Right wing science still has more evidence
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
The hard part about deifying scientists like Einstein or Hawking is that you make everyone too scared to take a swing at them, because even if you are right everyone will rally against you for daring.
So all new things must be within the handful of frameworks that always existed, even if it doesn't make sense.
I have written articles that debunk:
1- the "photo electric effect" , for which Einstein got the Nobel prize.
2- black holes . For which Hawking got the Nobel prize.
I am still looking for honest replies that can show even a doubt in my debunking. But just based on observations and basic physics and logic, both Einstein and Hawking are now in the Bullshit category.
I'm well outside my knowledge zone, but didn't even Hawking admit his black hole theory was wrong some years before his death?
Don't worry about your lack of knowledge. Knowledge without intelligence is not very useful. And many modern scientists are lacking intelligence and critical thinking.
I think you refer to:
No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think - Black holes do not have "event horizons" beyond which there is no return, according to renowned physicist.
I think he is just bending the black-hole theory. From his theory, the quantum mechanics can cause stuff to escape a black-hole. The astronomers need that theory, because a lot of stuff escapes from "black-holes". We see very powerful plasma beams, like this one
I think that every part of the black-hole theory is broken. All black-hole images are just simulations and art. It is just a belief that they exist. And this belief blocks scientists from studying what is really going on.
This explanation doesn't make sense:
Wineglasses only break at the specific frequency (well, a range of frequencies), and if you raise the frequency too much, it'll stop resonating and won't break anymore.
So if we saw that metals emitted photons only when light was at a specific frequency, resonance would make sense. But what we actually see is that metals emit photons only when light is at or above a certain frequency, without an upper bound on the frequency that will cause photoemission. That simply isn't resonance, not for wine glasses or mercury or any of the other examples you give.
I do need some feedback. Thanks.
I wanted to make a 3D animation to explain this part better.
The wine-glass analogy is indeed confusing.
Below I will try to explain resonance of light and the electron-shell. And compare this to the Photon-model. I hope this will be clearer.
In atomic theories, the electrons of atoms are modeled as rings (Bohr) or as clouds or as probability waves (Quantum Mechanics).
In atomic scanning experiments we see either (1) spheres or (2) almost empty space. I picked the sphere model without good explanation.
In the photo-electric effect the light-wave is very large compared to the atom. The electron-shell causes a dielectric effect. This means that the center of the electric charge of the atom shifts up and down. This resonates with the light. It is why a prism can give us the light-spectrum
Explained by 3blue1brown
What happens at the exact resonance frequency? - The electrons start to move to a different orbit (or different electron-shell).
Depending on the circumstances, these electrons can then move away from the atom, or from the surface of a material.
With gas atoms we can calculate and observe the electron-bands that relate to certain frequencies. This gives the emission spectrum bands.
With solid materials you can get a wide range of resonance frequencies. So if light is causing the release of an electron, the additional energy can also add kinetic energy to this electron.
So the photo-electric effect is just resonance. And it works differently if you have a solid or a gas.
Roughly described, Einstein's model of the photo-electric effect is more like light-bullets that shoot electron-particles out of orbit.
The spectral lines of gas show how this model fails. The gas only reacts to the certain frequencies of the light, and higher frequencies simply pass through.
According to the Einstein the higher frequencies should give more kinetic energy to the atoms. Which is not true in gas.
Light also transfers momentum via dielectric reactions, not via "photons". Explained in this video Why light has momentum even without mass?. Which is why light can also be used to hold small objects in space. example