## Tuesday, January 12, 2016

### Why is Pauli Wrong?

Why is Pauuli Wrong?
The TOTAL MASS LOST insude the decayng Bi to Po, in units is equal to

1.16 MeV

The outside Energy is given by the Flaying Electron  Rest Mass (mo)
plus its Kinetic Energy (KEe)

This  TOTAL ENERGY putside the Po needto be equal to the Total
Energy availablee of 1.16) MeV since the Energy Conservacion is
an Universal Law.

Total Energy = mo + KEe
1.16 MeV = 0.511 MeV + KEe Me
KEe MeV = 1.16 MeV -  0.511 MeV
KEe Me =  0.649 MeV
This is the maximum possible vulue provided by the available Mass
There is NOT ANY Energy LOST
It is NOT needed neither any Ghost Particle nor any penetrating Radiation
To conserve Energy. In simple words: NO NEUTRINO.
Where come from the Pauli's LOST Energy?
He applied the SR's KE equation which yield, by pure coincidence: KEe =
-. 1.16 MeV.
This is IMPOSSIBLE because now Total Energy is

1.16 + 0.511 = 1.671 MeV.
This value is  BIGGER than the available one equal to

1.16 MeV

Yhere is NOT Energy Concervation: SR is Wrong.

The whole  citcle is closed

Ot is very well lnoen that the Bi Decaying to Po is due to the the Neutron
Decaying to a Proton-Electron. The Proton stays inside the Nucleud and
the Electron flying outside.

Neutro Mass = 2.008 664 915 74 au

Proton Mass = 1.007 825 032 07 au

Mass diference =. 0.000 839 883 67 au

To convert this to Energy is muigiplird. by 931.494 322

Total available Energy = 0.782 MeV

This Kinetic Energy is distribuited between the Proton which stay
inside the Nucleus , and the Electron flying outside the Element. As
the electron Rnergy os equal to 0.849 MeV, the difference from 0.782
Is taken by the Proton:

0.782 MeV
~. 0.649 MeV (Kinetic Energy get by the Electron)
= 0.133 MeV (Kinetic Energy get by the Proton)

The whole process is perfectly closed and in prrfectt equlity
because

0.649 + 0.511 =  1.16 MeV

Equall to the Total Energy available.

Neither Any Neutrino nor penetration Radiation is neede .

Pauli is wrong because Einsteiniswrong!

And also temember: All values are takind ffrom a prosaicc   table of Elements!!!

## Tuesday, February 18, 2014

### Pioneer 11/10 and the Solar Mass

Pioneer 11/10 and the Solar Mass.

Even though the auto-called *scientific Community* accept, in a big proportion, that the Pioneer anomaly is related to its radioactive engine, there is another Satellite, the Ulysses orbiting the Sun, which show that the engine approach is absolutely erroneous. Ulysses has a positive acceleration when it is approaching the Sun and a negative one when it is moving away from it.

Ulysses orbiting the Sun. (Image from NASA, Hubble Satellite publication)

NASA, using the Assist Dynamics, provided de force to send the Pioneer outside the Solar System but it is the Sun who has the traveling absolute control after the NASA force stopped. Really Nature, as a whole, is what has the total control because the Satellite’s measured velocity depends on the equation used to find it. NASA is erroneously using the old static Newton Celestial Mechanics and the so called anomaly doesn’t exist because that Celestial Mechanics fail to calculate the real effect provoked by Nature.

The so called negative acceleration is only the difference between the values calculated with Newton equations and the Sun actual mass.  The force that provokes the Satellite acceleration is bigger than the calculated, since the actual mass is bigger than the used, which, of course, is also calculated with Newton gravitation equation.

Newton Equation    F = G M m / d2

Autodynamics Equation    F = G M* m* / d2

F = Force,  G = Gravitational Constant,  M = Solar Mass,  m = Satellite mass, * = Mass Increment

The Autodynamics Celestial Mechanics provide a bigger value than the Newtonian one.

To see how the mass increment is get see:

A-20- Autodynamics Gravitation Applied to Lageos-Mercury.

To clear understand the Autodynamics Gravitation Mechanics see:

Quantum Universal Gravitation

Autodynamics is supported by many results get from many different applications

It explains: The motion creation (Planets Perihelion Advance and Lageos
Satellites).

