges attract each other, at the closing of the circuit electrons and positrons will flow along the conductor to their mutual encounter, creating what we call electrical current, or amperage. The voltage and the resistance of the system will determine the amount of electrons and positrons that can flow along the conductor. 

The presence of electrons and positrons in opposite terminals explains the ?short circuit? phenomena. At low ?pressure? or voltage, the matter-antimatter reactions are small enough not to cause significant damage, but at high ?pressure? or voltage, the explosions and damages can be considerable.

It has been demonstrated in Multiwire Proportional Chambers that negatively charged electrons travel at much higher speeds than positively charged electrons or positrons, probably a thousand times faster, which may be the reason why we have thought that only negative electrons travel in an electric circuit.

The Antimatter Electrical Generator is designed to utilize this concept to transform matter-antimatter charged particles? energy directly into electricity.

Alberto Molina-Martinez




@pauldude,

I also have big hopes with dye laser mediums. About the shape of the photonic reactor, I prefer a cylinder rather that a sphere for practical reasons, but a sphere would work too. Thanks for your comments.

AMM