Posts

Efectul fotoelectric poate fi explicat de fizica clasica

  Efectul foto-electric se pretinde a fi o dovadă suprema a dualității particula-undă din mecanica cuantică, deoarece atunci când se aplica o undă de lumină vizibilă de mare intensitate pe un obiect metalic incarcat negativ, electronii liberi nu sunt ejectați sau nu sar de pe acesta, dar atunci când se aplica o lumina de frecventa mare, precum UltraViolete, atunci electronii sunt ejectați. Ceea ce, susțin oamenii de pseudo-stiinta cuantica, nu poate fi explicat de fizica clasică.  Ei bine, ghici ce! Când aplicam o undă sonoră de mare intensitate pe un pahar, nu se întâmplă nimic. Dar când se aplica un sunet de frecvență înaltă pe acelasi pahar, acesta se va sparge ! Lel cum si pietrele de la rinichi nu se sparg decat cu ultrasunete, adica sunete de frecventa ultra inalta. Deci degeaba incerci cu subwooferul ca nu merge.  Pentru că ultrasunetele rezonează cu atomii de calciu sau din ce sunt facute pietrele alea, făcându-i să vibreze la aceeași frecvență și să-și rupă legăturile atomice.
Post a Comment
Read more

Photelectric effect explained by classical physics

The photo-electric effect is claimed to be a proof for quantum physics particle-wave duality, because when they shine a high intensity visible light wave on a negativelly charged metalic object, the free electrons are not ejected or dont jump away from it, but when they increase the frequency of light, to the UV, then they are ejected. Which, they argue, cannot be explained by classical physics.   Well guess what ! When you shoot a high intensity sound wave on a glass, nothing happens. When you shoot an inaudible, ultra high frequency sound on the same glass, it shatters ! Because the ultrasound wave resonates with the glass atoms, causing them to vibrate at the same frequency and break their bonds. So by analogy a similiar thing happens when you shine the UV light on atoms, only that if makes the electrons vibrate not the atoms. So they break free from the atoms. Whereas when they shine a low frequency wave, the electrons dont vibrate, and remain still in their place.    So the whole
Post a Comment
Read more

How long is a 1 Hz photon ? The particle-wave non-sense.

  Given that wavelength = speed of light / frequency, for a 'photon' of 1 Hz we get a wavelength of 300.000 Km. Yup, that is a 'quantum particle' right there ! The science of the very small. Or of the very smallminded ?? Who on earth can imagine a particle being 300000 km long? Oh no, its the great genius Einstein. Yes, that guy again ! (as his german fangirl would say in her relative punchline) There's a reason why this guy again was kicked out of highschool. Because he was brainfarting in the classroom again and again. Not only he could not understand basic physics, like say refraction, but the sheer amount of brainfarts that he was releasing in curved spacetime was incompatible even with kindergarden level curriculum. In other words, he was 'special'. So he was sent to a special institution, where he formulated his special theory of relativity. Which was immediatelly approved by the special scientific community, because it made perfect non-sense.
Post a Comment
Read more

Compton effect explained with classical physics

 In classical physics, light is a wave which propagates in a medium called lumineferous aether. Aether is made of particles, called iluminatis (the enlightened ones), and the light wave is a disturbance of these aether particles. Which are of course static, since the aether is static. So one can argue that when it hits an electron, just one particle of the light wave looses energy as it is absorbed or transfered to the electron, causing the wave to change it's orientation and frequency. So that particle which interacts with the electron will vibrate at a lower frequency and at a different orientation, thus changing the direction of the wave and transmiting a lower energy to the next particles of the wave. And that this energy will always be quantised due to the formula E=hf. Indeed, within the classical wave framework and considering the aether as the medium, it's easy to explain the energy loss using the relationship E = h f E = hf , where E E is the energy, h h is Planck
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein si Hubble- doi pipari celebri care au incurcat lucrurile

  Big bang-ul ar trebui sa dispara din schema, pentru ca universul e static si redshiftul cosmologic nu e produs de aberatiile lui Einstein sau Hubble, care nu stiu ce fumau dar sigur nu le facea bine la creier. De fapt Einstein nici n-a spus vreodata ca universul se extinde, ba din contra, a spus ca ar trebui sa se contracte conform teoriei lui gravitationale. Dar pt ca atunci credea ca e static a scos repede o constanta cosmoilogica din burta ca sa contracareze gravitatia. Foarte stiintific, si logic.  Apoi, cand credea ca se extinde, a scos-o si deodata universul a inceput sa se extinda, in loc sa se contracte cum facea initial. Chiar are sens ! Apoi altii au bagat-o la loc, si au interpretat-o ca fiind energia vidului. Desi unitatea ei era 1/m^2, nu Joule sau Joule/m^3. Curat stiintific si logic. Cum e ca si vidul sa aiba energie si masa. Ca doar de aia ii zice vid, ca are masa. Si e plin de energie, cum rezulta din ecuatia E=mc^2. Masa 0, energie 198765. Aberatia cum ca spatiul s-
Post a Comment
Read more

Muon contradiction

  wikipedia wrote: As with other leptons, the muon is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles. wikipedia wrote: Muon decay almost always produces at least three particles, which must include an electron of the same charge as the muon and two types of neutrinos. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon How is the muon not composed of any simpler particles, if on the same page they say it decays into three other particles ?
Post a Comment
Read more

Special relativity is an artefact of human stupidity. Time dilation is a brain flatulation.

Time dilation can be inferred from the observed constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames dictated by the second postulate of special relativity. This constancy of the speed of light means that, counter to intuition, the speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear greater by moving towards or away from the light source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation The speeds of material objects and sounds waves are not additive either. It is not possible to make the speed of sound appear greater by moving towards and away the sound source. The frequency yes, but not the speed. So what are these relative scientists arguing here ? That because the speed of light does not increase with the speed of the source, Einstein's theory is right ? They are clearly confused and do not understand how waves propagate in a medium. The reason why they are not additive is because t he speed of the sound wave only depends
Post a Comment
Read more