Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[Ziggurat]

only that gravity provides the conditions (time dilation) that allows protons to overlap in the same momentum space

Once again, no. What would prevent them from overlapping? Fermi exclusion? Doesn't apply if they're not in the same spin state. Coulomb repulsion? Time dilation doesn't actually help - either the net force of repulsion is larger than the net force of attraction, or it isn't, but time dilation won't change that. And the gravitational potential is so ridiculously weak that you don't GET any significant time dilation anyways.

But I am glad to see you're not playing games with the font size anymore.

 

[Gate2501]

HI DHamilton

I won't even pretend to understand 90% of what you have written. I'm one of those people who like the quantum physics books with no equations in them

My question: Why are you writing this in an internet forum instead of going for the Nobel?

They should take away Yukawa's Nobel and give it to DHamilton I think.

Seriously DHamilton.

Look at the symptoms that you are displaying.

You think that the scientific world has some sort of "establishment" that is secretly concealing a "truth" from the general population.

If what you say is correct, then why does science not accept it to be the case? What is the "agenda" that everyone has against you?

I want to hear the full conspiracy!

 

[Ziggurat]

Maxwell's Equations cannot tell you more than you have the requisite ability to extract from them. And you're very limited.

That's not an answer. If you're correct, then what about Maxwell's equations allow neutrons to decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos, but forbid decay into anti-protons, positrons, and neutrinos? The charges all work out the same. Yet only one of those two actually ever happens.

A neutron is a gravitational source while neither a proton nor an electron by their own self can be... A proton will certainly react to a gravitational field but is not a source;

Nope, doesn't work that way. Can't react to gravity without being a source, just like you can't react to an electric field without having a charge.

and you err from a presumption which has no grounding or knowledge concerning the nature of a gravitational field itself while I operate from the knowledge of what a gravitational field really is.

So you're trying to tell me general relativity is all wrong? That's a bold claim. And if you're not trying to tell me that, well, what the hell do you know about what I know about gravity?

If a proton is attached to a gravitational source, like a neutron,then electrons will be strongly excluded from the regions of the gravitational source due to the strong charge separation effect of the gravitational field.

Strongly excluded? No, I don't think so. Do you have any clue about how much stronger the electromagnetic interaction between protons and electrons is than gravitational interaction between them is?

 

[DHamilton]

Once again, no. What would prevent them from overlapping? Fermi exclusion? Doesn't apply if they're not in the same spin state. Coulomb repulsion? Time dilation doesn't actually help - either the net force of repulsion is larger than the net force of attraction, or it isn't, but time dilation won't change that. And the gravitational potential is so ridiculously weak that you don't GET any significant time dilation anyways.

But I am glad to see you're not playing games with the font size anymore.

I'm trying to give you a clue here.. Coulombic repulsion (or attraction) is entirely electromagnetic and is related to the motion of the charges and the interaction of the vector fields associated with such motions. People are trying to reverse extrapolate the interactive behavior of macroscale charged objects like pith balls down to the level of quantum particles. The worst part is that you have tactile experience with what people have told you is an 'electrostatic' field...when, in fact, there's nothing static about electrons at 20C since they are zipping about at 115,000 meters per second. Break your habit of believing your senses. Seeing and feeling is believing ...but your senses and the interpretation that you've been given of your senses makes you think you have a firm concept of an electrostatic 'field' and you imagine the same type of field being scaled down to that of an electron or a proton. You were given a mind so that you can escape such illusions and apply logic and rational thought. We picture in our minds particles with 'fields' and the mathematics we use suggests that such 'fields' are continuous structures when they are not at all. I've spent years learning to overcome the prejudices and misconceptions that have emerged from the senses and from people's interpretations (including mine) of those tactile experiences. This takes mental discipline and most of the posters on usenet have no such training as I have given myself over the years and so what I have to say seems contrary to their tactile experiences and how they've been conditions t interpret those tactile experiences intellectually.

DHamilton

 

[BenBurch]

Wow, this reminds me SO much of a usenet poster from another era; "Archimedes Plutonium"

Google.

 

[Reality Check]

DHamilton: Can you show us your proof that protons are at rest in the nucleus?

 

[DHamilton]

They should take away Yukawa's Nobel and give it to DHamilton I think.

Seriously DHamilton.

Look at the symptoms that you are displaying.

You think that the scientific world has some sort of "establishment" that is secretly concealing a "truth" from the general population.

If what you say is correct, then why does science not accept it to be the case? What is the "agenda" that everyone has against you?

I want to hear the full conspiracy!

