Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[MattusMaximus]

Describes a few of the EU nuts to a tee

No kidding!

 

[ben m]

DH, I'm proposing a source measurement. I will take 10kg of lead and see if a steel ball accelerates towards it. Then I will take 10kg of glass and see if a steel ball accelerates towards it. Prediction?

 

[~enigma~]

DH, I'm proposing a source measurement. I will take 10kg of lead and see if a steel ball accelerates towards it. Then I will take 10kg of glass and see if a steel ball accelerates towards it. Prediction?

Want to see a weird game? Download Sling-Shot. It was made for Linux but it has a Windows port. Talk about some weird gravity

 

[sol invictus]

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...

Woo woo woo,

woooo all day long,

woo woo woo,

singing the woo woo song.

 

[sol invictus]

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.

There are several professional physicists here, but none of them can tell you what that means.

Mmmm, crankpot word salad with nuts on top...

 

[DHamilton]

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.



Well, DUH!



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.

You're absolutely right.. ha ha.. I didn't notice... thanks for catching that!... Sorry... I guess that happened because I was busy trying to find the HTML codes for symbols and did a copy and past and forgot to fix it (replace an H with an E)...


I meant to write:

* 1) ∇ X H = εο ∂E/∂t
* 2) ∇ X E = -μο ∂H/∂t
* 3) ∇ ⋅ E = 0
* 4) ∇ ⋅ H = 0

What's funny is I don't think anyone else actually noticed... Thanks for pointing that out...

I didn't try to pretend to solve anything... nor did I hint that I was trying to but and by implying that I was you've become manifestly a liar. Don't do that because you only appear to be a mean spirited fool when you do. I simply have pointed out or roughly described the physics that the equations do an imperfect job of expressing.


We have examples of large scale oscillating flux loop structures that occasionally occur right here in the world...and a good example is the phenomenon of Ball Lightning which I say is really a standing wave boson structure that oscillates between the two modes of being a ∇ X E vector field (or at least this is the closest algebraic description that we have) and a ∇ X H vector field.


I'm pointing out that this basic flux loop structure simply oscillates between the two modes and will display certain properties in each mode. In fact, I make the point that the sun's underlying phenomenal core (the underlying physics that produces what we call the sun) is such a flux loop that oscillates between the two modes to produce the solar cycle.


Why is this so hard for you to grasp or understand? When I suggest that the motion of a proton with respect to the rest frame of a moving particle will generate a vector field I'm only referring back to Maxwell's Equations that suggest that the change in E in time will produce such a ∇ X H vector field. Are you saying that the motion of a proton will not produce this?


Then I suggest the that intersection of the two vector fields will produce a null point or a negentropic point in what you'd ordinarly call 'space'... I'm just suggesting an appropriate interpretation that provides the phenomenal conditions that produce what will appear to be an attractive interaction between two protons.

What are you whining about? It is an interpretation that I say is substantiated by the fact that two parallel current carrying conductors will become attractively interactive... or I'm saying the interpretation should be the same. This implies that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will exhibit behavior that is opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Laws and that you can extrapolate all this to see that the 'strong force' is a fiction. What is your problem... are you completely blind?

No.. you're simply willfully obtuse. Resistive... not willing to take a look at a novel intepretation of the data that can open up your understanding... but rather are content to remain blind...

DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

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...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_774747c0bf6fcb882.jpg[/qimg]

It is possible, friend, that general relativity can be wrong in the same way that gas pressure laws are wrong at the quantum scale. Certainly our gas pressure laws are perfectly useful in a wide variety of technological applications but at the quantum scale they fail completely.

For you to assume that because technology can be made to work because the calculations work for GPS, etc and therefore GR must be correct then you completely miss the whole point and I can't help you and I have no inclination to lead you along the path to understanding as long as you display an attitude that you already know everything.

 

[sol invictus]

It is possible, friend, that general relativity can be wrong in the same way that gas pressure laws are wrong at the quantum scale. Certainly our gas pressure laws are perfectly useful in a wide variety of technological applications but at the quantum scale they fail completely.

Wow - you actually said something which was neither completely meaningless, insane, offensive, or in a stupid font.

Congratulations. Try to keep it up...

For you to assume that because technology can be made to work because the calculations work for GPS, etc and therefore GR must be correct then you completely miss the whole point and I can't help you and I have no inclination to lead you along the path to understanding as long as you display an attitude that you already know everything.

Never mind.

 

[Reality Check]

DH: Did you really say this?

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

Any physics textbook will tell you that the only way that a particle can be a gravitational source is if it has mass. The reverse is also true - the only way that a particle cannot be a gravitational source is if it has no mass. Thus you are saying that neutrons have mass and protons do not. But the measured mass of a proton is and a mass of 938.27231(28) MeV/c2 (1.6726 × 10⁻²⁷ kg), 1.007 276 466 88(13) u or about 1836 times the mass of an electron.
If the quote is yours then I suggest that you learn some physics.

 

[DHamilton]

DH: Did you really say this?

Any physics textbook will tell you that the only way that a particle can be a gravitational source is if it has mass. The reverse is also true - the only way that a particle cannot be a gravitational source is if it has no mass. Thus you are saying that neutrons have mass and protons do not. But the measured mass of a proton is and a mass of 938.27231(28) MeV/c2 (1.6726 × 10⁻²⁷ kg), 1.007 276 466 88(13) u or about 1836 times the mass of an electron.
If the quote is yours then I suggest that you learn some physics.

I suggest you pull your head out of your rear and get real. No published physics book on this planet can tell you what a gravitational source really is. Having mass and being a gravitational source are not the same thing. A photon is a gravitational charge packet but it isn't esteemed to have any mass yet when it comes near a nucleus it forces one or more protons to overlap in the same momentum space as an electron and the gravitationally charge separation effect ensues and an electron is strongly repelled from the nucleus. Quit trying to be an authority by regurgitating things that have no authority at all, it only make you look like the common herd sheep that you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't try to pretend to solve anything... nor did I hint that I was trying to but and by implying that I was you've become manifestly a liar.

I didn't imply you tried to. That was my whole point: you didn't even try. Your interpretations of equations are rather useless if they're not supported by actual solutions to those equations.

Don't do that because you only appear to be a mean spirited fool when you do.

I am quite manifestly a jerk. But I happen to be right, and being nice won't make you any less wrong.

I simply have pointed out or roughly described the physics that the equations do an imperfect job of expressing.

So ambiguous descriptions are now to be preferred over unambiguous equations? You're not going to get any takers on that. If the equations are imperfect, that means they're wrong or incomplete, and should be amended or supplemented by other equations, not by empty incantations.

We have examples of large scale oscillating flux loop structures that occasionally occur right here in the world...and a good example is the phenomenon of Ball Lightning which I say is really a standing wave boson structure that oscillates between the two modes of being a ∇ X E vector field (or at least this is the closest algebraic description that we have) and a ∇ X H vector field.

Uh, no. Ball lightning is most likely slowly burning silicate nanoparticles ejected from the ground after a lightning strike.

I'm pointing out that this basic flux loop structure simply oscillates between the two modes and will display certain properties in each mode.

Show me calculations and I'll consider it. Otherwise, I've got no reason to think that your ideas have any merit whatsoever.

Then I suggest the that intersection of the two vector fields will produce a null point

Meaning... what? That two different fields will somehow cancel each other out?

or a negentropic point

Uh, no. Entropy has nothing to do with this situation.

What are you whining about? It is an interpretation that I say is substantiated by the fact that two parallel current carrying conductors will become attractively interactive... or I'm saying the interpretation should be the same.

I can calculate the attraction from parallel currents using Maxwell's equations. I don't need to "interpret" anything. Can you do calculations for any of what you're saying? If you can, show us. If you can't, why should we believe any of it? Physics is a mathematical science. If you can't back it up with calculations, you don't have anything.

This implies that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will exhibit behavior that is opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Laws

No, it doesn't. I've DONE the calculations. I linked to them. The Lorentz force attraction between co-moving like charges is always smaller than the Coulomb repulsion. Always. No exceptions.

and that you can extrapolate all this to see that the 'strong force' is a fiction.

No, actually, you can't.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suggest you pull your head out of your rear and get real. No published physics book on this planet can tell you what a gravitational source really is.

Have you ever picked up a general relativity text?

Having mass and being a gravitational source are not the same thing.

Indeed they are not. Which is why general relativity, the source is referred to as the stress-energy tensor, which includes mass but also massless energy like photons.

 

[~enigma~]

I suggest you pull your head out of your rear and get real. No published physics book on this planet can tell you what a gravitational source really is. Having mass and being a gravitational source are not the same thing. A photon is a gravitational charge packet but it isn't esteemed to have any mass yet when it comes near a nucleus it forces one or more protons to overlap in the same momentum space as an electron and the gravitationally charge separation effect ensues and an electron is strongly repelled from the nucleus. Quit trying to be an authority by regurgitating things that have no authority at all, it only make you look like the common herd sheep that you are.

Huh? Are you drinking? Gravity is...

