Selasa, 14 Maret 2017

On blackbody radiation law

In the  last 20 years I kept asking Physicists about this Planck constant
h. Their answer was that it was OK as it resolves the curb fitting problem
of the black body radiation. I asked them if it was the issue with the em
radiation theory or the problem with the black body. It was Prof. Dr.
Suntora of Helsinki Technical University, at the International Seminar on
the Structure of Cosmology held at Helsinki in 2010, who told me that it
was the problem with the black body itself.

I wonder why Physicists were wrong for more than a century on this issue.
To be fair, I must say that Planck was correct. He said that e=hf is just
a inscrutable mathematical convention to make up the discrepancy between
the prediction of em theory on the black body and the experimental result.

I will make it more pointed. It was not the problem with Maxwell's em
field theory. It was the problem with the em theoretic model of the black
body which was wrong. Most likely, for theoretical physicists this
difference is too subtle to even ask.

I am quite convinced that Physics community take this problem more
seriously and reflect on what went wrong at the most fundamental level
with their grandest theory of Quantum Mechanics which they called the
"Final Theory".

It was Wheeler who said that QM is not to understand but to calculate.
There was a promising young PhD student of him who all of a sudden
disappeared and never came back to Physics. When people asked Wheeler
about him, Wheeler replied "He made a mistake. He tried to understand
Quantum Mechanics".

I tend to put blame on the so called empiricism which was targeted as
anti-Physics by Newton 350 years ago. Under the severe pressure from
Freemasons, Newton's view was suppressed and empirical science emerged as
the new science for Freemasonic world which took over Christian world. As
I pointed out, Newton was a theologian of Orthodox Christianity.
Empiricists tend to focus on each problem which appears around us and they
do not have enough training to connect these empirical results to form a
coherent view which requires logic and which is against empiricist way of
thinking. This is why they failed to listen to the complaint of Planck and
went on to glorify e=hf as the victory of empiricism. Any who questioned
were eliminated as those who questioned the Vatican were in the middle

We can see the vicious masonic pressure upon Newton in the glorification
of Galileo who basically did almost nothing. He was a "masonic
revolutionary" who served the purpose of Freemasons and the Jesuit of that
time. We have been told that Galileo was the freedom fighter who freed us
humanity from the repression of Christian Churches by presenting the
revolutionary "correct" view of the universe.  There is no mention of
Newton in this Masonic propaganda which mislead physics for 5 centuries.
Objectively Galileo was absolutely nothing compared with Issac Newton.
Certainly, Freemasons at Cambridge proclaims that Newton was a reactionary
who confronted with empiricists. Einstein was embraced by Freemasons
because he "established" that Galileo's relativity cosmology with some
correction was the true cosmology which is anti Juda-Christian cosmology.

Going back to where I started, let me point it out again. hf=e deployed in
the relativistic theory causes the a mathematical contradiction 0/0=hf.
All physicists of the last century ignored this fatal error and here we
are. I was called "lunatic fringe" and faced systematic attack by the
mainstream including personal threat in the last 2 decades just because I


