Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[DHamilton]

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?

None of the above. You seem bright but not quite collected. I said that a neutron is a gravitational source because it is composed of a full set of velocity potentials and their conjugates...so it is a time rate gradient structure. If you believe that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction then as the proton is falling in the gravitational source that doesn't mean that the gravitational source is not simultaneously being displaced toward the proton. If it were not then Newton's Third Law would be in the toilet. Every motion can be reduced to a conjugate set of velocity potentials and that is primarily why Newton's Third Law is True...

I will say, though, that a larger gravitational source will, because of the charge separation effect, demonstrate some potential to layer elements and even lock them or pin them at a specific distance from the gravitational terminus. That distance would be a balance point where the electron binding energy is equal or greater than the apparent attractive force on the protons towards the towards the gravitational terminus.

 

[Zep]

DH, just an aside: Either get your optician to fix your lens prescription, or stop using the big bold fonts to shout. You are exhibiting all a single-point-in-space-time-continuum with a lot of other nutters when you do. If you want to be taken seriously, behave like serious people do. Your current behaviour is not it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't seem to see any math. Is Hamilton from the Kleinman school of just-so stories?

DH, could you please present the math succinctly? Thank you.

~~ Paul

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you simply like to lie... or did you not see the equations I presented and the interpretation of them?

Yeah, I saw. You took standard equations, "interpreted" rather than solved them, and came to a nonsensical conclusion. That doesn't count as doing math. Plus, you screwed up anyways. The curl of H isn't proportional to the time derivative of H, it's proportional to the time derivative of E (assuming J is zero). So you didn't even start with the right equations.

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)

Not so. That's exactly what you do when you calculate the wave equations for electromagnetic radiation.

 

[DHamilton]

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.

Read what I wrote about what it means to be overlapping in the same momentum space.. roughly...they have a common de Broglie wavelength that is greater than or equal to their interparticle distance (calculated from a center of momentum frame). I use larger font so that I myself can read it... if that annoys you and you go away.. I would suppose that is your choice and the day that I am concerned about whether or not people think me to be a crackpot or not would be the day that I start to conform to their dark nature... Don't try that sort of simple manipulation on me... I'm not weak minded like you...

 

[DHamilton]

I don't seem to see any math. Is Hamilton from the Kleinman school of just-so stories?

DH, could you please present the math succinctly? Thank you.

~~ Paul

Learn the etymology of mathematics, please. The math is the logic.. You've confused algebra and geometry with mathematics whereas the mathematics is the means to prove the algebraic and geometric propositions.. if you won't take time to study the logic then I cannot assist you.

 

[DHamilton]

Yeah, I saw. You took standard equations, "interpreted" rather than solved them, and came to a nonsensical conclusion. That doesn't count as doing math. Plus, you screwed up anyways. The curl of H isn't proportional to the time derivative of H, it's proportional to the time derivative of E (assuming J is zero). So you didn't even start with the right equations.



Not so. That's exactly what you do when you calculate the wave equations for electromagnetic radiation.

Why do you insist on being obtuse? I specifically stated 'Maxwell's equations written in terms of E and H only. That means we can use them to represent pure vector fields. The conclusion is only nonsensical if you lack the requisite grasp of the implicit geometry. The transition from one mode to the other is hand and arm waving in every text in the world on electromagnetics.

 

[DHamilton]

DH, just an aside: Either get your optician to fix your lens prescription, or stop using the big bold fonts to shout. You are exhibiting all a single-point-in-space-time-continuum with a lot of other nutters when you do. If you want to be taken seriously, behave like serious people do. Your current behaviour is not it.

Quit whining and focus on the content!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Quit whining and focus on the content!

Sigh Yet another physics woo nutcase...

Try actually doing something with Maxwell's equations instead of merely interpreting them to support your crackpot notions. Perform a calculation, make a prediction, just
QUIT TYPING IN HUGE FONT!!!

In addition, if you truly believe that general relativity is wrong, then why is it that we have a host of technologies - satellite radio, GPS receivers, etc - that clearly work based upon Einstein's theory of gravity?

I do not expect a sensible or coherent response from you, so I shall close with this final thought...

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you insist on being obtuse? I specifically stated 'Maxwell's equations written in terms of E and H only.

You screwed up the equations. The terms they're written in is beside the point: you wrote them wrong, they're not right in any terms.

That means we can use them to represent pure vector fields.

Well, DUH!

The conclusion is only nonsensical if you lack the requisite grasp of the implicit geometry.

In other words, you cannot make this explicit. Meaning you cannot actually do the math required to demonstrate your point. I'm just supposed to believe your claims because you're enlightened and I'm not. Yeah, that's not going to cut it. Show me the math. Not the starting equations (which you can't even get right), but how you solve them.

 

[Ateius]

QUIT TYPING IN HUGE FONT!!!

AND KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE BOLDING!