F = GMm/R²

where

F is the force of attraction between two objects
G is the universal gravitational constant; G = 6.67x10¹¹ N-m²/kg². The units of G can be stated as Newton meter-squared per kilogram-squared or Newton square meter per square kilogram.
M and m are the masses of the two objects
R is the distance between the objects, as measured from their centers

 

[Reality Check]

I suggest you pull your head out of your rear and get real. No published physics book on this planet can tell you what a gravitational source really is. Having mass and being a gravitational source are not the same thing. A photon is a gravitational charge packet but it isn't esteemed to have any mass yet when it comes near a nucleus it forces one or more protons to overlap in the same momentum space as an electron and the gravitationally charge separation effect ensues and an electron is strongly repelled from the nucleus. Quit trying to be an authority by regurgitating things that have no authority at all, it only make you look like the common herd sheep that you are.

DH: I am merely regurgitating what I learned gaining my Masters in Physics. I guess all my professors and physics textbooks were wrong and protons do not have mass and are not a gravitational source .
I assume that you have a source (journal paper, textbook, or even a web page) for this interesting fact. Maybe you will even condescend to share it with us?

 

[Zep]

Why , oh why, am I getting this image??

 

[Dancing David]

It is possible, friend, that general relativity can be wrong in the same way that gas pressure laws are wrong at the quantum scale. Certainly our gas pressure laws are perfectly useful in a wide variety of technological applications but at the quantum scale they fail completely.

For you to assume that because technology can be made to work because the calculations work for GPS, etc and therefore GR must be correct then you completely miss the whole point and I can't help you and I have no inclination to lead you along the path to understanding as long as you display an attitude that you already know everything.

Mr. Pott meet Mr. Kettle, Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pott.

 

[ben m]

DHamilton, you have ignored my post requesting an experimental prediction. Will a test mass accelerate towards 1kg of lead more, less, or the same than it accelerates towards 1kg of glass? Fluorine? Hydrogen?

Please note, for absolute clarity, I am not asking whether glass/fluorine/hydrogen will accelerate towards the Earth, you've explicitly said that you don't predict a difference there. I'm asking about a Cavendish experiment in which a small steel ball is gravitationally attracted towards a large lead/glass/fluorine/whatever ball---with the variable material asking as a "source", as you have specified. I await your prediction.

 

[MattusMaximus]

For you to assume that because technology can be made to work because the calculations work for GPS, etc and therefore GR must be correct then you completely miss the whole point and I can't help you and I have no inclination to lead you along the path to understanding as long as you display an attitude that you already know everything.

You're right, we just "got lucky" when working with any kind of high-speed communication system via satellite, such as GPS. There was no actual calculation and comparison to experiment, it was all just luck.

Well, you're right about one thing... I'm apparently never going to win the "Nutjob of the Month" award from your woo fanclub. Wow, I am soooo devastated...

 

[MattusMaximus]

I suggest you pull your head out of your rear and get real. No published physics book on this planet can tell you what a gravitational source really is. Having mass and being a gravitational source are not the same thing. A photon is a gravitational charge packet but it isn't esteemed to have any mass yet when it comes near a nucleus it forces one or more protons to overlap in the same momentum space as an electron and the gravitationally charge separation effect ensues and an electron is strongly repelled from the nucleus. Quit trying to be an authority by regurgitating things that have no authority at all, it only make you look like the common herd sheep that you are.

Wow... photons are actually "gravity packets." And here I thought that photons were the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. You know, photons being quanta of light energy and all that...

... Oh yeah, and all the technology based upon the physics of light quanta (photons)... no real calculations or experiments, just dumb luck...

If this clown keeps flapping his arms this hard, he might just achieve liftoff

 

[CurtC]

The more spread out the momentum the higher the kinetic energy. So, the electron can lower its potential energy by moving in closer to the nucleus, but if it was too close then its kinetic energy would go up more than its potential energy goes down. So, it distributes itself at a position of balance, at a happy medium, and that gives the cloud and thus the atom its size. Honest, that’s the answer we get when we ask this sort of question. (If you don’t believe me then do an internet search on Google and use the input argument of ‘Why don’t atoms collapse? or Why don’t electrons spiral into the nucleus? or words to that effect and see what you get.) Raise your hand if you think that this explanation sounds like a load of sophistry.

So the problem that you have with the standard model is that you feel the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is fallacious? If you accept the HUP as a principle, then the standard explanation you describe above is perfectly valid. Maybe you should start with explaining why you think the HUP is not valid, instead of simply trying to dismiss it as ridiculous.

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.

Project much?

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.

You misspelled "psychiatrists."