Victor, a lesson we have to learn is that when a convention (hypothesis)
apparently resolves a difficulty we must not take is as a solution to
problem. In wider context, such "solution" may well cause serious
problems.  Of course, we logicians all know very well about this. Local
solutions could well be a global catastrophe. To be fair to Planck, I
repeat that Planck was not terribly happy with that his "embarrassing"
convention was taken too seriously by Einstein and his followers to
Quantum Mechanics. Einstein was a pioneer who took a huge risk and
I accept that and I respect his courage to take risk. But what about the
rest of Physics community. They are all habitual liars, coward followers
who persecuted those who questioned.  Yes they are scientific mobs!
Dear prof. Kanda
With regards to alternative derivation of blackbody radiation, pls check:
Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,
E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,
Twitter: @Christianto2013
Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:
On Mar 13, 2017, at 14:40, "Akira Kanda" <> wrote:
After all, we do not need to get into things like relativity theory or
quantum mechanics. The concept of energy in classical physics is
It violated the conservation of energy. mv^2/2 is the kinetic energy
only if m is accelerated from 0 to v under constant acceleration. This is
why Newton never used the concept of energy though he used momentum.
said, Newton was a great improvement to all of his successors.
Theoretical physicists are all morons who take themselves too
Did de Broglie say that?! His wave can move faster than c!  What kind of
opportunists are these people. What kind of fools are the audience. All
physicists do is either get back up by free masons and lie what ever
want to lie or just lick the boots of those who lie with the  backed by
free masons.
As I said many times, it also is the problem that Doppler effect
the energy conservation law. Physicists are all too busy with
boots of big names and they have neither brain or intellectual
say what has to be said.
What a filth we are soaked into!
Dear Victor,
There are also other similar papers; but at their beginning they
wave properties to the particle studied by hands.
In the paper that your quote they use the separation of the wave
psi-function to two factors (the de-Broglie-Bohm wave pilot), which
since 1952 de Broglie did not consider seriously. He noted that such a
theory is developed in a phase space but not in the real space.
theory cannot allow any real trajectory for the particle in
On 12 марта 2017, at 17:57, Victor Christianto wrote:
Dear Volodymyr
I do not argue that UP is the beginning of all confusions.
But just to remark that it seems possible to conceive wave
without probabilistic interpretation:
Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,
E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,
Twitter: @Christianto2013
Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:
On Mar 12, 2017, at 17:57, Volodymyr Krasnoholovets
<> wrote:
Dear Akira,
You are completely right talking bout uncertainty principle as the
demonstration of pure wave effects.
In the book below  ---
Louis de Broglie, Les Incertitudes d'Heisenberg et
Probabiliste de la Mécanique Ondulatoire, Gauthier-Villars, Paris
(1982); English translation: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relations
Probabilistic Interpretation of Wave Mechanics with Critical Notes of
the Author, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (1990). Muscovian
translation: Mir, Mowsow, (1986).
--- de Broglie showed how uncertainties appear from waves. He also
strictly supported the idea that any uncertainly is associated
with waves.
Wave and particle cannot be identified in one object of course. In my
approach I show how all this look like - there is something from
and something from pure classical mechanics. But in general the
{particle + its cloud of spatial excitations} behaves on its own
By the way, it seems I am the first who demonstrate that the value of
mass of a particle is not a stable parameter; the mass
changes to a tension. In each section equal to the particles 's
wavelength "lambda", the particle mass "m" changes to the tension
"\xi", then again the tension "\xi" to the mass "m" and so on. The
is a volumetric fractality, which is gradually decomposes in the
section of "lambda" and the tension "\xi" appears in the particle.
So, such a motion allows one to consider microscopic phenomena in
deeper details than QM does.
When we derive gravity in this approach, we do not meet any
Relativity at all. But we derive the Newton law 1/r as the
wave of inerton gas that is found in the interior of the massive
object. The inerton gas appears due to the overlapping of inerton
clouds of all the entities that form the object (a stone, a
star, etc.).
The same for the electric charge: the electric charge changes to the
magnetic monopole, then the magnetic monopole changes to the electric
charge and so on (the particle's de Broglie wavelength "lambda" is a
section in which  "e" changes to "g", then again "g" to "e", ...)
The charge is the structure of the surface; for example, a
the typical positive charge.
The magnetic monopole is a combed chestnut (in the chestnut all
are combed).
The photon is a cell of space that has spike outward (on the upper
surface) and spikes inward (on the bottom surface).
The photon jumps from cell to cell such that the state of an oncoming
cell gradually changes.
After passing the section of "lambda", this structure on the
appropriate cell becomes combed, which means that the electric
changed to the magnetic state.
After passing in the same manner the next section of "lambda", the
magnetic state again changes to the electric state.
The Maxwell equations describe this motion.
This is in short I have presented you the major ideas developed in my
forthcoming book.
Best wishes,
P.S. I use this business e-mail of mine (typically I use it for
correspondences on my applied physics and technological projects)
because both the Institute's and the  servers
not function properly.
On 11 марта 2017, at 16:28, Akira Kanda wrote:
Voldymyr and Mihai,
Making the theory deterministic is not sufficient to avoid the
Uncertainty Principle. This is because Schrodinger's wave mechanics
dealing with any probability at all. He is talking about the
inherent in any measurement on waves. It is strictly the issue of
Only von Neuman who had no idea on what physics is about
the problem of probability.
The wave uncetainty of wave mechanics is not a contradiction by
The problem creeps in just because we identify wave and particle.
Dear Volodymyr,
QUESTION: I am sure that you have done a very nice theory.
Before we read the book, can you explain maybe some aspects of
the theory? For example, is your theory determinist? ANSWER:
The theory is 100% deterministic, Poincare
emphasisedsed the necessity of determinism for the most
What is interesting is that at the same time he pointed out that a
deterministic theory  faces the situation where the issue is
non-deterministic. For example when an object is at unstable saddle
which way it will go is not deterministic.
But I am sure that Poincre meant that there is such thing as
QUESTION: If so, why do you need the wave function? Or you recall
the wave function only in order to show why is the wave
function indeed an approximation of your determinist theory?
ANSWER: As mathematicians say, we have to reduce the problem to
previous one.
The point is that in the theory for the first one the notion of
physical space is done and moreover it
has been derived from a pure mathematical theory of space.
appears as a mathematical
lattice of tightly ordered topological balls. So, a topological
superparticle from each any
elementary material particle may appear (i.e. leptons and quarks)
electron, muon, tau lepton, then the
family of quarks: quark u, quark d, etc. The physical notion of
associated with the mathematical
notion of a local deformation, i.e. deformation of a cell.
been shown that the
deformation must be a volumetric fractal deformation. Then a ratio
initial volume of a degenerate
cell to its new appeared volume is named the mass.
How can this leads to action reaction law? Newton struggled to nail
what is force and what is mass. It is an interesting question
mathematically and logically. It appears that the only ttruely
theory in Newton's world is kinematics. It is pure mathematics.
is an axiomatic theory and as Newton himself admitted, it has no
satisfactory physical model (ontology).
I will go back to the rest in the forth coming post.
PS: BTW, how is your work related to the vortex theory?
A lepton is a real
massive particle. A quark has an
inverse mass: the volume of the appropriate cell is large than the
volume of the degenerate cell
under consideration. Such a local d

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar