PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.





    

Directory:Bert Schreiber

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Bert Schreiber presented a quantum-quanta theory of the universe, as well as treatises on no anti-gravity, no Black Holes, nonexistent forces, no ZPE and on how Thermofusion is a fraud. Skeptics say Schreiber's science was full of basic errors.

Note: Rest In Peace - Sept, 3, 1924 - Oct 19, 2007.

Contents

About

Official Website

Documents

Letter from Bert to Sterling

From: "bert schreiber" <charlesbert_99@yahoo.com>
To: <sterlingda {at} pureenergysystems.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: NEN etc.


Dear Mr. Allen:

The June 2005 NEN jogged my memory.

I congratulate you on your devotion to assembling and disseminating energy sources etc. BUT, what is it you redistribute?

I have written you before, if my memory is correct, and received silence. I have the same problem with Dr. Bailey and NEN. What he professes and what he does are two different things. He will not publish anything that proves or casts doubts on those beliefs published in NEN. The last issue was full of many false beliefs.

Therefore, I am going to test you by sending you some attachments separately and see IF you will publish them on your site. Copyright is waived for this (as long as no money is involved) but be sure it appears on the inserts

Next to see if you will put my web page on your site for others to read with WHAT is in it. Then if you do so, I will send you the others.

In order of science fiction:

Now I would like to invite you to visit my site (vastly updated) at (no www.) http://web2.airmail.net/nptbs that is more easily found by going to search and entering: collected schreiber I am the first hit.

If nothing else, I hope you will at least read the section EASY MONEY II. In this item are a few of my discoveries in both mathematics and physics.

Some of the supporting papers are under the section SIDE PAPERS.

#8 on how many forces, #!2 on no anti-gravity (sent), #18 on no Black Holes, #32 on nonexistent forces, #40 on no ZPE (sent)(where it originated that very few readers of NEN even know), #43 on ALL ENERGY IS -, #45 on Thermofusion is a fraud (sent), and these are but a fraction. Copyright waved if you care to lift them publish under the term set forth.

No one has proven me wrong. Only a very few (3 in over 15 years) have even tried. Puthoff was the ONLY one on ZPE and went silent when I questioned some of his works (flaws easily proven), but that does not shut him up. In fact, when one has his beliefs proven to be wrong, they just ignore it or pretend it never happened. They are then out of touch with reality (nice word for nuts or crazy or better, fanatics).

So I will await your reply, if any, but I do not expect any in the first place.

If you are so inclined, please add me to your list of recipients as NEN is, apparently, no longer going to list your contributions.

Sincerely, Bert Schreiber


Falsities in Current Theories


by Bert Schreiber
May 2006

The author will pay a reward of $2,000.00 American per item number or its subdivision to the first person who can prove that any of the following beliefs in accepted current establishment theories are the truth as now promulgated within the intent, i.e., no speculated and unproven theories will be considered. The majority are in physics, but four are in mathematics at the end. The results from the author’s works will only be those of the utmost necessity and most of the proofs are self-evident.

Each item is numbered with some having a subdivision number as applicable. Many items are related to one another and are so referenced or double proofs etc.

The items following the number(s) as given in capital letter(s) are the responses (proofs) as needed to show such are science fiction, false, myths, non-existing, speculations, lies by omission, by authorities’ infallible decree(s) etc. as applicable.
The symbol > means digits continue. The symbol < means digits end, exact.

1: There are claimed to exist the following theories: Quantum Electro Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Chromo Dynamics, Quantum Computing etc.
A. The Latin word quantum is defined as the SMALLEST unit, value, entity etc. The Latin word quanta is the plural of quantum.
B. There are only two recognized quantum entities, that of Planck’s Constant, symbol h, and the singular unit electric charge, symbol e (normally for the electron with the rest of the applicable particles that have a unit charge understood).
C. Therefore, unless one is speaking or writing of h or e there are no other existing physical quanta, i.e., the American penny is a quantum and the dollar is a quanta, but that is not scientifically applicable or others of like nature. See 17:.B.
D. There can be no quantum jump(s), quantized Bohr hydrogen atom orbit numbers, multiple (quanta) de Broglie waves ad nauseam of the electron as there is presently NO quantum of length, area, volume, mass, and time and their existence is denied.
E. There is no quantum (source of the gravitational pull) for the gravitational field effect as there is no quantum of mass. It does have a name but no proofs and is called a gravitron, with many variations depending on the author’s fertile imagination.

2: The speed of light is a constant. (Constant here and here on in, is not per the dictionaries that are very bad. Here it means under any conditions; fixed, unvarying etc.).
A. It only has a maximum scalar value in free space. Its speed in/through any other medium is slower. Different light (ALL radiation!) frequencies can and do speed at different speeds through the same (identical) medium. What is IN space (mass and fields) is considered as an in toto medium, not space itself.
2A: The velocity of light is a constant.
A. It does not and cannot exist. See 13. B.

3: The temperature of space is – (what ever). A. What is space is unknown and temperature requires a mass with a speed. No mass, no temperature, no speed, no temperature. B. It is what is IN space that has a temperature; vast difference.

4: Light, as a photon, (ALL radiation) is massless.
A. False. It was proved by experiment in 1901 and duplicated by many others using other experiments that light exerts pressure, hence had mechanical momentum, i.e., kinetic energy.
B. Substituting this momentum’s mechanical effect (kinetic energy as a solid mass) can just as easily prove some (but not all) of the Photoelectric Effect and the pressure effect.

5: The speed of sound exists.
A. False. The sound is promulgated through a medium as a spherical (normally) wave front (a mathematical/mechanical concept that has no intrinsic speed) and the sound itself is behind this wave front and does not move itself. Hence, it per se, has no speed.
B. The definition of a wave in physics is: A progressive disturbance propagated from point to point in a medium or space without progress or advance by the points themselves.
C. The correct statement is: - the apparent speed of sound -.
D. This holds true for surface (capillary) water (liquid) waves’ speed.
E. The speed of sound is often referenced in terms of Mach. The effect as the Mach sound shock wave. Mach was not responsible for either, but such were just named after him.
F. The physics definition of a wave should be that shown less the words “or space". What is space and whether it is a medium is unknown. NO proof of any kind of any existence of an Aether (space having finite parameters and properties) = medium) to date. There are no agreed upon finite parameters and properties that have been verbally set forth for this Aether or for space either as far as that goes. Both are just a buzz word. See 25: B.