Don't presume to put words in my mouth. I've never claimed there is a conspiracy or that anyone is concealing the Truth. I will claim that most people in academia are there because they've learned to regurgitate what they've been taught and sometimes they even can add a little of their own vomit to it. That isn't conspiratorial, that is being conditioned by a particular approach to gaining knowledge so that little true knowledge is gained but lots of pseudo-knowledge is acquired. In general there are many people who do not love the truth. It isn't a conspiracy...but rather a inner hatred of the light that these people seem to have. It is no different from the time of Galileo... people haven't undergone a basic change in character from 400 or more years ago to this day. The date is different on the calendar and we have a lot of advance technology but people are pretty much the same. In Bruno's day it was the standard response to marginalize people who didn't agree with academia. They marginalized them completely by killing them. Do you suppose anything has changed? Look at the hatred my posts engender. I'm sure people would like to see me marginalized to nothing also, and if their hatred could be manifest in action I'd be dead. But we no longer are allowed to burn people at the stake so society finds other means to marginalize people. It isn't a conspiracy, for crying out loud... it is just hatred for the light... same as always.

DHamiltion

 

[Ziggurat]

Knock it off with the large fonts. It doesn't make you any more believable. It's just annoying.

I'm trying to give you a clue here.. Coulombic repulsion (or attraction) is entirely electromagnetic

Wow, there's a surprise.

and is related to the motion of the charges and the interaction of the vector fields associated with such motions. People are trying to reverse extrapolate the interactive behavior of macroscale charged objects like pith balls down to the level of quantum particles.

Works pretty damned well to calculate the energy spectra of hydrogen electron orbitals. So I'd say they succeeded.

The worst part is that you have tactile experience with what people have told you is an 'electrostatic' field there's nothing static about electrons at 20C since they are zipping about at 115,000 meters per second

Which is why you get things like fine structure splitting for atomic orbitals. Calculating electrodynamic fields is straight forward. We understand how to do it. Yes, it's more complex than electrostatics, but there's no mystery involved. And none of the distinctions between electrostatics and electrodynamics lead to any of the results you're talking about.

 

[DHamilton]

That's not an answer. If you're correct, then what about Maxwell's equations allow neutrons to decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos, but forbid decay into anti-protons, positrons, and neutrinos? The charges all work out the same. Yet only one of those two actually ever happens.



Nope, doesn't work that way. Can't react to gravity without being a source, just like you can't react to an electric field without having a charge.

Nonsense. You presume you understand the nature of gravity and even when it is handed to you on a platter you still condescendingly roll your eyes and make no effort to grasp what you've been shown. How can you see what is correct when you have enthroned so much that is wrong? The Truth only appears to be a pretender to the throne to you...so you reject it...

Let's go over it again.. a gravity source is a time rate gradient structure. Particles that near the gravitational terminus will begin to overlap in momentum space and elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's Law and I even showed you why but you can't seem to connect all the dots even when it is layed out connected for you.

Are you going to argue that a gravity field is not a time rate gradient structure? As if you had a clue!



So you're trying to tell me general relativity is all wrong? That's a bold claim. And if you're not trying to tell me that, well, what the hell do you know about what I know about gravity?

Of course it is wrong. The foundational pillar, the equivalence principle is wrong because a gravitational field treats electrons and protons differently.

Strongly excluded? No, I don't think so. Do you have any clue about how much stronger the electromagnetic interaction between protons and electrons is than gravitational interaction between them is?

You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature and a gravitational source type particle like a neutron can cause protons to overlap in the same momentum space...and therefore demonstrate behavior that you mistake for the strong force.... you're not keeping up...probably because you are not capable of keeping up.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature

Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.

and a gravitational source type particle like a neutron can cause protons to overlap in the same momentum space

Them overlapping in momentum space has no effect on their electromagnetic interaction. The only effect if can have is via Fermi exclusion, but that's easy to get around by changing the spin.

you're not keeping up...probably because you are not capable of keeping up.

Funny how you haven't managed a single equation to illustrate your stunning insights. It's always a sure sign of a crackpot when their breakthrough physics theories contain no actual math. You aren't an exception to the rule. You're just another nutter.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, and learn you use the quote function correctly.

Of course it is wrong. The foundational pillar, the equivalence principle is wrong because a gravitational field treats electrons and protons differently.

And your motivation to claim it's wrong comes from what measurement of differential gravitational acceleration for electrons and protons? Oh, that's right - there is no such measurement.

I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere to disprove general relativity.

 

[ben m]

A neutron is a gravitational source while neither a proton nor an electron by their own self can be... A proton will certainly react to a gravitational field but is not a source

Hey, great! DHamilton, you've just made an experimental prediction. Here it is, your prediction:

A mass of gold or lead should exert a greater gravitational force than an equivalent mass of steel or glass or fluorine, because gold or lead have 600 g neutrons per kg total, whereas steel and glass have 530 and 500 g neutrons per kg respectively, and only the neutrons exert gravitational forces. Similarly, bromine should exert larger gravitational forces than fluorine

Is that right? Would you like to stand up and support that prediction? Please make a clear yes-or-no response:

• YES, I predict that different elements exert gravitational forces in proportion to the mass of neutrons, not to the total mass. If a Cavendish balance experiment showed that the gravitational acceleration is the same (within, say, better than 1%) towards bromine, fluorine, glass, steel, lead, or gold mass, this would prove my theory false.
• NO, I actually have no idea whether different elements will exert different attractions in a Cavendish balance. My statement about a proton being "not a gravitational source" doesn't actually mean anything testable.

(eta)

I will also offer an alternative prediction:

• YES-BUT: I have no idea how complex nuclei gravitate, so I make no prediction for Fe/Pb/etc., but I can say for sure that hydrogen atoms do not gravitate, so a compound consisting of 1% hydrogen should be a 1% weaker gravity source than a hydrogen-free compound---a measurement showing that such compounds were equal at 0.1% or better would falsify my theory.

Which is it? Yes, no, or yes-but?

 

[edd]

Oh it's easier than that Ben. All we need to do is find some sort of giant ball of mostly hydrogen with a measurable gravitational pull, and work out if that does what it's supposed to.

Where could we find one though?

 

[DHamilton]

Uh, no. There's no possible way to make electromagnetism provide an attractive potential between two protons inside a nucleus.



Them overlapping in momentum space has no effect on their electromagnetic interaction. The only effect if can have is via Fermi exclusion, but that's easy to get around by changing the spin.



Funny how you haven't managed a single equation to illustrate your stunning insights. It's always a sure sign of a crackpot when their breakthrough physics theories contain no actual math. You aren't an exception to the rule. You're just another nutter.

Do you simply like to lie... or did you not see the equations I presented and the interpretation of them? Maxwell's Equations, for example, have an implicit geometry and so that it is not possible to get from one to the other (from the Del X H vector field mode to the Del X E vector field mode) which means that they are completely empirical... yet there is the evidence of large scale vector fields actually undergoing mode changes from one to the other in nature...but you are way too simple to see what is so blatantly manifested before you and the rest of the world. It isn't a lack of data but a lack of intellect that keeps you in the dark.. and a lack of any motive force in you towards the light. Why is it that everyone is a crackpot if they don't agree with the mainstream dogma that itself is neither unified nor coherent and which has never answered the question 'What is the nature of the charge of a charged particle?, nor the question 'What is the nature of gravity?' You're like a dog in the manger...you can't eat the provender and you bark and try and frighten others away and won't let anyone else near it so they can partake of that which you are unable.

 

[DHamilton]

DHamilton: Can you show us your proof that protons are at rest in the nucleus?

Where in any of my posts do I claim that protons are at rest in the nucleus? And what proof do you have that they are not at rest with respect to each other? The only thing I'll claim is that they are overlapping in the same momentum space which means that they can be nearly at rest without requiring that there is no motion at all between them. And now why don't you stand up and tell us all what the hell this has to do with anything, since you couldn't ask such a question operating from a fully functioning intellect?

 

[Reality Check]

DHamilton: Are you really claiming that the hydrogen in the sun is not a source of gravity and so all of the sun's gravity comes from the other elements?

 

[Gate2501]

MY TEXT IS FAR TOO SERIOUS

 

[Reality Check]

Where in any of my posts do I claim that protons are at rest in the nucleus? And what proof do you have that they are not at rest with respect to each other? The only thing I'll claim is that they are overlapping in the same momentum space which means that they can be nearly at rest without requiring that there is no motion at all between them. And now why don't you stand up and tell us all what the hell this has to do with anything, since you couldn't ask such a question operating from a fully functioning intellect?

I may have misunderstood your argument - if "they are overlapping in the same momentum space" (whatever that means) then I accept that they can be "nearly at rest". How "near" are they to rest?
Please stop using big bold fonts. They just annoy other posters and make you look like a crackpot rather than a serious person.

 

[edd]

DHamilton: Are you really claiming that the hydrogen in the sun is not a source of gravity and so all of the sun's gravity comes from the other elements?

Awww, spoil my fun

 

[ben m]

Oh it's easier than that Ben. All we need to do is find some sort of giant ball of mostly hydrogen with a measurable gravitational pull, and work out if that does what it's supposed to.

I'm afraid that argument would get a response like this:

Oh yeah? How do you know the Sun doesn't have a thin layer of hydrogen over a massive core made of unobtainium? Remember, the more knowledge you need to understand the evidence, the easier it is for me to reject it.