The increasing Gravitation in Eclipse Time.

The increasing Galaxies size looking at billions year far away.

Moon receding from Earth.

Spacecraft Assist micro-acceleration.

Gravitation Non-Propagation velocity. The Graviton has velocity;   Gravitation has NOT. It is actually present in the whole Universe.

It is Paramount to point it out here that the Autodynamics’ author didn’t invent neither any theory nor any particular hypothesis to explain each phenomenon.

It is a simple mechanism after elevating to a Universal Law two concepts very well known: Mass Decay-Energy Absorption.

We made a simple program to calculate the Solar mass correctly using the Pioneer 10-11 “real position and fly’s time”. (We are not totally sure of the data because NASA never answered any question).

From the program  output we include only three values for acceleration proving the given values and the actual Solar mass, which, of course doesn’t give any ***anomaly.*** The Pioneer position is given by Nature and the anomaly is introduce by ourselves, due to the fail of Newton Static equation corrected by Autodynamics , the New Paradigm by Carezani, as a dynamics one with his Quantum Universal Gravitation and consequently with his new Celestial Mechanics.

The Program.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <float.h>
#include <bios.h>

#define t 2.3974683E17     /* Seconds in 7.504 Billion/year */
#define d1 10.0E13            /* Pioneer d1 distance in cm */
#define d2 21.0E13            /*             d2                        */
#define d3 30.0E13            /*             d3                        */
#define G 6.67259E-8        /*  Gravitational Constant in cm^3/gr sec^2  */
#define M 1.9891E33         /* Sun Mass in gr */
#define P 2.6698913E30   /* All planets Mass in gr */
#define MP 1.99176989E33 /* Total Mass (Sun + Planets) in gr) */
#define Sy 3.157056E7        /* Second in ONE year */
#define a1c 10.3E-8             /* Anomaly Acceleration measure
#define a2c 8.05E-8             /*                                                     */
#define a3c 6.3E-8               /*                                                     */

Main()

{

Double a1,a2,a3,as3,as1, a1t, a3t, ,M1,M2,M3,Minc,Msec,My,Mt,Mfo,A,

Print(“         ***** NEWTON’S MECHANICS *****\n\n”);

a1 = (G * M) / (d1 * d1);
printf(a1 =%2.10E Acceleration at d1 distance\n\n”.a1);

a2 = G * M) / (d2 * d2);
printf (“a2 = %2.10E Acceleration at d2 distance\n\n”,a2);

a3 = (G * M) / (d3 * d3);
printf(“a3 = %2.10E Acceleration at d3 distance\n\n”,a3);

printf(“            ***** CAREZANI’S MECHANICS*****\n\n”);

M1 = (a1c * d1 * d1) / G;
printf(“M1 = %2.15E Solar mass in time 1 \n\n”,M1);

M2 = (a2c * d2 * d2) / G;
printf(“M2 = %2.15E Solar mass in time 2 \n\n”,M2);

M3 = (a3c * d3 * d3) / G;
printf(“M3 = %2.15E Solar mass in time 3 \n\n”,M3);

Msec = M / T;
printf(“Msec = %2.10E Total mass increment per second\n\n”,Msec;

My = Msec * Sy * 27;
printf((“My = %2.10E Total mass increment in 27 year\n\n”,My);

Mfo =  M + M3;
printf(“Mfo = %2.15E Final observed mass (M+M3)\n\n”,Mfo);

Mfc = M + My;
printf(“Mfc = %2.20E Total (M+My) mass in 27 year\n\n\”,Mfc);

Mi = (Mfo – Mfc) + M;
printf(“Mi =2.29E Actual Sun Mass ((Mfo-Mfc)+M)\n\n”,Mi);

Mad  = (Mi – M) / 1E33;

as3 =a3 +a3c;
printf(“as3 =%2.15E Acceleration SUM (a3+a3c)\n\n”,as3);

a3t = (G + Mi) / (d3 * d3);
printf(“a3t = %2.15E Acceleration TEST ((G*Mi)/(d3*de)\n\n”,a3r);

as1 = a1 +a1c;
printf(“as1 = %2.15E Acceleration SUM (a1+a1C

a1t = (G * Mi) / (d1 * d1);
printf(“a1t = %2.15E Acceleration TEST((G*Mi)/(d1*d1)\n\n”,a1t);

}

Program output: Only two values; Sum and Test

as3 = 1.4747795298888E-3

a3t =  1.4747795246456E-3

as1 = 1.3272551769000E-2

a1t = 1.32730157218106E-2

Actual Sun Mass:

1.989184967428E+033 A difference in the 5th decimal position.