6: The centripetal force and acceleration and the centrifugal force exist.
A. False. ALL correct definitions found in dictionaries say explicitly; imaginary forces. Each is equal and opposite and per vectors, such equal and opposite forces result in a zero magnitude. See 13: B.
B. Any references to these should be (at least at the beginning) say imaginary etc.

7: The Coriolis Force exists.
A. False. It is imaginary and due to a frame of reference change. It is the APPARENT Coriolis Effect.
B. Newton’s original translated from Latin of his first law of force and motion is: Every body preserves in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.
C. Most textbooks and references have distorted it; one such example: Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it. A straight line it is not as such is ambiguous, i.e., can be forward or backward, hence relative and not finite. His original other two laws have likewise been (sadly) reworked depending on the author(s).
Example:
An artillery projectile fired (no minutiae) due north from the equator goes in a straight forward (no deviation to left or right) path, but it curves downward. Its projected path (plotted) on (as, to) the Earth’s surface frame of reference is a curve. There is NO (separate or new etc.) FORCE acting on said projectile to make its, per se, path curved, i.e., the projectile itself is being acted on by this Coriolis Force. For a projectile fired from either pole, the result is obvious.
Ditto for tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, draining water ad nauseam. That rotation is the vector resultant of the rotation of the Earth’s surface and what is in contact with it (friction) on the moving masses trying to go straight forward, hence, the resultant is a “curve�? producing a rotation of the masses etc., not any new force. It is still the resulting Coriolis Effect. See 13: B.

8: The propagation speed of the gravitational field effect is at the speed of light.
A. Myth. It has never been measured.
B. No fundamental and/or second principles theory with equations etc. to pre-calculate same
C. If it was, the bending of light by a mass would be many times greater.
D. Laplace (1749-1827) and Van Flandern (1992) both showed from visual measured examination (Moon) that if it has any such speed, it is millions (Laplace) and billions (Van Flandern) faster than the speed of light.

9: The propagation speed of the electric OR (that is not and) magnetic field are at the speed of light.
A. Myth. Their linear propagation speed has ever been independently measured.
B. No current establishment theory with equations etc. per 8: to pre-calculate same.
C. Don’t quote Maxwell et al as that is the speculated combined field, i.e., only a model that does give some correct results but totally fails in other applications. This will be covered later in detail.

10: Planck’s Constant, symbol h, can only be found by or from experiment.
A. False. It can be calculated using some of the physical constants. Mass of the proton or the electron times their Compton Wavelength times the speed of light. For the electron: 9.1093826 > x 10-31 x 2.4263102 > x 10-12 x 2.99792458 < x 108 = 6.6260693 > x 10-34 J . s. B. The physical dimension for h are: h = M-L2-T-1. And what is L2? AREA. And that means when this equation is read or written out properly: Planck’s Constant is some (a) mass moving through or creating some area during one second of elapsed (clock) time.

11: Zero-point Energy exists.
A. NO. Per Max Planck, the originator of ZPE, required a value of Planck’s Constant less than a whole number. See 12: D. No experiment has shown h to be any fractional value, and never will. See at end of items comments.
B. Some claim the Casimir Force is a result of ZPE. There are even claims it has been detected and measured. False. The van de Waals’ force is many times greater and the gravitational pull of the moving parts of the apparatus are likewise, for all purposes, improbable to compute or deduct from the effect. Simply, the Casimir Force if it existed cannot be extracted from the background “noise�?.

12: - virtual – anything physical (existence) is real.
A. False. The physical scientific dictionary meaning of this word is: noting an optical image, formed by the apparent convergence of rays geometrically, but not actually, prolonged, as the image formed by a mirror (opposed to real). 7: A., 13:A., 20:C., and 29:B. again, déjà vu.
B. Note the key words; apparent, opposed to real.
C. What is reality is that this word as now incorrectly used by most, should be either literally or figuratively as applicable. D. As to ZPE, one of its now additional claimed sources is: virtual pairs of particles formed in (out of) space etc. ad nauseam. From nothing comes nothing. 3: A. and 5: F. apply.

13: That mass increases with speed.
A. NO. It is the APPARENT MEASURED mass increases with velocity. Apparent is not real.
B. Generically (no minutiae), velocity are typically just two lines of a finite length, one of whose ends each touch at a single point, drawn on a piece of paper each labeled (named) velocity. The mathematical resultant has magnitude (scalar) and finite direction and that line is then correctly labeled (named) speed, i.e., scalar.
C. It was W. Kaufmann in 1901 that first proposed and proved it experimentally, not Einstein.
D. See 39: for full explanation.

14: Ernst Mach postulated Mach’s Principle.
A. No. It was Einstein who coined this and said it was the biggest/greatest mistake in his life (ended up with the Cosmological Constant) etc.
B. Mach postulated Mach’s Postulates on inertia etc.

15: Accelerating masses (as one source of) radiate/produce electromagnetic radiation (light).
A. False. Exactly the opposite; decelerating only etc.
B. This is Bremsstrahlung or also known as the Second Order Doppler effect. (1) Proved by Ives and Stilwell in 1938.
C. If accelerating masses radiated, then they could not be accelerated as they would dissipate (some, if so; what fraction, where are the equations, experimental proofs etc. or all of?) their energy causing and permitting the said acceleration.
D. Any particle charged or no charge (neutral) will not radiate when its speed is constant (Newton’s Law #1) and will radiate when its speed decreases, i.e., decelerates. Its mechanical kinetic energy loss is equal to the energy of the produced radiation.
E. The law of the conservation of mass-energy cannot be violated, ergo, SUM = PARTS.
See 22:

16: That electromagnetic radiation is an electric-magnetic field per Maxwell’s Equations - for electromagnetism etc. (as in current textbooks and not of a historical nature)
A. The equations normally shown presently are not his but are the yet further updated Heaviside-Hertz Equations and none are Maxwell’s originals per se. Furthermore, there are now 6 of them and not the normal four, sometimes a fifth is referred to, as now shown.

