Modern day big science in physics is fraudulent. In the old days before the 20th century, science means an experimental science supported by experiments - nothing is accepted unless they have been verified experimentally. Starting after the 1900 - especially with Einstein's relativity theories - physics has become all fantasies. They make pure hypothesis and before any experimental evidence, they are accepted and taught in the universities as "facts" and truth.
Take the so-called Standard Model of particle physics starting with quarks - it is a pure hypothesis with no experimental evidence and now they hail it as the most advance of our knowledge about atoms and matter - there is not a shred of experimental evidence. Yes! They tell us their CERN experiments in the LHC Large Hadron Collider has verified quarks,...etc. How do you know they are not lying? They say they discovered the god particle higgs boson...gravitational waves, black holes, dark energy! Are you going to spend a few billions to build another collider just to prove them wrong? Only fools do that!
In 1820, when Orsted announced that magnetism can be produced by electric current, it was experimentally verified. Anyone can show that a magnetic needle would flip when a current is switch on near the compass. Science was science only when corroborate by other independent researchers. Nowadays, it is all about "they say so" - no one can verify any of their truths. So the big time scientists can just say something and they get huge funds to build big toys to play with. These include the current international ITER nuclear fusion reactor costing billions to start testing in 2023 or after. These are just waste of money for some important big boys based on their fictional theories - current fusion energy research will all come to nought.
The US NIST database of atomic mass - a database of lies!
(NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology)
Here's why. Nowadays, if you want to know the atomic mass of any isotope/elements, it is very easy. You look up the NIST database freely available, e.g.:
Hydrogen H-1, 1.00782503223 amu (amu, atomic mass unit can be converted to kg by a factor)
Uranium U-235, 235.0439301 amu.
So you see these magicians can tell you the weight of an atom to 10 figures! They are the gods of today. Unfortunately, the NIST database is all wrong! The NIST atomic mass or "weights" have not been verified to be correct, yet they tell the whole world what the masses of the elements are - without verification. Here's why.
The only verified scale to measure mass is basically our chemical scale balance with equal length arms. We compare a standard 1 kg and another object; if it balances then the object has a mass of 1 kg. The scale balance need no verification as it makes use of the lever principle and sets the standard for weighing. We may invent another type of scale/method to measure mass, but it has to be verified that the new scale is also accurate and consistent with our scale balance. The NIST database are measurements made with a new technique called mass spectrometry. Currently the most "accurate" is the Penning trap base on trapping a charged particles within a small cell volume space of 1 - 5 cm. The ion will oscillate and emit an electromagnetic frequency that can be measured very accurately to 1 part in 10¹⁰ - very high resolution. They have a theory based on the Lorentz magnetic force law that relates the mass of the ion particle directly with the measured emitted em frequency. Thus, by measuring frequency they can know the mass of the charged ion. Thus they could measure the atomic mass of all known elements/isotopes. (the Penning trap is so high end a piece of equipment that China does not have one at present - they are just building the first Lanzhou Penning trap!)
The only thing they did not tell about the NIST database is that the atomic masses are just based on an unverified magnetic force law - the Lorentz magnetic force law (much of modern electromagnetic theory is not properly verified). They invented mass spectrometry about the 1920's and they started to use it to measure mass as if it gives accurate measurement of mass as the standard scale balance - they are not the same.
We can use an analogy of a hypothetical spring balance to show why the Penning trap is an untested new instrument. Imagine the spring balance has not been invented and someone invents it. The person noted that a spring will be extended when an object hangs on it; the heavier the object, the greater the extension. So the person builds a spring balance and he could calibrate and divide a 1 gram extension into 10⁶ parts (with our current precise engineering). He then sells the spring balance and claims it is accurate to 1 part in a million! Is the spring balance this precise? We know it is not as the extension of a spring is not a perfect linear relation, it is only approximate.
So what is the moral of the above analogy? It is that you can invent a new technique to measure mass, but unless it is verified to be accurate, you cannot assume that it gives good measurements. This is exactly the case with the Penning trap. They invented it and love it as they could claim a very high resolution of 1 part in 10¹⁰. Just like our hypothetical spring balance, the Penning trap too has never been verified to give correct weight readings! But in the 1920s, the physicists loved it simply because it was with mass spectrometry that enabled them to discover isotopism - the atoms of the same element having different atomic mass. There is another political reason.