## Friday, January 24, 2014

### Einstein's Photo-Electric Effec and its Consequence,

Einstein's Photo-Electric Effect and its Consequence

We received many times the CLASSIC Question:

What is the Experiment proving right Einstein’s Special Relativity?

To tell the plain TRUTH there is NOT ANY experiment proving Einstein right.

The only experiment performed by Einstein, the Photo-Electric experiment, which gave him the Nobel Prize, proved Special Relativity Wrong!

The Photoelectric Effect.

The only experiment that confirm Einstein right is his Photoelectric experiment (P.E.E.), but unfortunately for him, CONTRADICT his Especial Relativity.

P.E.E.: A photon strike an Electron inside a material medium, ejecting it.

This yielded a surprisingly reality: His Photo-Electric-Effect CONTRADICT his Special Relativity because on it he support that the Photon has not mass as required condition to travel at c to satisfies his equations. BUT the Electron has MOMENTUM and the Momentum Conservation Law is not conserved between the Electron and Photon.

Einstein didn’t pronounce a word on this failure and the “Scientific Community” made the Ostrich classical action introducing his head in the sand.

Nevertheless the Planck’s equations proved that the Photon has mass using also the Einstein equation E = m0 c2 (1) (This equation was published in Italy TWO years before Einstein proposed it)

In Planck E = h f  (2) where E = energy, h = the Planck constant, f = the light frequency,

Following: (2) = (1)  h f = m0 c2  (3)        m0 = h f / c2    (4)

p (momentum)  = m0 c (5) (Classical Newton),  p = (h f / c2 ) * c =  h f / c  (6)

This is confirmed by the Compton’s Effect experiment which is also explained poorly by the Special Relativity that cannot calculate its values correctly.

The whole TRUTH is that neither SR nor General relativity (GR) explains any natural experimental phenomenon.

GR cannot explain neither from where is get the Force to Increase the Planet Mercury increasing velocity, which is call Perihelion Advance, nor the Lageos Satellites Precession. In the Mercury case the empirical equation give a value, as Newton also can do with different value, but both without any mechanism or machinery to explain it. In the Lageos case his space dragging proved to be another fantasy confirmed by the Probe B with a total failure to measure any value.

## Sunday, January 19, 2014

### Comparing the Actual Galaxies sizes with the Old one.

Autodynamics New Paradigm in Physics-Cosmology continue accumulating explanations in many new discoveries in this matter, which cannot be explained by the Classic Mechanics, and what is worst, neither by Special and General Relativity.

NASA published a few weeks ago a picture with the actual Galaxies size and the distant one around 11.1 bly. The Picture show that the far away Galaxies were smaller than the actual one, being the old one around 1/5 to   ½ smaller, which cannot be explained neither  Cosmologically by the Actual Paradigm including General Relativity, and , of course, Newton.

The explanation is very simple when we have the correct Celestial Mechanics given by the Quantum Universal Gravitation, where the Celestial bodies increase their Mass by the Gravitational Quantum (Graviton) absorption by matter, which provide the force that provoke  the Planet Perihelion Advance, the Lageos Satellites precession, the Spacecraft slowdown as the Pioneers 10/12. etc,, the increasing micro acceleration in the Assist action to increase the spacecrafts’ velocities, the increasing Gravity during Eclipse time, etc, under the fundamental Law of Mass Decay-Energy Absorption, which maintain the Universe in Perpetual Motion and Evolution.

Also see:

Quantum Universal Gravitation

A-20- Autodynamics Gravitation Applied to Lageos-Mercury.

Regarding the Galaxies’ size related to the time that light travel to reach us the explanation is easier since the average calculated using the Celestial Mechanics through known values as the Mercury Perihelion Advance and Lageos Satellite Precession is 7.594 by to double any body mass in the Cosmos.

A galaxy with apparent size equal to 1/5 (0.2), to day it has 0.592 and with 0.5 it has 1.48. You could calculate the whole relative sizes in the picture.