17: The Maxwell Equation (implied or is specifically so stated) for the speed of light is: c = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu_o\varepsilon_o}} = 2.99792458 < x 108 meters per second.
A. False. Maxwell worked in the gcs (until changed to cgs) system and abhorred the MKSA system. That is like crediting that God exists to Madolyn O’Hare (noted American atheist.).
B. It does not give the speed of light as it only gives the identical numerical value. From 23: A. also, the answer, a RATIO, is just a number, nothing else. Its digits are the numerical value for the speed of light; BUT it is also the identical numerical value for the wavelength of a one cyc/sec frequency of said electromagnetic wave. And to carry this to reductio ad absurdum, it is also the number of pennies (a penny is a quantum) in $299,792,458 < (American dollars) or a quanta for this as its power(s) is 108, see 1:.
C. It is sometimes, at least one physics textbook author knew it was not such as Maxwell’s says; - attributed to Maxwell. Half an insult. Where it came from is apparently unknown.
D. Minkowski postulated and apparently proved that the speed of light was just a ratio. Hence, this equation proves Minkowski, that is, when MKSA in used. See 26. for continuation.

18: Light (ALL radiation) is an electromagnetic wave.
A. False. No proofs of such as Maxwell et al only set up a model that gave an explanation for some of the parameters and properties of radiation. It failed for many other properties per 28:.
B. When light is being produced, it is effected by an exterior magnetic field or gravitational field.
C. Once produced it is not effected by any external electric or magnetic field. It is effected by a strong gravitational field, bending (gravitational lensing etc.) a right angle effect ONLY. Neither is it effected by itself.

19: Light (once produced understood) can be effected in a linear direction by a gravitational field.
A. False. There is/are no theory or supporting equations to show that this can happen.
B. No known FORCE can speed it up or slow it down in the linear direction, especially gravity.

20: Light waves can cancel and reinforce one another.
A. False. No wave can cancel another per. 18: C. and cancel or reinforce itself, i.e. diffraction patterns etc.
B. IF it should cancel (go read a dictionary) itself, it would cease to exist.
C. It is the APPARENT [cancellation/reinforcing] effect and is not real.
D. The usage of the words cancel and reinforce were bad words to start with or the effect seen by the human eye or on what ever. The better words would be the apparent enhancement and apparent diminishment.
E. For those who wish to argue that sound (effect on the human ear) can be nullified by phase shifting, that is true, but it is itself not doing said canceling or reinforcing. That is done normally by secondary electronic means and is so noted.
F. For standing sound waves (like in xylophone resonator tubes) or radiation waves (Lecher wire experiment) there are null and maximum points along the wave, Hence, a sound detector placed at the null point will detect no sound or any device placed at the null point in the Lecher wire experiment will not detect any output (current).

21: Light and mass have a dual nature and as normally written mass OR waves.
A. False. Light and mass are co-nature not one OR the other.
B. From 4. light can be both mass and of a wave nature.
C. Mass has associated with it at all times its de Broglie wave that makes it co-nature.
D. No single (one) experiment can show both at the same time for either.

22: That orbiting electrons fall(ing) from higher energy to a lower energy, lose energy resulting in the production of light.
A. Impossible and hence false.
B. That energy is the kinetic energy of the electron that must lose this energy. See 15:.
C. The change in kinetic energy is given by the equation; k = \frac{mv^2}{r} . An electron in a further out orbit number has LESS energy than that of an inner orbit number as its orbital speed decreases with larger orbit numbers.
D. Simply, the electron going to a further out orbit number loses energy (quantum jumping outwards), decelerates, and produces light. An electron falling in GAINS energy, accelerates, due to the pull of the electric field between the nucleus and the orbiting electron.
E. This is identical to claiming that a cannon firing a projectile upward gains energy etc. NO. The projectile loses energy (radiates, but that is for another day) going up and it gains energy when it falls back, but in this case (as this illustration) it is gravity that is the effective source of the field. See 28: C.

23: In the gcs system (then), the ratio of the electro magnetic unit (e.m.u.) to the electro static unit (e.s.u.) as was found from an experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1856 was the numerical value (within experimental error) for the speed of light.
A. False. Same reasons and results as given in 17. See 26:. for continuation.

So, 17: and 23: are often given as proofs for the speed of light that are false. And until proven otherwise, Minkowski is correct in the gcs/cgs system likewise. So for 17: and 23: and for all other current establishment theories, there is/are no fundamental (first principles) theory, hence proofs, that the speed of light can be pre-calculated (all are post, not ex post, facto) AND it is in all probability just a ratio, i.e., dimensionless.

24: Electromagnetic radiation has no frequency limits.
A. There cannot be any frequency below one cyc/sec per h and Einstein’s Equation for the transformation of mass to energy and vice versa.
B. No frequency below 1 cyc/sec has ever been generated by humans and detected. The maximum frequency produced was by/from the decay of the Eta pion; appx. value 6 x 1022 cyc/sec. (No proof, but I believe this is/was a calculated value and was not and probably cannot be measured. Advise if I am in error [no reward] with the experiment used etc.)
C. The proton-antiproton collision does not produce (the false and so called annihilation) any direct electromagnetic radiation. Furthermore, the electron-positron annihilation has a cut-off collision speed LIMIT at about 210 MeV, i.e., maximum produced frequency. This is about 5 x 1022 cyc/sec. No guarantee and no reward if this value is incorrect.

