• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

jhunter1163 said:
Ahem. I see it is time to trot out my Rule 6 warning flag again. Do not use disruptive formatting in your posts. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
Click to expand...

Is it a rule in QM that the bigger the font the more likely it is that people will believe you? It doesn't work.
 
Removed breach of Rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Principle of Least Action
​

Consider a man within a box with a wall 3 metters tall.

There are 3 balls into the box:
- two with 30kg
- one with 60kg

The man must throw 60kg over the wall. He can do it by two ways:
- he throws the ball with 60 kg
- he throws one ball with 30kg, and in sequence he throws the second ball with 30kg.




Question for the layman:

What do you think is it easier to do ?

- To throw one ball with 60kg

- To throw two balls with 30kg (one after the other)
 
Dancing David said:
Maybe you should consider that the original experiment was not well done, and again people would love to get in the history books. So what makes you think the original experimentw as well done?
Click to expand...
Dancing David,
of course I did consider that perhaps the original experiment was not well done.

However, as Don Borghi experiment is so important (because if its results be confirmed it can change the way of Theoretical Physics development) , then sure that the quantum physicists would have to be interested to verify its results, by repeating it, by two reasons:

1- Quantum Mechanics can survive only if Don Borghi experiment is wrong. Then it's important to verify that his results are wrong.

2- If the results obtained by Don Borghi are correct, there is need to look for a new theory so that to replace some principles of Quantum Mechanics



There is no doubt that the repeatition of the Don Borghi experiment is a task fundamental for the survival of the scientific method.


However, the experiment was never repeated.
Guglinski did not succeed to repeat it in two Brazillian universities even by trying it throw suitlaw.



Therefore it's obvious that there is a conspiracy against the scientific method.
:mad:
 
tusenfem said:
I guess using big coloured letters makes a better point? However, just to prove you wrong, there has been investigations on this, maybe not at a university, but who cares, I do research and am not at a university.

Looking at ADS I found a Arxiv paper on this experiment from 2006. However, it does not seem to have been published in any journal.
Click to expand...

Wow,
the experiment quoted in the link above was made by Ruggero Maria Santilli. :mad:

Actually Ruggero Maria Santilli was supporting Guglinski in his suitlaw against the two Brazillian universities, in 2001 !!!!

Santilli was interested that Don Borghi experiment should be repeated in some university, no matter the country.
That's why he told to Guglinski that he should sent the equipments so that to perform the experiments.

As Guglinski did not succeed to oblige the two Brazillian universities, Santilli continued trying to repeat the experiments in other several universities of the world.
No university accepted to repeat the experiment.

That's why he himself has repeated successfully Don Borghi experiment in the laboratories of his Institute for Basic Research.

But:
1- as Santilli did not succeed to repeat the experiment in any university,
2- and he did not succeed to publish the results he obtained in the Institute for Basic Research,
3- then the quantum physicists can continue neglecting Don Borghi experiment, by claiming that his results were not confirmed by any university, and Santilli replication was not published in any peer review journal.

This is the way as works the conspiracy against the scientific method.
:mad:
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
Wow,
the experiment quoted in the link above was made by Ruggero Maria Santilli. :mad:

Actually Ruggero Maria Santilli was supporting Guglinski in his suitlaw against the two Brazillian universities, in 2001 !!!!

Santilli was interested that Don Borghi experiment should be repeated in some university, no matter the country.
That's why he told to Guglinski that he should sent the equipments so that to perform the experiments.

As Guglinski did not succeed to oblige the two Brazillian universities, Santilli continued trying to repeat the experiments in other several universities of the world.
No university accepted to repeat the experiment.

That's why he himself has repeated successfully Don Borghi experiment in the laboratories of his Institute for Basic Research.

But:
1- as Santilli did not succeed to repeat the experiment in any university,
2- and he did not succeed to publish the results he obtained in the Institure for Basic Research,
3- then the quantum physics can continue neglecting Don Borghi experiment, by claiming that his results were not confirmed by any university, and Santilli replication was not published in any peer review journal.

This is the way as works the conspiracy against the scientific method.
:mad:
Click to expand...

You're nearly there. No monster fonts. Just lose the red.
 
pedrone said:
Dancing David,
of course I did consider that perhaps the original experiment was not well done.

However, as Don Borghi experiment is so important (because if its results be confirmed it can change the way of Theoretical Physics development) , then sure that the quantum physicists would have to be interested to verify its results, by repeating it, by two reasons:

1- Quantum Mechanics can survive only if Don Borghi experiment is wrong. Then it's important to verify that his results are wrong.

2- If the results obtained by Don Borghi are correct, there is need to look for a new theory so that to replace some principles of Quantum Mechanics



There is no doubt that the repeatition of the Don Borghi experiment is a task fundamental for the survival of the scientific method.


However, the experiment was never repeated.
Guglinski did not succeed to repeat it in two Brazillian universities even by trying it throw suitlaw.



Therefore it's obvious that there is a conspiracy against the scientific method.
:mad:
Click to expand...

