Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrek1
The formula ia amended to comply to the real nature of the 'planetary concept' of the HA. I still accept this idea because it is the most probable and realistic.
|
"Planetary concept" of the Hydrogen atom?
Can you show us what is wrong with the solution provided by Quantum Mechanics?
Considering that this solution is well supported by experimental evidence, what makes the "planetary concept" "most probable and realistic"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrek1
Electrons in motion generate magnetic fields. You know that.
The electron has a defined distance of travel during these photon emissions. The photon pulses have specific wavelength dimensions.
This is the criteria I use.
|
Why do you use these "criteria"?
Why would you use Ampere's formula in the first place?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrek1
The magnetic field patterns, like the electric field, are expanded between the poles and charges. You know this. This expansion is caused by an 'intrinsic force'.
This is the basis of my aregument.
This displaces the EoS concept because there is no 'empirixal evidence for its support.
|
You already made it clear elsewhere that you do not
believe in the expansion of space.
And you already showed a non-scientific attitude towards empirical evidence.
What makes you think that your "argument" has any scientific validity?