AlphaNumeric, it is incredible that you still write the tremendous nonsense and that on this Forum tolerate your dishonest.
I'm willing to give further explaination for anything I've said, I have nothing to hide in that regard.
Now is 2012. They still cannot explain the perihelion precession of Venus whereas within the Everlasting Theory I did it (see page 111, theoretical result is 204.0��). I calculated the value for Mercury as well.
Provide evidence Venus's motion isn't explained accurately by current methods.
Do you understand my simple explanation? There is structure of an atom and spectrum associated with interactions. You cannot calculate, for example, mass of an atom from spectrum. Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM.
Nice strawmanning. This is part of the problem, you don't know what the mainstream actually said because you don't bother to find out properly. This occured particularly so when you used to go around whining about the mainstream's take on asymptotic freedom and confinement. You hadn't bothered (and even if you had I consider you intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway) to find out what those are in the mainstream and thus conflated the two. I had to repeatedly explain the difference to you, at which point you amended your 'everlasting theory'. Funny, shouldn't an everlasting theory already be right?
In this case you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says about spectra etc. No one says 'the structure of the atom consists of the photon spectrum'. The structure of an atom or molecule will affect its emission and absorption spectra but that's quite different from what you claim the mainstream says. And it is possible to reverse infer the mass of particles within a molecule from its spectra.
It just so happens I've spent much of the last 6 months working on a particular quantum chemistry probem which involves the link between particle masses, molecular structures and their spectra. I got paid to do it and I produced results which outperform what you'll find in the literature by several orders of magnitude. The results are validated by experimental data too. So I'd say I do understand this stuff pretty well, demonstrably so. Unlike you the sum of my scientific accomplishments are not represented by my forum postings.
The masses of particles which make up molecules appear in the equations whose solutions are the photon spectra associated to the molecule in question. Given sufficient experimental data for the various emission levels you can deduce the masses of the nuclei and electrons involved. It's not the most precise way, so other methods are used for precise measurements of masses, but it can be done. To illustrate this one needs only to look at the Hydrogen atom. It's energy levels pertain to the Bohr radius, which pertains to the electron's mass and charge. This is something you learn in a first course in quantum mechanics but since you don't know any quantum mechanics you're ignorant of this well known result.
Now about the protons and neutrons
The mass spectrum of the quarks and mass spectrum of the mesons follow from the interactions of the baryons! This means that similarly as for atoms, we cannot claim that nucleons consist of the sham up and down quarks. The sham quarks appear when nucleons interact. This is tremendous mistake when someone claims that structure of nucleons is directly associated with the relativistic quarks.
Deep inelastic scatterings demonstrate the proton and neutron each have 3 localised charges within them. Jet events demonstrate their spin properties and non-zero mass nature. High precision W-W decay processes demonstrate the localised charges have additional types of charge from just electromagnetic, ie the strong force, and that there are 3 different charges in the strong force (ie the three 'colours'). So we can look into the inside of hardons, using things other than nucleon-nucleon processes. Again, a well know result to anyone who has studied the Standard Model, which you haven't.
So once more, we will never calculate from the properties of the up and down quarks the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons. It is true because such physical quantities are directly associated with structure of nucleons (see pages 16-21 in my book).
Except that non-perturbative calculations using Lattice QCD do allow us to compute such things. Once again you make a blanket statement based on nothing but your ignorance and delusion you're right.
We can see that indeed the obtained theoretical results are beautiful.
Or pseudo-scientific curve fitting and retroactive 'explanations'.
AlphaNumeric, there is something wrong with you.
I can see why you would view intellectual honesty as something wrong, its a concept alien to you.
Their dimensionalities are directly associated with the International System of Units. The interactions are defined the same as in the SM. There are the sources of interactions and carriers of interactions. There is the speed of light and Planck constant. And the running coupling is undimensional. Do you understand that the global picture of the interactions is the same as in the SM and experiments? Do you understand that we can calculate, for example, ratios of physical quantities for different energies?
You
still don't get it. Wow you're thick. It doesn't have anything to do with definitions of units, given all physically meaningful quantities are dimensionless, including the strong coupling constant.
Here's a superficial explanation of how the strong coupling constant can be computed.... Beams of protons are collided and the debris from them is measured. Clouds of new particles go out in all directions, carrying with them energy and momentum. These are measured. Given the knowledge of the beam energy and momentum going in and the energy and momenta coming out a particle physicist starts calculating, using QCD (which you claim is nonsense), including non-perturbative methods (which you also claim is nonsense in the SM), how protons with the measured incoming momentum and energy might convert into the observed particles coming out of the collisions. More specifically they compute a lot of Feynman diagrams and run lots of computer simulations of quarks from different protons emitting gluons, which then collide and create more quarks and electroweak bosons and leptons etc, which then fly out of the fireball to form quark jets. Given the observed jets and the observed incoming beams the particle physicist can then say "Well since the strong coupling constant alters how gluons and quarks interact my Feynman diagrams and computer simulations can only correctly explain the experiment if the coupling constant is equal to....". If the SM is wrong then all those Feynman diagrams and non-perturbative calculations are wrong. You have repeatedly said you consider them all wrong and 'shams' etc. But if they are all wrong then the physicists calculation to compute the coupling constant is wrong, so the value of the coupling constant is wrong. So if you're right about the SM and QCD and non-perturbative methods used by the community then the implication is the use of them to calculate the strong coupling constant leads to a wrong answer. But you also claim you correctly predict the value of the coupling constant. But you don't think the calculations which lead to such a value in the mainstream community are right.
You cannot have it both ways. If all the QCD/quark stuff is nonsense and thus anything calculated from them flawed, including the strong coupling constant value, then
your prediction for the strong coupling constant is also wrong since in reality there isn't how the internals of the nucleons are behaving.
The only way you can get around this is to work with the raw data, the energies and momenta the detectors measured. Everything else,
everything else, relies on the Standard Model to interpret the data to extract other bits of information. Since you don't have access to such data you cannot do any such calculations. It is for this reason all of your work is undermined, you simultaneously denounce the SM as a sham while loudly proclaiming how you can reproduce results from it. I must have explained this to you 10+ times in the past year or so but it just doesn't sink in. The fact you think I was referring to something to do with units shows how clueless you are. You say you've grasped my point but you so obviously haven't. The question then becomes whether you have grasped it but don't want to face up to it or whether you're actually so thick you cannot grasp what is really a simple thing.
Perhaps another example? Suppose you wanted to compute the value of G, Newton's constant. How might you do it? You could get a ball, a ruler and a stop watch and then measure its mass and time how long it takes to fall a distance L. The raw data is just a length L, a time T and a mass M. How can we extract a value for G from that? Well you need a model, something which links G to L, T and M. We can use F=ma and $$F = G\frac{MM_{E}}{r^{2}}$$. Doing the necessary calculations we can write G in terms of L, T and M. However, if the models are not right then the value of G will not be, even though the raw data is accurate. For example, if we used general relativity we'd get a very similar but
slightly different answer (if you were doing this experiment near a black hole event horizon it'd be a huge difference!). Different models process the same data differently and thus give different answers. This is why saying "The SM is nonsense" undermines your claim to have accurately modelled the strong coupling constant, it's computed from data using the SM! If the particle physicist I just mentioned accidently changed the number of quark flavours in his calculations from 6 to 10 (suppose we discovered some more quark types) then the calculations would result in a different value for the strong coupling constant!
Everything which isn't directly observable must be inferred using models. Different models predict different amounts from the same data. You denounce the SM while lauding over one of its outputs! This is why your claims are inconsistent, this is why all your assertions and delusions amount to nothing. This is why you'll be sure to achieve nothing until you address this fundamental, fatal problem in your claims. Until such time as you aquire raw collider data and process it through your own work this problem
kills your ideas.
And so on. Frequently in the mainstream theories physicists add new parameters and/or add new mechanism to fit the theoretical results to the experimental data. It is a childish game.
Updating our models as we gain new understanding and data is childish? It's the scientific method! Sometimes a model only needs a small adjustment, other times you burn it to the ground.
Since 1997 I never have added new parameter to my theory. You are liar claiming that I changed picture of strong interactions in my book.
Pictures? I didn't mention any pictures. Ironic of you to call me a liar by lying about me! Rather I had to correct you on your misunderstanding about the difference between deconfinement and asymptotic freedom. You thought them the same when they are different. Given you claim to explain everything with your work it's a bit odd your work didn't already tell you there is a difference, since they are two experimentally distinct phenomena....
Over time, I add new paragraphs. At first, there were described the strong interactions in the low-energy regime and it is very easy to prove that it was before I started to discuss with you and that I did not change the picture. You are just big liar. Moreover, the picture of the strong interactions in the high-energy regime HAS NOTHING with the nonsense you wrote in your posts. Just my theory says that the confinement is not in existence! The confinement added physicists to the old picture of the strong interactions to fit the theoretical results to the new experimental data. Professor Barbara Jacak and Dr. Vigdor said as follows:
Below is the link to article published in The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html
Dr. Vigdor said ��..but the quark-gluon plasma does not act the way theorists had predicted� whereas Professor Barbara Jacak, of the State University at Stony Brook, speaking for the team that made the new measurements, said �This is not your father�s quark-gluon plasma�.
Confinement wasn't added due to the experiments you are referring it, it was known about long long before them. The article you link to is explaining how the particulars of the deconfinement process wasn't well understood. There's a difference between saying "We predicted this effect but we were slightly out in the accuracy so had to make small modifications to the model" compared to "This effect no one expected and we have had to bolt on an entirely new section to the model". The reality is the former, not the latter as you're implying. QGP physics is difficult to calculate things for so much of the fine detail hasn't yet been worked out.
You call me a liar yet you misrepresent anyone you think might help to make your claims look less laughable. You do it in regards to me and in regards to the community at large. If you really want physics to bin the SM and work on your ideas you need to be honest. You aren't going to convince particle physicists if they see you lying about them and their work. It might work to con a few people on forums but it'll get you nowhere in the research community.
AlphaNumeric, now all can see how dishonest you are. I proved many times that you are liar who try to swindle others.
Project much?
AlphaNumeric, �Do not judge others, lest you yourself shall be judged�. All your swindles are in your posts and it will be forever.
I stand by everything I've said. Your claims are terminal flaws in them and you misrepresent people, including to their face (ie me). You can do nothing but just assert things, all the time avoiding facing up to a fatal problem your work has. Of course it's no skin off my nose if you ignore this problem, you have the right to waste your existence deluding yourself, accomplishing nothing, I (as well as the rest of the research community) will contiue with productive research which can be presented honestly and stands up to scrutiny. I know its incredibly unlikely you'll realise your mistakes, you seem to lack the basic mental capacities for that, but I want to make it obvious to everyone else who is reading how easy it is to put down your claims and how fundamentally flawed your assertions are, all it needs is a reasonable grasp of the scientific method and how experiments are handled. I haven't needed any university level physics knowledge to point out the problems, all that I've needed is knowledge someone whose read a few pop science books will have. Having a decent grasp of scientific procedures, especially the handling of experiment vs theory, is important for someone to be a good scientist and just like every other relevant or useful knowledge of science you don't seem to have any.