The conspiracy is in your head and nowhere else. Where did you study and what are your qualifications?
 
Two questions... if you don't answer them you are not worth talking to by anyone.

1. Do you have a reason to be posting here?

You don't have any credibility whatsoever. Why are you still posting? Is it just so people can make fun of your lack of scientific... anything?


2. Why not publish your incredible findings in a scientific journal or venue rather than in a skeptic's forum?



Let's face it... you are a troll or you are completely insane. Which is it?




Edited to add...

Sorry to be addressing the troll rather than the stupid point he was trying to make but how long can someone troll before you can call him on it?
 
Last edited:
RobDegraves said:
Two questions... if you don't answer them you are not worth talking to by anyone.

1. Do you have a reason to be posting here?

You don't have any credibility whatsoever. Why are you still posting? Is it just so people can make fun of your lack of scientific... anything?


2. Why not publish your incredible findings in a scientific journal or venue rather than in a skeptic's forum?



Let's face it... you are a troll or you are completely insane. Which is it?




Edited to add...

Sorry to be addressing the troll rather than the stupid point he was trying to make but how long can someone troll before you can call him on it?
Click to expand...

I would think you could certainly call into question someone's credibility (or lack thereof) without being in violation of Rule 12.
 
dafydd said:
Is it a rule in QM that the bigger the font the more likely it is that people will believe you? It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

The rule presents itself more like: you can not have colorful monstrous fonts and proper credentials ... at the same time.

Exceptions apply
 
Last edited:
email by Dr. Santilli to Guglinski​

Guglinski published three books in Brazil:
- OS DADOS QUE DEUS ESCONDEU - 2003
- UTOPIA QUÂNTICA - 2005
- A EVOLUÇÃO DA MECÂNICA QUÂNTICA - 2008


In the book OS DADOS QUE DEUS ESCONDEU, Guglinski describes his exhange of emails with Dr. Santilli, concerning the suitlaw against two universities in Brazil.
In the page 198 it's shown the Santilli's answer to Guglinski (my translation to English):

"We have funds and we are interested to give you any support to make the Don Borghi experiment"
:rolleyes:
 
pedrone said:
Removed breach of Rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

Click to expand...
There was no violation of the Rule 12 in my post.
Let's see why, as follows:

It's proven in the post 664 that Tubbythin and Reality Check lied, because they did not prove what they claim.

So, their arguments instead of to be based on facts, their arguments actually are supported by some inventions of their minds.

Therefore I suggested to everybody do not consider what Tubbythin and Reality Check use to claim because their arguments are supported by lies.

When we say: "please forget Mr. X, because he is a liar" , we are not violating the Rule 12, because:

instead of to be addressing the arguer, actually we are addressing his arguments based on lies.
 
Emission of particles by radioactive nuclei​

The radioative nuclei have decay by emitting particles.

So consider what occurs.

In order to leave out a nucleus, a particle must trespass the Coulombic barrier surrounding the nucleus.

The Coulombic barrier has positive electric charge.

The deuteron has electric charge +1.
The 2He4 has electric charge +2.

Obviously there is repusion between the Coulombic barrier and the electric charge of the particle.
And of course a particle with charge +2 has stronger repulsion than a particle with charge +1.

Question for the layman:
According to the principle of least action, in the decay of radioactive nuclei, what particle must trespass the Coulombic barrier?

The deuteron 1H2, or the alpha particle 2He4 ?
:confused:​
 
I don't understand, there are like charges in the nucleus, where is the Coloumb barrier around the nucleus. This does not make sense to me.

Do you mean a beta particle emission? (Because that is an electron, I believe)
 
pedrone said:
There was no violation of the Rule 12 in my post.
Let's see why, as follows:

It's proven in the post 664 that Tubbythin and Reality Check lied, because they did not prove what they claim.

So, their arguments instead of to be based on facts, their arguments actually are supported by some inventions of their minds.

Therefore I suggested to everybody do not consider what Tubbythin and Reality Check use to claim because their arguments are supported by lies.

When we say: "please forget Mr. X, because he is a liar" , we are not violating the Rule 12, because:

instead of to be addressing the arguer, actually we are addressing his arguments based on lies.
Click to expand...

So, because someone refuses to scan a page from a book, they're lying about what is written in the book?

Really?
 
pedrone said:
There was no violation of the Rule 12 in my post.
Let's see why, as follows:

It's proven in the post 664 that Tubbythin and Reality Check lied, because they did not prove what they claim.

So, their arguments instead of to be based on facts, their arguments actually are supported by some inventions of their minds.

Therefore I suggested to everybody do not consider what Tubbythin and Reality Check use to claim because their arguments are supported by lies.

When we say: "please forget Mr. X, because he is a liar" , we are not violating the Rule 12, because:

instead of to be addressing the arguer, actually we are addressing his arguments based on lies.
Click to expand...


Your arguments about the validity of your posts are almost as weak as your understanding of physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom