How atoms and all atom-like objects operate continuously

[StevenCrum]

Since no scientists on earth know how this works, and I do, it is then "against the mainstream". So, that is a bit odd, but that is reality in anyway it gets looked at.

The situation is that all subatomic components of atoms, and even the negative atom that no one knows about, or how it works, all have the same type of self-generating and continuous operation. The sub-atomic objects are, in going downward from the atom, the protons and electrons, then sub-protons and sub-electrons that are used to make protons and electrons. Then there are the two lower level proton and electron types that are used to make up the sub-protons and sub-electrons.

Neutrons are factually one proton bonded magnetically to one electron, and there is no single neutron particle. Also, positrons are actually protons in an orbit location. The point of this is there are no other objects other than the proton and electron types on any of the lower levels. And, cosmic radiation is an antimatter lower-level object, and on the proton side. The science associated with nitrogen being hit by cosmic radiation involves am antimatter particle slamming into a nitrogen core and then being seen to be acting like a proton. It isn't, and the nitorgen type of carbon-14 isn't real carbon at all. But, that's another science description. By the way, real carbon-14 comes from carbon-12 being in extreme heat and pressure with hydrogen present. The carbon-12 atom then pulls a hydrogen atom into its core (looking like a neutron but isn't) and the result is carbon-13. More heat and another hydrogen and the result is carbon-14. This is how real carbon-14 occurs instead of the false-appearing nitogen mutation that exists the other way.

In getting back to the main topic, the atom-like structures also exist in moons, planets, stars, galaxies, neutron stars, and the universe itself when it is finally completed. And, they all operate on the same science situation.

A final situation with all of them is that they also shoot out charged photons from their inner operation.

And, I know the exact science as to how every single one of them work. And, even the details of how they make and shoot out their photons. Also, exactly what energy is inside photons and where that comes from. But, I can't explain it here because there are drawings that are needed for the description.

But, it is truly interesting science and explains why electrons and other objects don't need zillions of extension cords to make them all work. And, I will guarantee that no scientists are going to be able to figure out how the real science exists, and that is entirely on the fully true situation that Einstein led a WHOLE LOT of science in a very bad wrong direction. But, with this post, I am saying that the real science is right here on a desk about two feet away from me. So, it's either Einstein and wrong, or true science and right.

[RussT]

then sub-protons and sub-electrons that are used to make protons and electrons. Then there are the two lower level proton and electron types that are used to make up the sub-protons and sub-electrons.

So where do these subs and sub-subs come from?

[captain swoop]

should you be starting a new thread when there is still an open thread that you seeme to be ignoring

[RussT]

Actually this is on QFT/Quantum Particle Physics, which really begs the question of why he is bringing Einstein into this at all.

AFAIK, Einstein spent the last 20 years of his life trying to disprove the Uncertainty Principle.

[StevenCrum]

To RussT (#2)

In the universe the way all galaxies are made is that there are two-huge energy bubbles formed that are much like the Bubble Nebula only much bigger. The Bubble Nebula is one of two that are the size that is made inside galaxies. The situation with making galaxies requires much larger ones and on the universe scale.

The situation with the bubbles is that they have two different energy types inside, and that is a positive or negative charge, and also a "matter/antimatter" type. The two bubbles then have opposite magnetic charges, and that situation causes them to streak toward each other at light speed and hit head-on.

That situation causes two, opposite-direction outward controlled blasts. And, in each of those blasts is small balls of energy that has regular matter type in half of the blast objects and antimatter energy in the other half. And all of these energy balls, or packets, are shot out into space and into the new swirling fiormation of the new galaxies.

The galaxies then from and their atom-like operation then creates its bubble types, and those create energy balls like the Bubble Nebula, and they collide together and create huge numbers of each type again.

The answer to your question is that the ultra-small objects coming from collisions and blasts like that on our level are the small regular matter energy balls that are the lowest proton-types, and the antimatter energy balls are the electron-type.

From the two foundatioanl types two of one and one of the other go into the baryon type of 2:1 structure of the larger sub-proton and sub-electron cores. And, the opposite 1:2 of the same foundational energy balls goes into their orbits.

And, the same 2:1 and 1:2 fromation goes all the way up higher through the entire atom fromation.

So, that was long, but that is how it exists and works in the universe.

[StevenCrum]

To Captain Swoop (#3)

I haven't checked any other threads, and haven't been ignoring, but instead the situation with previous threads is no one is even reading the science and checking to make sure of the details, and are instead just assuming wrongness. My point is that I don't ignore anyone or anything that is based on real science and discussions better than just assumption without them looking at the truth involved.

So, it is a bit of a waste of time in answering the assumption-without-science-checking types of comments.

As for this new thread it is completely different and is not about Einstein's error. That error caused a whole lot of scientists to miss a huge amount of real science, but that is still another topic.

So, I don't think you have much of a point.

[RussT]

The Bubble Nebula is one of two that are the size that is made inside galaxies. The situation with making galaxies requires much larger ones and on the universe scale.