25: The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation (G) and the permeability (symbol μo) and permittivity (symbol εo) of vacuum (P and P of V) are entities, i.e., exist.
A. They are all a Constant of Proportionality (k), just a number, parts of a ratio. The P and P of V does not exist in the cgs system. They are used to convert/transform the MKSA system from the cgs singular system, into the multiple valued MKSA system. (Do not confuse the name and usage or the assigned symbols, μand ε, of these two words that are some parameters and properties of magnetic or electric entities.)
B. The P and P of V as defined: From Lemer & Trigg, Encyclopedia of Physics: After defining a linear response to a dielectric where epsilon is the dielectric function and sigma is the conductivity of the dielectric the article states: “Analogously one can define a complex magnetic permeability (mu) related to B and H." Under Ferromagnetism the authors state: The magnetic field strength is said to polarize the vacuum and create a magnetic flux density the magnitude B = μoH, where μo is the permeability of the vacuum, a concept of convenience is establishing the SI units of B and H. [SI is now BIPM]. The dictionary definition of permittivity is a ratio: “the ability of a dielectric to store electrical potential energy under the influence of an electric field measured by the ratio of the capacitance of a condenser with the material as dielectric to its capacitance with vacuum as dielectric" - - therefore just a number without dimensions. (bold is my added). Therefore, they are just numbers (ALL ratios are just numbers) and you cannot legitimately add any physical dimensions or names to them to create entities any more than you can to any other numbers. Hence, giving space those current nonexistent parameters and properties. An extremely few scientists know otherwise, but are in a minority, unfortunately and are not heeded.
C. The P and P of V were dispensed with by the usage of the Heaviside-Lorentz Units that set them to the unit value of 1. (You can research [verify] this on the web.)
D. The author can show how to totally dispense with and eliminate G and. the P and P of V.

For G to the Mass Gravity System as the current system is the Mass Energy System (per Einstein [actually Newton] mass is energy etc.). In Newton’s Equation replace the right numerator with: F = \frac{(n)2.583 > \times 10^{-4} \times (n)2.583 > \times 10^{-4}}{r^2} where n is in grams and r is in cm, and the answer is in grams (dyne effect). For answer in MKSA replace the values after (n) with 8.168 > x 10-6 for each and (n) is in kg and r is in meters and answer is in kilograms, (Newtons effect). G gone and never should have come into existence in the first place. The singular force for any mass may be pre-calculated and those values inserted directly into the equation: F = \frac{M_1 \times M_2}{r^2} That is substitute for (n) the a.m.u. mass of the proton and then the electron that gives their singular force effect of gravity as 2.3529 > x 10-34 and 4.2891 > x 10-31 respectfully. For one gram that value is 2.583 > x 10-4.

Then insert those two values with the r for the hydrogen atom at its ground state and you will get the identical answer using Newton’s Equation. Then they can be used in other equations when the other masses are pre-calculated etc. That, for your information, is the second system that operates in the Universe, the Mass Gravity System and requires no G.

G is an artifact, is not an entity and is nothing more or less than a constant of proportionality, just a number without dimensions.

Contrary to current beliefs, there is/was a singular force of gravity for a mass. It is the value 2.583 > x 10-4 dynes/gram mass (Energy). There already was, but no one would admit to it. Only one mass is/was needed in the gee or the escape/terminal speed equations. Why is the value of the second mass that is being acted upon by the first for the gee equation or the second mass escaping/terminating for those equations immaterial, i.e., from an electron to a ? has no effect on the end resultant? That is, according to current theory. But the escape speed calculation collapses, whereas the terminal speed (end resultant) calculation does not. Hint: - all small masses fall at the same apparent rate etc. How small is small? When does small become (too) big and that collapse occurs? Newton’s equations for gravity effects are technically the weight and not the mass(es). Mass is NOT weight! See 30: D. And all gravitational pull force effects equations are for theoretical purposes (i.e., per theory) for spheres only. See 11: B..

26: (17: and 23: continued) The MKSA can easily be converted back to the cgs singular system equivalent. This singular e.m.u./e.s.u ratio to digits shown, is then in MKSA: \frac{4.553687899 \times 10^{-6}}{1.518946784 \times 10^{-14}} = 2.99792458 \times 10^8 The upper value is the e.m.u. and the lower value is the e.s.u. (singular [quantum] charge of the electron). Hence, the old MKSA equation for the force of charges is then after the permittivity of vacuum correction eliminated: F = \frac{(n)1.518946 > \times 10^{-14} \times(n)1.518946 > \times 10^{-14}}{r^2} Where n is the number of charges, r is in meters and the answer effect is in kilograms (Newtons effect) directly.

The F in all of these equations is actually the static force. To find the EFFECT requires a second step using F = ma. Warning: The gee equation only gives the effect on the second mass by the first larger to another equal mass or smaller mass. The escape/terminal speed equation only gives the first larger as the PRIMARY mass to another that is escaping whose mass is ?. For the terminal speed it makes no difference which is which. The two should be separated and not combined as one.

Note that in all textbooks etc. that the numerical values for the charge I am showing are given only a symbol, Q and C respectfully (a mnemonic equation) so that when their numerical values are actually inserted (constants) the correct equation is as I have shown.

G and the P and P of V as applicable have been eliminated or dispensed with and were not needed in the first place.

27: That the effect for gravity can be a push force.
A. The only real proof that the effect can be a push is for two spheres masses only as many used for this proof, but it can just as easily also show the pull force effect for gravity.
B. The addition of a third or more mass in this system makes it an impossibility.
C. Push Gravity requires some shielding or the what ever is absorbed and pushes the mass away. (1) Therefore, excluding spheres, such push depends on the shape and position of the masses. (2) Two thin disks parallel will then have less push than those same disks lying in the same plane. (3) None of the Push Gravity theories say exactly what the function of the thickness, linear, geometrically etc. of the mass, i.e., what fraction of the what ever gets absorbed to give the push.
D. None of its proponents have any equations or supporting calculations as such is then all verbiage.
E. The author has the only actual mechanical calculations done for this using three masses and shows the system is totally unstable, i.e., unworkable.

