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.
I am quite manifestly a jerk. But I happen to be right, and being nice won't make you any less wrong.
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.
Uh, no. Ball lightning is most likely slowly burning silicate nanoparticles ejected from the ground after a lightning strike.
Show me calculations and I'll consider it. Otherwise, I've got no reason to think that your ideas have any merit whatsoever.
Meaning... what? That two different fields will somehow cancel each other out?
Uh, no. Entropy has nothing to do with this situation.
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.
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.
No, actually, you can't.
Edited by chillzero:
Edited for civility
That's amazing that you should develop such a habit and show it here in the blindness of your exceedingly profound and yet correctable ignorance about the nature of Ball Lightning. Ball lightning is a mass of burning silicate nanoparticles...????!!! Obviously, you've not spent much time really studying the phenomenon. I've spent 35 years studying it not only through eyewitness reports but also by creating it and filming it in the lab via high current high voltage discharge experiments. Pace Van de Vender (sp?) who until about 2 years ago was head of Los Alamos Fusion projects... has also been keenly interested in this powerful phenomenon and sent me an 1858 eyewitness report from a newpaper published in Ireland of a two foot diameter ball that emerged out of a violent thundercloud... It, moving about the pace a man walks, plowed into the ground and cut a trench; and in the process excavated about 200 cubic yards of wet peat in less than 20 minutes! That is over 200 tons of wet peat moved in under 20 minutes and you would dismiss this as a slowly burning mass of silicate nanoparticles? These things have been written about since the time of Aristotle and they kill people and livestock and often violently explode. If you can buy that half witted explanation then you need to be a little bit more educated concerning this phenomenon.
As for your confession of being a jerk...I certainly agree that you are.. but how does that benefit you, either to confess or to continue to behave in that manner? Why don't you simply make an effort to be a nicer person?
Edited by chillzero:
Edited for civility
I see that few people here really seem to get what I have been proposing. I'm suggesting that the data that we presently possess in the world is sufficient information to unify electromagnetism and gravity but that we are hampered not by insufficient experimental or observational data but by incorrect analysis of that data. People believe in an 'electrostatic' field that they ideate as emerging from and surrounding a charged particle and yet don't really have an appropriate conception of the nature of the 'field' of a charged particle, nor an appropriate conception of the origin of charge itself. The problem is that they think that they do. They think that there will be a Coulombic repulsion between two like charged fundamental particles that are at rest with respect to each other and yet there isn't any data in existence to confirm that assumption. They do their calculations with that repusion figured right into their equations and so think that two charged particles that have parallel and equal magnitude velocity vectors will still experience Coulombic repulsion. I'm asking the sensible question about why people believe this when there exists no data that substantiates such a belief. Why do you include it in your equations when there's no data that gives you reason to include it? I presented this to Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue about 13 years ago and at first he resisted and then he changed his attitude because in reflecting over his own personal knowledge base he then finally admitted that he knew of no data that demonstrated that elementary charged particles would behave according to Coulomb's law expectations when they were at rest with respect to each other. Here's a scientist well known and well respected not just at Purdue but at Univ of Washington... and many other places...and when I mention his name at the gravity research center they all know him and speak well of him as a scientist. So, I presented this question to him and he finally admitted that what I was proposing was a very interesting thing. He was a reasonable man because he didn't care what the textbooks were saying.. or what they assumed but rather what data there was to back up such assumptions and finally he admitted that he knew of no such data that substantiated the majority opinion on this subject. Why can't you be as intellectually honest as he has been? Why is it the soup de jour here on this website to be disrespectful to any and everyone who presents an idea that is contrary to what you think you know? Instead why can't you simply examine what you think you know and find out if what you think you know is really true and has experimental data to back such beliefs up?
All I'm asking is that you display a little manners and grace and hold your peace if you don't really know for sure... I suppose even if you abide by that...you're going to think you know lots of things for sure that you really don't.