But I thought you said that the Milky Way was made from one of the bubble nebula from the LMC? [The situation with making galaxies requires much larger ones and on the universe scale.]

And how did the two "HUGE' energy bubbles get made in the first place?

[RussT]

To Captain Swoop (#3)

I haven't checked any other threads, and haven't been ignoring, but instead the situation with previous threads is no one is even reading the science and checking to make sure of the details, and are instead just assuming wrongness. My point is that I don't ignore anyone or anything that is based on real science and discussions better than just assumption without them looking at the truth involved.

So, it is a bit of a waste of time in answering the assumption-without-science-checking types of comments.

As for this new thread it is completely different and is not about Einstein's error. That error caused a whole lot of scientists to miss a huge amount of real science, but that is still another topic.

So, I don't think you have much of a point.

[that Einstein led a WHOLE LOT of science in a very bad wrong direction. But, with this post, I am saying that the real science is right here on a desk about two feet away from me. So, it's either Einstein and wrong, or true science and right.]

So you should have left this part out of your original post in this thread, right?

[Van Rijn]

Since no scientists on earth know how this works, and I do, it is then "against the mainstream". So, that is a bit odd, but that is reality in anyway it gets looked at.


To you . . . maybe. I don't know if this is a joke, or if you've convinced yourself that you are the only one in the world that has "the answer." Either way, with a statement like that, it is impossible to take this seriously. Especially since you haven't provided a single shred of evidence.


Also, positrons are actually protons in an orbit location.


And among other things, how do you account for the rather substantial difference in mass? This is word salad.


And, I know the exact science as to how every single one of them work. And, even the details of how they make and shoot out their photons. Also, exactly what energy is inside photons and where that comes from. But, I can't explain it here because there are drawings that are needed for the description.


Drawings? Not drawings again! If you have a real theory, with math, let's see it. Meantime, you have questions on other threads waiting for you.

[StevenCrum]

To RussT (#4)

Concerning the Uncertainty Principle, The situation with that is basically that the thinking came into existence because they couldn't prove the quantum mechanics theories they wanted proven in the direction proof direction, so they used that probability type. And, as you likely know, it goes along the line of proving what ISN'T, and the logic is assumed that what is left then is right.

The real situation involved is Einstein got them into such an ultra-huge hole, and one that is a total dead-end alley, that they are using that kind of thing in trying to make the impossible theories work.

Actually, it wouldn't likely be all that hard to disprove the theories that they are trying to explain by the method. I haven't done any of the ones associated, at least I don't think so, but it usually takes going back though a string of things that lead to the beginning error that led in the wrong direction.

If you tell me one of the theories assocaited with the Uncertainty Principle it is almost a certainty that the error can be found. Or I can just go on Wikipedia and find probably several myself. I've done that lots.

[Lurker]

Crum -- you haven't answered the questions that are piling up from the last threads you started...

[RussT]

To RussT (#4)

Concerning the Uncertainty Principle, The situation with that is basically that the thinking came into existence because they couldn't prove the quantum mechanics theories they wanted proven in the direction proof direction, so they used that probability type. And, as you likely know, it goes along the line of proving what ISN'T, and the logic is assumed that what is left then is right.

The real situation involved is Einstein got them into such an ultra-huge hole, and one that is a total dead-end alley, that they are using that kind of thing in trying to make the impossible theories work.

Actually, it wouldn't likely be all that hard to disprove the theories that they are trying to explain by the method. I haven't done any of the ones associated, at least I don't think so, but it usually takes going back though a string of things that lead to the beginning error that led in the wrong direction.

If you tell me one of the theories assocaited with the Uncertainty Principle it is almost a certainty that the error can be found. Or I can just go on Wikipedia and find probably several myself. I've done that lots.

My point wasn't to get into a debate over the Uncertainty Principle, it was why were you bringing Einstein into particle physics, which my other post covered!

[Nereid]

StevenCrum, you started two other threads, here in this ATM section:

Scientific, undeniable fact that proves God exists (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47112)

Science and math prove Einstein was factually wrong (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47104)

The rules of this ATM section of BAUT are very clear (my bold):13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.You made a total of five posts in the former thread, and 43 in the latter. Your last post in each was on 21 September, five days' ago.

Both threads contain many direct, pertinent questions on the ATM ideas, as you presented them. You have yet to answer them.

If any of those open, direct, pertinent questions are unclear to you, please ask for clarification.

If you need more time to answer any of those open, direct, pertinent questions, please say so (and provide an estimate of when you will be answering them).

If you wish to abandon defence of the ATM ideas you presented, in either thread, please say so, either by a post in the relevant thread, or a PM to a moderator. The thread(s) will then be closed (with an appropriate post by a moderator).

I am closing this thread until you address the open, direct, pertinent questions in the other two ATM threads.

For avoidance of doubt, this is a warning - you have violated BAUT rules. Should you violate them again, your account will be suspended.

[antoniseb]

I'm closing this thread, so that StevenCrum can focus all of his attention here on the 1905 Einstein paper.