28: The electron ejection delay time (from light hitting to ejection of electron from target into space, varies even for close frequencies from different sources and even for one single frequency) can be accounted for under current Photoelectric Theory, e.g., from any current ACCEPTED establishment light theory effect.
A. NO. There is no provision for this known effect. It is not instantaneous as many references so state (a falsity). Other references imply its existence, albeit indirectly, (usually just one, sometimes two, lines), but no explanation.
B. It is a total failure from the Maxwell Equations and cannot be explained by them.
C. Einstein formulated an equation (A21) that gave (gives) the emission/production time for line spectra due to quantum orbit(s) jumping of the orbiting electron(s); finite WAVETRAIN length and finite creation/production time, and energy. A21 = \frac{1}{\tau} = \frac{8p^2n^2e^2}{Mc^3} f . The constant f is defined by concepts which have no place in the quantum theory, at any rate so far as this present discussion has gone. Similarly, the concept of the lifetime of an excited state has no place in classical theory. Two close frequencies from different (quantum) jumps can have their production time, hence wavetrain length many times the other. This equation’s results were proved by experiments.
D. Furthermore, current experiments have shown this wavetrain emission is random in nature (another different lifetime, i.e., from when the source is activated until it then follows Einstein’s Equation) or there is no finite delay time itself from the time said element is activated until it emits said wavetrain; and that is a finite time. Einstein’s equation and the experimental proofs are not accepted by the current establishment, hence is not qualified to collect my reward if quoted as proof. Furthermore it application(s) is/are incomplete, but the start.
E. Therefore, per 18:, 19: A., 20:, and 24: shows that Maxwell et al does not have any proofs that the results are true, are lacking in many respects, and hence is just a partially working model.

29: Excluding the surface, whatever that is, of charged particles or ionized elements etc., there is a positively charged surface on a physical area, i.e., on say a pith ball or whatever.
A. What is misnamed as a positively charged surface is only a lesser quantity or lack of electrons of the material composing this surface. Or, that called; by inductance, i.e., induced. Simply acts AS IF there were a real positive charge existing.
B. Again, word apparent is missing.

30: The one (standard) kilogram is a mass.
A. It is not now and never has been a KNOWN finite mass. It is the standard of weight.
B. The platinum alloy reference one kept at BIPM with duplicates elsewhere (one shown for the one in the USA normally with a picture of same in all American physics textbooks etc.) is a weight.
C. The word mass was coined by Sir I. Newton to distinguish the fixed quantity of a substance (matter) from its measured weight that constantly varies anywhere on the surface of the Earth (for simplicity).
D. Weight is the comparison between ANY two masses or their gravitational attraction, gee equation covers, RATIO upon one another. There is no such thing as a singular weight. See next to last sentences for 25: D.
E. At the present time there is no standard of a physical energy mass (and has no name or symbol either) like the kilogram weight. The energy mass of the electron and proton have been measured, but not any combined finite energy mass, not weight!
30A: the BIPM value for the physical constants gives the proton(‘s) mass.
A. False. It is the weight (and wrong at that) for a (one) proton.
B. The value shown is the decreed weight (derived from the gram atomic WEIGHT of same) for a carbon atomic number 6, isotope 12, atom divided into 6 parts and that part is called the mass of the proton. (1) It cannot be substituted in Einstein’s Equation to find the energy released when it is transformed to energy. Too large. (2) The mass of the proton that will work in Einstein’s Equation is called the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) and its value is smaller and is the energy mass (Energy Mass System) scalar value.
C. The mass of the electron is correct as shown. Therefore, the “ratio" of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron is not that 1836+ value as normally given and used, but is the a.m.u./mass electron that gives 1822.888 to value shown.
D. It is possible to show that its value using other BIPM values from other end results there from is closer to 1822.5+ digits in accuracy. Note; a ratio can have only one value, ergo, excluding c, some of the BIPM values MUST NOT be as accurate as claimed as there cannot be two different values for one ratio, i.e., 1822.8 and 1822.5. Hence, is accurate only to four digits .

31: Black Holes were postulated/derived (implied) from the Theory of Relativity, i.e., Einstein indirectly gets the credit for the bending of light by a mass.
A. False. (1) It was Newton in 1704 who first postulated that light could be bent by a mass. (2) John Michell, English (1724-1793) was the first one that started the Black Hole ball rolling, so to speak. In 1783 (some records say 1784) realized that it would be theoretically possible for gravity to be so overwhelmingly strong that nothing -- not even light traveling at 186,000 miles a second -- could escape. To generate such gravity, an object would have to be very massive and unimaginably dense. At the time, the necessary conditions for "dark stars" (as Michell called them) seemed physically impossible. His ideas were published by the French mathematician and philosopher Pierre Simon Laplace in two successive editions of an astronomy guide, but were dropped from the third edition. They were not resurrected until 1980. (3) Schwarzschlild (1873-1916) after reading Einstein’s early Relativity works, then in 1916 applied them to Newton’s escape/terminal speed equation based on the mechanical effect to show when a mass could not escape permanently from another larger mass, i.e., its speed had to be greater than the calculated value. Simply, at what radius was such that the second mass could not be accelerated and thereby escape at all? His equation result is called the Schwarzschild Radius. His equation is badly flawed (impossible to start with) and does not support the creation, hence any existence of a Black Hole.
B. The CORRECT escape/terminal equation is: M_v = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{R}} .What Schwarzschild did was to insert the maximum known speed, that of light, in the left side or it made light itself leaving said mass. Therefore: the correct left side should be: M_v = _c =  \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{R}} that is an automatic impossibility to start with. See 19:.
C. Even if the equation were true, Schwarzschild showed that the MINIMUM size of such a mass would be about 3-4 times the mass of our Sun. Reading about smaller Black Holes in various publications by many well known, even Nobel recipients, scientists is simply a myth, falsity, science fiction etc. and violates the results (limits of existence based on the Theory of Relativity) of the basic equation in the first place.
D. They have all ignored and pretended to forget the proven existence of the gee equation. Remember my question in 25: D.? How small is small; and the escape speed equation collapses?
E. IF light could be bent by a strong gravitational field, it could not be bent TO 90 degrees in the first place, hence cannot be bent into a circle. Therefore, the original definition and its modified current accepted one is an impossibility. See 39: that is also applicable or that cosine effect etc.
31A: A Black Hole has a Surface Horizon.
A. Where it starts and how thick/deep it is, is never given.
B. Simply, solve the equation for any mass (use rounded off values for simplicity) to find R. Then increase R by any additional value for length, say one Planck Length and solve for the speed. It is UNDER the speed of light for any smaller added value. Hence the Surface Horizon is actually the surface per se and does not extend out in space away from same.
C. Using the gee equation will give the identical result as the gee is that for c at/on the surface and drops BELOW c when the R is increased by ANY additional amount away from the center of the Black Hole, i.e., normal gravity takes over.
31B: When a mass is too large it will cause a gravitational collapse and form a Black Hole.
A. False. No mass can be such that the force of gravity will cause any collapse as the repulsive force of the charged nuclei(us) therein is too great to permit them to even touch one another.
B. Simple calculations will show that to force two protons’ surface into a touching position takes a pressure of about 2.9 x 1028 gm/cm2 or 1025 kg/cm2. AND that mass’s pressure must come from the mass above those two touching protons, i.e., a neutral linear stack of mass on each of the protons extending into space.

These are just a few items of what is wrong with a Black Hole or how can they be created in the first place, their miracle properties etc.; that is unless by totally unsupported verbiage.

32: Mass has no scalar limits.
A. False. It is only necessary to substitute one h (that E in Einstein’s Equation are the TOTAL number (n) of h’s, i.e., nh = E = mc2) that gives: m  = \frac{h}{c^2} . Substituting gives: m 7.37249 > x 10-51 kg. From Planck’s Equation that mass when transformed to energy has one h and its frequency is one cyc/sec and its wavelength is 2.99792458 < x 108 meters.
B. It is also the mass of a particle divided by its frequency when it is transformed to radiation. For the electron: 9.10938 > x 10-31 \div 1.235589 > x 1020 giving the previous value as shown.
C. This is the quantum of mass, the source of mass (per B.) and gravity.
D. From 25: it then follows automatically that the SINGULAR gravitational quantum of force is 1.9043 > x 10-51 dynes static (x 10-46 Newtons static) as the quantum of source in the Mass Gravity System. The real or true Gravitron.

Further proofs: Singular force of gravity for the electron divided by its frequency when its rest mass is transformed to energy gives the identical result in D.

33: The Schrödinger psi (Ψ) waves are waves per se.
A. No. What Schrödinger did was to devise the means to manipulate multiple de Broglie Waves.
B. They are not a wave as defined in physics as the de Broglie wave has no frequency.
C. It was therefore, misnamed and led all astray as to its true nature.

34: Cold Fusion does not exist.
A. False, It is exactly the opposite.
B. Cockcroft and Walton used Cold Fusion to create the first element transmutations firing protons (relatively COLD) at the lighter elements to convert them to the heavier elements. Cold Alpha Particles (helium nucleus) were also used likewise.
C. The attempt to create heavier elements by colliding the heavier nuclei together is done by Cold Fusion likewise. It is so spelled out in peer reviewed papers, and so published etc.
D. Every experiment to create helium by thermofusion has failed. In the Sept. 1999 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN on page 78 lower right corner, is something of extreme interest. It is the first time this has appeared in any national media: CRITICISM: Fusion has never been achieved in the laboratory, and etc. That fusion was thermofusion as in the article. No one questioned it.
E. The Hydrogen-bomb was a thermofusion failure. NO, excess that is to account for the released energy, HELIUM. It works on the THIRD form of mass to energy process; FRAGMENTATION (mechanical at that!). [Radioactivity is the fourth means of the transformation of mass to energy.]

35: Newton’s Third Law of motion cannot be violated.
A. False. Newton’s ORIGINAL Third Law is: Law 3: To any action there is always an opposite and equal reaction; in other words, the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and always opposite in direction. See 7: B. This law is only for solid mass mechanical actions.
B. There is no recoil from the production of light. Anti-light (recoil effect) probably originated (implied) by Leonard B. Loeb and never proven. Actual source of this recoil postulate is unknown.
C. The Mössbauer Effect apparently violates this law as there is no equal and opposite reaction as the emitted radiation has no Doppler Effect, i.e., the nucleus does not recoil. Not violated to start with. He received the Nobel Prize for the wrong claimed reason.
D. From my works this is related to inertia or in order for one mass to recoil, its inertia must be overcome by the action of the second mass. The equation F = ma is actually the minimum amount of force required to overcome that mass’s inertia (new concept and word; midpoint) and then it can move when there is an additional force! Corollary: Remember the Work Function for the Photoelectric Effect?

36: Heisenberg based his Uncertainty Principle on a microscope.
A. False. It was on the operation of a spectroscope that was his dissertation for his doctorate degree.
B That microscope illustration is falsely used in most textbooks (if not all).
C. He almost failed his oral examination when he was asked to give the resolution of a microscope and could not, but was passed anyway.
36A: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has a direct connection to Planck’s Constant.
A. False. AND both this and 36: has been shown to be false.

It can all be found in: Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution by Paul Marmet in CHAPTER 3. This is available on the web. A physical theory cannot be based on the OPERATION of some instrument. Heisenberg was in error and so is the microscope illustration (resolving power equation) as there is now the means to examine a fraction of a wavelength and extract information etc.

The microscope and observing an electron is an absurdity in the first place. You cannot determine the electron’s position and momentum simultaneously. Momentum requires the measurement of a movement, speed, between two points to be determined and you cannot determine its momentum when the electron is “:standing still" anymore than you can the kinetic energy of a mass standing still.