They loved mass spectrometry because it is not accurate! Using its inaccuracy they could tell the world that the 1945 atomic bomb's nuclear power comes from Einstein's formula E=mc² - it is not so! Nuclear power has the same source as electricity, not anything close to E=mc² or Einstein! Why? With the Penning trap, they found that when uranium U238 breaks apart in radioactive fission, the sum of the masses of the final smaller product atoms don't add up to the mass of the initial one U238 atom - some mass goes missing called the missing mass. So they love it and make use of this small little amount of missing mass - dm; putting small dm into E=mc² gives a relatively huge figure of energy : E = dm * 299792458 * 299792458 Joules. So they tell the world how the atomic bomb works to enthrall the world and into believing in Einstein. It is all propaganda, not science.
If we really could measure the mass of U238 and the smaller fission product atoms using the scale balance, no missing mass would be found - they don't like it. Without any missing mass, they cannot make use of E=mc² and then they cannot claim that it was Einstein who showed how the atomic bombs work - they needed an inaccurate Penning trap to continue the propaganda of Einstein's fame. I have shown very simply in a paper of mine that we don't ever need to use the Penning trap or any other scale balance to know the mass of any atom/isotope. The atomic mass of any atom/isotope is just the mass number in amu - the mass number is simply the number of protons + neutron in the nucleus, a whole number. So the mass of U235 is 235 amu, not the NIST figure of 235.0439301 amu!
What these all means is that they invented a new instrument, the Penning trap, to measure the mass of trap ions and they just assume the measurements are correct even without any verification. This is how much of modern big physics is done.
Other findings by me:
1) Gravity - same source as electrical forces; the Coulomb's law. Newton could not have found the cause of gravity as the Coulomb's law of electrical forces of attraction/repulsion, the protons , electrons were not know in his time. There is no need for Einstein's general relativity of gravity due to curving of space and time.
2) nuclear energy - from the nucleus of atoms, but the same electrical energy source. All energy in the universe is electrical in nature - a unified theory.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid,
"The Lorentz Magnetic Force Law Not Precisely Verified"
http://www.emc2fails.com
Take the so-called Standard Model of particle physics starting with quarks - it is a pure hypothesis with no experimental evidence and now they hail it as the most advance of our knowledge about atoms and matter - there is not a shred of experimental evidence. Yes! They tell us their CERN experiments in the LHC Large Hadron Collider has verified quarks,...etc. How do you know they are not lying? They say they discovered the god particle higgs boson...gravitational waves, black holes, dark energy! Are you going to spend a few billions to build another collider just to prove them wrong? Only fools do that!
In 1820, when Orsted announced that magnetism can be produced by electric current, it was experimentally verified. Anyone can show that a magnetic needle would flip when a current is switch on near the compass. Science was science only when corroborate by other independent researchers. Nowadays, it is all about "they say so" - no one can verify any of their truths. So the big time scientists can just say something and they get huge funds to build big toys to play with. These include the current international ITER nuclear fusion reactor costing billions to start testing in 2023 or after. These are just waste of money for some important big boys based on their fictional theories - current fusion energy research will all come to nought.
The US NIST database of atomic mass - a database of lies!
(NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology)
Here's why. Nowadays, if you want to know the atomic mass of any isotope/elements, it is very easy. You look up the NIST database freely available, e.g.:
Hydrogen H-1, 1.00782503223 amu (amu, atomic mass unit can be converted to kg by a factor)
Uranium U-235, 235.0439301 amu.
So you see these magicians can tell you the weight of an atom to 10 figures! They are the gods of today. Unfortunately, the NIST database is all wrong! The NIST atomic mass or "weights" have not been verified to be correct, yet they tell the whole world what the masses of the elements are - without verification. Here's why.
