Re: Bogus This New God of Yours

All I see is a little picture of him on the left side of the page. Hardly proves anything. And he cant be compared to Einstein, who was actually working on his doctorate when he published his theory.

http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf




Below are two sections:
firsts about Einstein
second a debunking of Harrimens so called paper











Edited on Thu Mar-26-09 12:54 PM by scubadude
The first sub-text of your premise was that Einstein didn't have credentials when he made a huge impact. It is true that Einstein's paper on the General Theory of Relativity was written when Einstein didn't have credentials, but that paper was written as a direct effort to gain credentials, as were all of the papers he wrote in his landmark year, 1905.

It also seems you demean Einstein's education and knowledge of phyiscs by stating the theory was based on simple math from someone with no credentials. Although the mathematics of the Theory of Special Relativity aren't complex, in order to create the theory he had to have a vast understanding of physics and math. He had to understand the most complex work of the day. Not only did he do this, but he bettered the most complicated of them by simplifying them. Remember Newton saying "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"? The same could be said of Einstein.

Einstein had personally mastered Differential and Integral Calculus by the age of 15, mostly on his own. He also had attended school in the geographical area that what was the "center of the world" for thought on physics. Most of the giants of the day came from Europe, with Germany being at the center of the most advanced research and thought.

He was working on his Doctorate during the entire year of 1905 (which he did in his spare time!). The 1905 papers have been described as "Five papers that shook the world" he received his Doctorate in Physics in January 1906.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21144


Here is an answer to the question you pose about what to study. You would have to study and master the complete body of knowledge of your interest area and all of it's underpinnings. Then you would have to better them.

Einstein early on thought he would be a teacher. Saying of his ability to get into a university:

"If I were to have the good fortune to pass my examinations, I would go to Zurich. I would stay there for four years in order to study mathematics and physics. I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical ability."

He was wrong about one part, most of his genius was expressed through thought experiments purely based upon knowledge and imagination. He was only partly wrong about being a teacher though. Although he never directly taught classes (as far as I know) his theoretical advances taught the entire world, actually creating several areas of study that remain until this day.

As far as behavior, Einstein early on was a genius rebel who attacked authority when he thought it was wrong. He saw his predecessors as being stuck in the past and unwilling to search for new ideas. Ironically in the mid portion of his career he lamented "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself"
----------------------------------------

Alright lets really address why this guy is wrong:

I read his paper. This one:

http://www.theresonancep...arzschild_proton_a4.pdf


Its really badly written by the way as a scientific paper but thats beside the point. I know a bit about spin from nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) and I think this guy is way off about spin and way off about his concept of a proton.

Lets go through a few points.

Quote:
Remarkably, a Schwarzschild condition proton as a mass ( 8.851014 gm)
approximately 38 orders of magnitude higher than the standard proton mass
(1.671024 gm ), producing a gravitational effect strong enough to confine both the
protons and the quarks.


His model can't just change claim that the mass of a proton is 38 orders of magnitude higher without explaining why experimental evidence explains what its mass is. This is a really huge glaring nonsense claim. It refutes his own theory. We know the mass of electrons and protons! If this was true the periodic table would be completely meaningless and wrong.

Furthermore how can the gravitational mass of his schwarzschild proton contain more then one proton (he uses plural there) and the quarks. The single proton (which he is describing as a "schwarzschild proton"Wink is made up of quarks so why does he speak as if they are separate entities? One is made of the others. Also hes got a spelling mistake up there.

Now lets move onto his scaling law for organized matter.

Quote:
A plot of Log Mass (gm) vs. Log Radius (cm) for objects from the Universe to a
Planck black hole. The light red line is a least squares trend line. The graph clearly
demonstrates a tendency for different scales’ masses to form and cluster along an
approximate linear progression. Although the Schwarzschild proton falls nicely on
the trend line, the standard proton is far from it.


First lets deal with the planck sized black hole at the bottom. A black hole can theoretically exist any mass higher then the planck mass. So lets assume that I guess he means a planck sized black hole of one unit of planck mass. That number is a real number. Its also a macroscopic measure of mass. One planck mass equals 0.000021767 grams. Thats 2.1767 micrograms. Thats a huge number compared with the mass of a real proton which is 1.6726231e-24 grams. That means his smallest unit of measure in his scale is massively huger then a real proton. This makes absolutely no sense. It really doesn't. It also makes no sense that his so called model of a proton the schwarschild proton is has a mass larger then 2.17 micrograms.

Also what about all the other galaxy clusters? Do they have the same size? Not all pulsars have the same size. Not all stars have the same size. This is a completely arbitrary decision of scales. Its not a law by any means.

Finally lets deal with his “anomalous” magnetic moment.

Quote:
We calculate the “anomalous” magnetic moment [5] of the proton using a simple
model where the proton is a sphere with a Compton radius of 1.321 Fermi spinning at
the speed of light, c, with a point proton charge at its equator. The magnetic moment is
given as:
2
  qrv (15)
where q is an elementary charge of 1.602176531019 Coulombs , the proton radius is
1.321 10 15 pr  meters and the velocity v  2.998108 m/ s giving a value of the
magnetic moment of such a proton of 3.172591026 Joules /Tesla .
The measured magnetic moment of the proton is1.40895 1026Joules /Tesla ,
which is only 2.25 times smaller than our calculated value. The magnetic moment
8
calculated for a Schwarzschild proton model is remarkably close the measured value for
such a crude first approximation.
4. Conclusions
We have presented evidence that the proton may be considered as a
Schwarzschild entity and that such a system predicts remarkably well, even under crude
approximations....


This is absurd. Why because in quantum mechanics one can calculate the magnetic moment of a particle using the Dirac equation figured out by Paul Dirac in 1928. Using it to solve the magnetic moments of particles like electrons was done with Feynmanns QED (quantum electrodynamics) many years later but its based on Dirac's equations.

Even more important and even more revealing of the absurdity of this article is that using QED one can calculate the anamolous magnetic dipole moment of an electron to within ten parts in a billion. So his theory really offers absolutely nothing to physics in this regard either. QED is far more accurate. Its not two and a quarter times off its less then ten parts in a billion off according to the most accurate predictions and the most accurate measurements for electrons. I don't know the numbers for protons.


Anyway thats all I can muster. I hope at least someone out there can see that this guy is full of it.

Cheers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you are a pure genius and a rebel, then forge ahead with your studies while working on your own theories. Publish or attempt to publish, as Einstein did. Butt heads with the most advanced theorists and above all persevere. If your personal abilities are ahead of anyone else, you may succeed. If not you will still have lived a life in search of knowledge, and one I consider worth living.

Best of luck, hopefully you will succeed and make a difference. I encourage you to do so,

Scuba

Tweet