Just glancing at those huge, dense blocks of bolded text gives me a headache faster than Ziggurat's equations. ()

 

[Nancarrow]

I said that a neutron is a gravitational source because it is composed of a full set of velocity potentials and their conjugates...so it is a time rate gradient structure.

Hi, sorry to just jump in here, I haven't been following this poster's history and I'm curious about what he's talking about.

Are there any professional physicists here who can tell me what the part I just quoted actually means? It just looks like a word-salad to me.

Thing is, I actually did a physics degree back in the day, though I wasn't much good at it and have gone on to other things... and I can see the words 'neutron', 'gravitational source', 'velocity', 'potential', 'conjugate', 'time', 'gradient' and 'structure'. And I thought I had some understanding of what those words meant, but that quoted bit is totally opaque to me.

Is that because I lost the plot in the last couple of years of my degree, or is it because the OP has lost the plot (or more precisely, has never had it in the first place)?

 

[~enigma~]

The topic of the OP made me...

 

[Hindmost]

If I didn't know better, I would have thought Douglas Adams was writing another Dr. Who episode....

glenn

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is that because I lost the plot in the last couple of years of my degree, or is it because the OP has lost the plot (or more precisely, has never had it in the first place)?

He never had it in the first place. He's just throwing out sciencey-sounding terms & butchering Maxwell's equations in the vain hope that he can gain some shred of credibility.

Dude seriously needs to put down the crack pipe... seriously...

 

[~enigma~]

Hi, sorry to just jump in here, I haven't been following this poster's history and I'm curious about what he's talking about.

Are there any professional physicists here who can tell me what the part I just quoted actually means? It just looks like a word-salad to me.

Thing is, I actually did a physics degree back in the day, though I wasn't much good at it and have gone on to other things... and I can see the words 'neutron', 'gravitational source', 'velocity', 'potential', 'conjugate', 'time', 'gradient' and 'structure'. And I thought I had some understanding of what those words meant, but that quoted bit is totally opaque to me.

Is that because I lost the plot in the last couple of years of my degree, or is it because the OP has lost the plot (or more precisely, has never had it in the first place)?

Not a professional but what you quoted is saying nothing more than the neutron is a source of gravity. Kind of a round about and foolish way to say it has gravity. Since a neutron has mass, it has gravity so I don't understand (and I refuse to waste my time with a plagarist) what the guy is saying.

 

[Nancarrow]

Not a professional but what you quoted is saying nothing more than the neutron is a sourece of gravity. Kind of a round about and foolish way to say it has gravity. Since a neutron has mass, it has gravity so I don't understand (and I refuse to waste my time with a plagarist) what the guy is saying.

Well I got the 'the neutron is a gravitational source' bit, it's just the 'because' clause after it that made me go WTF. So it appears this guy is in much the same boat as someone who would explain that they'd just made a cup of tea by saying 'the herbal infusion has now reached a suitable temperature due to the nucleophilic capacitance properties of its atomic eigenfunctions'.

Hey, I think I could get the hang of this type of physics!

 

[Gate2501]

Well I got the 'the neutron is a gravitational source' bit, it's just the 'because' clause after it that made me go WTF. So it appears this guy is in much the same boat as someone who would explain that they'd just made a cup of tea by saying 'the herbal infusion has now reached a suitable temperature due to the nucleophilic capacitance properties of its atomic eigenfunctions'.

Hey, I think I could get the hang of this type of physics!

Many physics crackpots rely on unnecessarily complex language to add a layer of obfuscation to anyone who would attempt to debunk them.

I see this this all the time on these boards. It is one of the key components to being a true nutter.

 

[~enigma~]

Many physics crackpots rely on unnecessarily complex language to add a layer of obfuscation to anyone who would attempt to debunk them.

I this this all the time on these boards. It is one of the key components to being a true nutter.

Describes a few of the EU nuts to a tee

 

[madurobob]

I loves me a good physics argument!

Actually, I've learned a bit just reading this thread - thanks. But, dude, you need to calm down.

You said this (I've removed the bolding because its, well, obnoxious):

The 'uh, no.' comment is how an egotistical condescending person ... wishes to give the air that he, somehow is an authority... when nothing could be further from the truth.

But, lets see who here actually sounds egotistical and condescending (I've removed the oversized font and bolding in all of these for ease of everyone else's eyes):

I'm trying to give you a clue here... 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...

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... 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?

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

...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.... 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.

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?

None of the above. You seem bright but not quite collected.

I use larger font so that I myself can read it... if that annoys you and you go away.. I would suppose that is your choice and the day that I am concerned about whether or not people think me to be a crackpot or not would be the day that I start to conform to their dark nature... Don't try that sort of simple manipulation on me... I'm not weak minded like you...

Ad Hom much, DH?

Dude - you don't have to force your poor eyesight on everyone else. Simply set your computer to "Large Fonts" to increase the font you see on your screen only