The only verified scale to measure mass is basically our chemical scale balance with equal length arms. We compare a standard 1 kg and another object; if it balances then the object has a mass of 1 kg. The scale balance need no verification as it makes use of the lever principle and sets the standard for weighing. We may invent another type of scale/method to measure mass, but it has to be verified that the new scale is also accurate and consistent with our scale balance. The NIST database are measurements made with a new technique called mass spectrometry. Currently the most "accurate" is the Penning trap base on trapping a charged particles within a small cell volume space of 1 - 5 cm. The ion will oscillate and emit an electromagnetic frequency that can be measured very accurately to 1 part in 10¹⁰ - very high resolution. They have a theory based on the Lorentz magnetic force law that relates the mass of the ion particle directly with the measured emitted em frequency. Thus, by measuring frequency they can know the mass of the charged ion. Thus they could measure the atomic mass of all known elements/isotopes. (the Penning trap is so high end a piece of equipment that China does not have one at present - they are just building the first Lanzhou Penning trap!)
The only thing they did not tell about the NIST database is that the atomic masses are just based on an unverified magnetic force law - the Lorentz magnetic force law (much of modern electromagnetic theory is not properly verified). They invented mass spectrometry about the 1920's and they started to use it to measure mass as if it gives accurate measurement of mass as the standard scale balance - they are not the same.
We can use an analogy of a hypothetical spring balance to show why the Penning trap is an untested new instrument. Imagine the spring balance has not been invented and someone invents it. The person noted that a spring will be extended when an object hangs on it; the heavier the object, the greater the extension. So the person builds a spring balance and he could calibrate and divide a 1 gram extension into 10⁶ parts (with our current precise engineering). He then sells the spring balance and claims it is accurate to 1 part in a million! Is the spring balance this precise? We know it is not as the extension of a spring is not a perfect linear relation, it is only approximate.
So what is the moral of the above analogy? It is that you can invent a new technique to measure mass, but unless it is verified to be accurate, you cannot assume that it gives good measurements. This is exactly the case with the Penning trap. They invented it and love it as they could claim a very high resolution of 1 part in 10¹⁰. Just like our hypothetical spring balance, the Penning trap too has never been verified to give correct weight readings! But in the 1920s, the physicists loved it simply because it was with mass spectrometry that enabled them to discover isotopism - the atoms of the same element having different atomic mass. There is another political reason.
They loved mass spectrometry because it is not accurate! Using its inaccuracy they could tell the world that the 1945 atomic bomb's nuclear power comes from Einstein's formula E=mc² - it is not so! Nuclear power has the same source as electricity, not anything close to E=mc² or Einstein! Why? With the Penning trap, they found that when uranium U238 breaks apart in radioactive fission, the sum of the masses of the final smaller product atoms don't add up to the mass of the initial one U238 atom - some mass goes missing called the missing mass. So they love it and make use of this small little amount of missing mass - dm; putting small dm into E=mc² gives a relatively huge figure of energy : E = dm * 299792458 * 299792458 Joules. So they tell the world how the atomic bomb works to enthrall the world and into believing in Einstein. It is all propaganda, not science.
If we really could measure the mass of U238 and the smaller fission product atoms using the scale balance, no missing mass would be found - they don't like it. Without any missing mass, they cannot make use of E=mc² and then they cannot claim that it was Einstein who showed how the atomic bombs work - they needed an inaccurate Penning trap to continue the propaganda of Einstein's fame. I have shown very simply in a paper of mine that we don't ever need to use the Penning trap or any other scale balance to know the mass of any atom/isotope. The atomic mass of any atom/isotope is just the mass number in amu - the mass number is simply the number of protons + neutron in the nucleus, a whole number. So the mass of U235 is 235 amu, not the NIST figure of 235.0439301 amu!
What these all means is that they invented a new instrument, the Penning trap, to measure the mass of trap ions and they just assume the measurements are correct even without any verification. This is how much of modern big physics is done.
Other findings by me:
1) Gravity - same source as electrical forces; the Coulomb's law. Newton could not have found the cause of gravity as the Coulomb's law of electrical forces of attraction/repulsion, the protons , electrons were not know in his time. There is no need for Einstein's general relativity of gravity due to curving of space and time.
2) nuclear energy - from the nucleus of atoms, but the same electrical energy source. All energy in the universe is electrical in nature - a unified theory.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid,
"The Lorentz Magnetic Force Law Not Precisely Verified"
http://www.emc2fails.com
