Elektron mint részecskék nem is léteznek?

Nincs anyagi minőségük, nincs tömeggel rendelkező anyagi 'elektron részecske'. ☝️

Az elektromosság a tér pertubációja.

A térnek nincs mennyisége, és nincsenek alkotórészecskéi.

Nincs 'elektron részecskének' nyugalmi tömege, ez csak az atomizmus fantazmagógiája. (Ahogy a foton részecske is)

Had idézzem azokat a valódi tudósokat, akik a teljes elektromosság tudományt megalapozták: Nikola Tesla, Oliver Heaviside, JC Maxwell, CP Steinmetz

* * *

Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:

On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.

“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla

“A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly) cikkében.

“My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the ‘electron’ leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal.” - N. Tesla

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature. For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - mondta Einstein az elektronokról.

“Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916

“To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.”

- W. Russell

"JJ Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” - E. Dollard

“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” - E. Dollard

“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated”

- C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”.

J.J. Thomson az elektron feltalálója:

'Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.'

“Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steve Biller

* * *

És egy 2008-as cikk:

No Evidence for Particles - Casey Blood

Professor Emeritus of Physics

Rutgers University

"Abstract

There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the

existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties.

Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on

entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they

exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors

alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself,

can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the

probability law."

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta 03.65.-w

[link]

[link]

És akkor a kvantum mechanika Heisenberg féle bizonytalansági elvét még meg se említettem:

Ha egy 'elektron' bárhol lehet, egyszerre több 'helyen' is, akkor melyiknek van tömege?

Ezek után várom a bátor atomizmus hívők bizonyítását az 'elektron részecskére' 😉

Nem annak kell bizonyítani, aki kételkedik, hanem annak, aki állítja, hogy létezik!

🙏🏻