I propose that even in a hot fusion fuel gas, like deuterium ..or a deuteron plasma.. that only those nuclei that actually overlap in momentum space and have proximity on the order of the mean free path will undergo nuclear fusion. Everyone thinks they know all about nuclear fusion and how it works. I'm only challenging the conceptual model that everyone has of fusion. We think we know how fusion works and I'm saying that ... really we've had it wrong. Even in the operation of a fusion weapon I can use the exact same arguments to show that our concept of the fusion process and conditions that lead to fusion is wrong. The weapons work and who can argue with such success...but the reality is that lots of technology can work and work very well and the operational principles behind how it works may be quite different that the reigning belief system. Superconduction is real...but how it works is subject to debate. The BCS theory reigned for years and now has been openly scoffed at by Nobelist Phillip Anderson who has called it "a catalog of failures." Yet you'll still find people teaching that crap because Bardeen, Cooper and Schreiffer won the Nobel prize for it.
I WROTE: I suggest the that intersection of the two vector fields will produce a null point
YOUR RESPONSE: Meaning... what? That two different fields will somehow cancel each other out?
Quote:
I WROTE: or a negentropic point
YOUR RESPONSE: Uh, no. Entropy has nothing to do with this situation.
Your response is so arrogant and uninformed ... Entropy is about the increase of disorder and Negentropy is about the increase of order. Lower energy states are more ordered... And as a side note... I never said cancelled each other out. Why don't you simply read what I wrote instead of filling that apparent innane need of yours to retranslate things that I wrote so that they become a caricature of what I did say that has no resemblance to the carefully chosen words I had used? If you're going to continue to do that why don't you leave reference to my posting off of it entirely and just post your own inanities since that is what you end up doing anyway except you try to associate my posting with your retranslation. That is a fundamentally dishonest behavior.
To consider something cancelled... ??? what the hell is that? You would be suggesting that the presence of two things is equivalent to the absence of them both? Now, that, my friend, is an unparallelled intellectual inanity. When you consider that the field of a charged particle is a continuous structure and then superimpose an opposite charge in the same space ...running the numbers you get zero charge... and that is just the problem with letting numbers take the place of the actual physics and that is why you cannot unify electromagnetism and gravity using your present intellectual processes and misconceptions of the nature of charge and the nature of gravity. This sort of intellectual sloppiness is, unfortunately, epidemic in modern physics. I want to openly declare this so that anyone reading this can get a good laugh at your expense; at least as good of a laugh as I have gotten. There is the classic example of the problem of doing physics with a pencil or a calculator or computer because you replace fields with numbers and then forget about the actual physics...
YOU WROTE: 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.
You impose the Coulomb repulsion into an equation when there is no experimental data that substantiates belief in the existence of such a repulsion between elementary charges. That is knee-jerk thinking... you learned it in a book and despite the fact that there's not a single piece of data in the world that demonstrates such a Coulomb force between particles that are at rest with respect to each other you still insist on trying to make physics into mathematics...
Edited by chillzero:
Edited for civility
Edited by chillzero:
Edited for civility
or I'll put your posts on the ignore list. I had hoped to find more restraint and better manners here than I can find on the unmoderated usenet newsgroups. I'm becoming quickly aware that this Randi website is nothing more than a public tiolet
Edited by chillzero:
Edited for civility
.
I HAD WRITTEN:
and that you can extrapolate all this to see that the 'strong force' is a fiction.
YOU RESPONDED: No, actually, you can't.
Your profound ignorance about the emergence of a belief in a 'strong nuclear force' isn't an excuse nor does it constitute an authority. While I may have been mistaken about you having the sense or intellect to figure out that the 'strong force' is a fiction... don't suppose that your ignorance runs over like a boiling pot to drown out insight in other people. I agree you can't do it. But a person of intelligence can and when they know the facts will do exactly that.. which is to recognize the 'strong force' as an intellectual fiction contrived because scientists lacked the insight and careful attention to detail that would have allowed them to unify physics nine decades ago.
DHamilton... aka (for those too witless to figure it out... Charles Cagle)
*
And Einstein hated cats.