His famous equation (I believe that most references or in its original form is) Δt x ΔE ≈ h but it is also shown (Marmet) as Δt x ΔE = h. It is not approximately equal too but it is h. The emission time for one cycle x the energy in one cycle = constant = h. That is what Planck’s Equation says, i.e., when the emission (creation time) is one second, the single cycle has one h. When the emission time is cut in half, 2 cyc/sec, then each cycle has one h as two cycles are produced that has twice the total energy etc., i.e., frequency, hence 2/2 = 1 or 2 x 0.5 = 1 etc. The probability of its being h is 100%.

37: From the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that the orbiting electrons are in “clouds", i.e., probability positions.
A. False. If that was so there could not be any Sommerfeld Fine Structure Constant and all of its applications (Coupling Constant etc.).
B. If the electron was in such a cloud, it would have varying speeds for each orbit number that violates their angular acceleration and that equation k = \frac{mv^2}{r}. in 22: C.

38: Einstein was not first with E = mc2.
A. False. He was first.
B. Many others came close and could have or if their works were changed etc., especially Hasenöhrl (He acknowledges Hasenöhrl’s contributions in his works by footnotes) and De Prietto.

38A: E = mc2 was in a 1905 paper by Einstein.
A. False. It did not appear until his manuscript, circa 1911-1914 (first time actually published unknown) that had his previous (that falsely claimed 1905 one) corrected with its final form, E = mc2 titled: Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity. AND that specific format made him the FIRST. (Manuscript available on the web.)
[For information purposes it was Newton who first proposed that matter and energy were interchangeable in his book Optiks (1704) as Query 30 reads, “Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another. . . “]

39: There is the Lorentz Transformation Equation.
A. No. It is the Lorentz Operator or Factor whose symbol to left below and its equation is: \beta = \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}   =   \sqrt{1 - sin^2\Phi)}      =       cos \Phi
B. When this is applied to mass, length, and time, the right side, then THAT equation is the whatever Lorentz Transformed/Transformation Equation.
C. The value under the bracket can be converted (as shown) to the cosine (vector function) of an angle. The author uses theta designating this angle. This is actually the real Doppler Effect equation for the effect of electric and magnetic fields on charged particles and other applications as applicable. In the following mass is shown so you can substitute what ever for the M for any other entity etc., but such must follow the given relationships, i.e., for length it is contraction (shrinks) etc.
M_{apparent}  =  \frac{M_{actual}}{cos \Phi}
As an illustration for mass, assume the measured (apparent) mass of an electron moving through an electric or magnetic field is approximately 11.24 x 10-31 kg. Then cos Φ = .810 and 11.24 x cos Φ = 9.1 > x 10-31 kg or the normal mass of the electron. cos Φ = Me Φ ÷ Mapparent or the effective force of the field is .810 x perpendicular force or if effect is wanted, Me ÷ Φ cos Φ = 11.24 x 10^-28 gm apparent measured mass. The end result is the same. The effective force is simply the vector force (cos) of the field effect or approaches 1 at slowest speed and approaches 0 at maximum speed. It was this measured value that gave the illusion that the mass of the particle was increasing because it required increasing the field to keep its radius fixed, whereas it was only the weakening of the effect of the moving force fields that were taking place.

40: The reciprocal of Avogadro’s number is purely a coincidence that of the a.m.u. and vice versa.
A. Wrong due to its being long removed (as far as I have read) from all current textbooks.
B. It is a direct resultant of how Avogadro’s Number was defined, though only this author knows why.
C. However, you can read the connection in THE DISCOVERY OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES, by S. Weinberg (has SUBATOMIC PARTICLES on book spine) pages 178-182.

41: There is a Binary Number System.
A. No. It is the binary symbols mathematical operator system.
B. Those O’s and 1’s (but any two different symbols or even physical objects will do) cannot be used to write any numbers or perform any mathematical operations in that system per se. They must be converted into another number system (bytes) and then that conversion is used (in computers as an example) to perform the mathematical calculations. The end results are then converted back into answers in the numbers of the number system desired.
C. There are an infinite number of number systems, bases. The most common is the Roman Decimal System also known as the (sic) Base 10 System.

42: The axioms of arithmetic lay the foundation for the manipulation of numbers to perform ALL (needed) arithmetical operations.
A. False. Those axioms ONLY result in that m = n or 2 = 2 etc. In all fairness, it also says that any number added to another or multiplied is independent on the sequence so that m x n = n x m etc. But, that was done by two other axioms and no proofs.
B. These axioms do not provide for SUBTRACTION or DIVISION.
C. They do not show or give WHY the answers are so; or why is 3 x 2 = 6 or 2 + 3 = 5?
D. Hence, they are incomplete and are no proof(s) as to the resulting answers so claimed by the mathematicians etc.
E. Division of zero by a number is simply PROHIBITED is the perfect example and automatically gives lie to their statement for ALL etc.
F. The results of mathematical operations for numbers are all done by (infallible) decree and there is absolutely no proofs that the results are true or correct

The author discovered why two numbers multiplied gives their answer. It was a result of a statement by J. Kepler on the effect of the ratio of masses for gravitational attraction. This is called the Kepler-Schreiber Law of Contribution. Its formula is: a = \frac  {b^2c}{b  +  c}   +  \frac{ bc^2}{b  +  c} .

Multiplication in theory is therefore an endless process. However, the direct application to any two numbers gives what each contributes to the resulting answer. When each are the same, each contributes 50% of the answer.

There is no and never will be any formula for division.

43: The Traveling Salesman Problem requires the multiplication of the number of cities visited in descending sequence to find all of the solutions to the shortest length, i.e., for 100 cities it then takes; 100 x 99 x 98 x 97 etc. calculations. For 100 cities it is about 9.3332621 > x 10157. Even for 30 cities it is about 2.65 > x 1032.
A. False. From 41: there is in these axioms that it makes no difference in which sequence the numbers are multiplied (m x n = n x m etc.), i.e., for simplicity 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 3 x 4 x 2 x 1 = 2 x 4 x 3 x 1 etc. so that 24 steps are not required for those number of cities (4) but only one step (calculation) gives all of the identical results. Many of the combinations are identical or mirror images etc that further reduces the number of calculations.
B. The end result is: to find either the longest OR shortest routes (and all in between) where N is the number of cities only requires 2N2 calculations for either one or 4N2 for ALL of the possible routes.
C. For 100 cities it actually only takes 20,000 calculations for finding either all of the shortest routes (there are multiple results, hence plural) or all of the longest routes; 40,000 for all possibilities.

44: The multi-body problem for gravity follows the Traveling Salesman Problem.
A. False. Using Newton’s Equation it only takes the sum of the number of bodies minus 1 for a single solution., i.e., for 5 bodies, 5+4+3+2= 14 steps.
B. Then applying F = ma to find their acceleration (vectors) and over some fixed period of time, to where they will be at the end of that time that takes 14 steps again. Then repeat the process.

However, the author has discovered that the effective Range for any source of force is limited by Planck’s Constant required to overcome the inertia of the masses in question. For gravity the equation is: M = r2 x k, where k = 1.980355 x 10-2 (10-6 for the cgs system) for the MKSA system. Hence, two one gram masses have a LIMIT to attraction that is about 7.1 meters. When said masses are beyond this Range, there is no effect or they will not be attracted. It is also in another version to find R: R2 = M x 5.049599 > x 107 cm2/gm = x 5.049599 > x 104 m/kg.

This simplifies and gives the real solution(s) of the calculations that will not be given here.

These that have been so listed are but a fraction as there are many more.

EPILOG:

From 1:, 10:, 22:, 32:, and especially 28: (as A21 takes all of them to be such) it is easily shown that the physical constants must be quantized. Rewrite the calculated Planck’s Constant to c = h/Meλc. Now c is a constant. The mass of the electron is a constant. Therefore, h must be constant and for c to be a constant, then its Compton wavelength CANNOT have fractional values and it too can only be in full whole number multiples of itself = QUANTUM JUMPS. For the proton the Compton Wavelength for the a.m.u. is 1.33102 > x 10-15 m. Why this is important follows.

The quantum of time is 4.4077 > x 10-24 sec, from the time it takes light to go the minimum length and the quantum of length, 1.3310 > x 10-25 m (diameter of the proton) can likewise easily be proven, but not for here, i.e., the time it takes light to cross through the diameter of the proton.

For information purposes, I have my own theory and the proofs (equations and calculations there from) that the scalar values of the physical constants can be predetermined (calculated). It was the result from 10: B. Therefore, the maximum permitted speed of light in free space can be predetermined, is UNIVERSAL, and it is a ratio. All of the physical constants numerical values are ARBITRARY and directly related to one another, e.g., the numerical value of the speed of light can be SET (using the arbitrarily chosen quantum of length and the quantum of time as the starting, any two of mass, length, and time required, values point) to anything from greater than 0 to a googol or googolplex or larger. There are no natural numerical values to the physical constants per se. ALL RATIOS ARE FIXED as it is only in what number system they are so written for understanding by humans.


Related Studies

Skeptics

Ken Rauen's response to Schreiber

Kenneth M. Rauen, Science Advisor for PES Network, and founding member of New Energy Congress, wrote the following on Jan. 27, 2006 in response to Schreiber's piece on Zero Point Energy Does Not Exist.


Preface: "I have reached an assessment of Bert Schrieber's caliber. He is not worth our effort to listen to him. I read the first two pages of the attachment and found NUMEROUS errors in his science. It is not worth my time to go further. Attached is a Word document that details those first two pages."


The distinction made by Bert Schrieber between continuous black body radiation and line spectra is not merely non-ionized versus ionized, respectively. Ionized matter can have black body radiation, too, and non-ionized matter can have monochromatic radiation. Glowing exhaust gases of a jet engine or rocket definitely have strong infrared output as a blackbody spectrum, and it certainly is ionized. A candle flame definitely has ionized gases in it and it is very definitely a blackbody spectrum. Hydrogen gas that radiates in one of the famous series, say the Balmer Series, is not ionized! It is merely excited, with the electron falling from a high orbital to a lower orbital.
The band theory of solids is in between line emission and broadband emission, and this emission often is non-ionized. Bert fails to mention this further blurring between line and band emission.
Continuous band radiation is not frequency modulated! This is a bad use of terms, at best. Also, Planck did not discover that “continuous" radiation is separated by quanta of one cycle per second! How could he even resolve one Hertz in terahertz?
Planck’s constant is not 4.135667 x 10-15 eV; it has units of electron volt-seconds, not just electron volts. Planck’s constant is not a unit of energy, like Bert uses it (“…emit its last h of energy"). Dividing Planck’s constant by Boltzmann’s constant does not give a minimum temperature!
Bert is all wet! Whatever legitimate science he has to point out to us, he is not worth our time to wade through the morass of his bad science to find it. I am stopping my review at this point on the bottom of page two of his document.

See also:

James N Downing's response to Schreiber

James Downing, Ph.D. plasma physicist, and former member of New Energy Congress wrote the following on Jan. 28, 2006.

I agree with Ken.
I spent about 3 hours on his website trying to understand his concepts. A very difficult task. He doesn't seem to be able to separate his arrogance from his arguments and it makes it very hard to understand. He doesn't give references for many of the things he says are true or not true. My thesis advisor taught me that communicating an idea requires the following steps, 1. tell them what you are going to tell them, 2. tell them what you want to tell them, and then sum up by telling them what you told them. This type of organization is a foreign concept to Bert.
His website is more than 900 pages written mostly like a serial diary. Also, written in the same way as the documents he sent us.
I understand why he gets silence when he contacts people.

Contact

Bert Schreiber
4519 Holly St.
Bellaire, TX 77401-5802
charlesbert_99@yahoo.com

See also

- Other Directory listingsLatestA-IJ-RS-ZTreeNews
- PESWiki home page

Personal tools

Departments
Related

Support
Toolbox