why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[pedrone]

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

Really?

Tubbythin said he has the original Eisberg and Resnick book.

And he refused to scan the page in which he claimed to be a phrasis that supports his arguments.

Do you have any other reasonable explanation for his refusal ?

 

[RobDegraves]

So... once again...

Two questions...

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?

Is there any other reasonable explanation for your refusal to answer?

 

[pedrone]

Your arguments about the validity of your posts are almost as weak as your understanding of physics.

Sure, because I dont belive that Nature violates some of her fundamental laws, as you believe to be possible according to Quantum Mechanics

 

[RobDegraves]

I don't think Nature cares what you think. Quantum works... your arguments don't.

 

[pedrone]

So... once again...

Two questions...

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

Are you interested either in experimental findings, or in my reason to post them here ?

You don't have any credibility whatsoever.

I dont need any credibility.
I post here experimental results.
If experimental findings have no credibility for you, then sorry.
I suggest you to go to a forum on the Alice in Wonderland

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

Why?
Have the people in this forum allergy to experimental findings ?

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

If a person who posts experimental findings is a troll and completely insane, yes, I'm a completelly insane troll.

Is there any other reasonable explanation for your refusal to answer?

Of course not.
You are in the wrong place. Go to a forum on Alice in Wonderland

 

[pedrone]

I don't think Nature cares what you think. Quantum works... your arguments don't.

Quantum works... by violatting some fundamental laws of Nature. Which proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong



your arguments don't defend the violation of laws by Quantum Mechanics.
That's why the most people in here hate my arguments

 

[Reality Check]

email by Dr. Santilli to Guglinski​

So? You have just shown that there is no conspiracy against this result!
Which I assume is:

C. Borghi, C. Giorio and A. Dall’Olio, ”Experimental evidence on the emission of neutrons from a cold hydrogen plasma,” communications of CENUFPE number 8 (1969).
Lots of reprints. "Communications of CENUFPE" sounds like a letter to a journal, in-house journal or a conference, not a peer-reviewed publication of the paper.
So it sounds like that another reason that no one else has done the experiment is that it is hidden away in some obscure publication.

The experiment is obviously wrong as one simple observation shows: Where are the light-weight neutron stars?
or alternately
Why are there heavy-weight white dwarf stars (close to the Chandrasekhar limit) ?

Stars with masses greater than the Chandrasekhar limit (1.44 solar masses) will end up as neutron stars or black holes.​

Stars with masses less than the Chandrasekhar limit will end up as white dwarf stars.
If there is a path to form neutrons in a cold hydrogen plasma (e.g. inside a white dwarf star) then neutron stars will form below the Chandrasekhar limit. White dwarf stars will not exist close to the limit.​

​

 

[Reality Check]

The unpublished preprint Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons , Ruggero Maria Santilli, unfortunately starts off with a really basic mistake: Rutherford's 1920 hypothesis that the neutron is a proton and an electron was wrong!
The neutron is 3 quarks.

The next mistake is that he thinks that electron capture (equation 2) can happen outside of a nucleus. It cannot. The reaction as written has an effective increase in mass for the proton and is not energetically favourable.
The process is allowed within the environment of the nucleus because when the nucleus as a whole is taken into account the capture represents an overall decrease in mass. This is not QM. This is good old energy conservation and E=mc²!

 

[RobDegraves]

Quantum works... by violatting some fundamental laws of Nature. Which proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong

No it doesn't or it would not work.

QED

I see you have avoided answering both of my questions in a way that shows how much of a troll you are.

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

Are you interested either in experimental findings, or in my reason to post them here ?

Not an answer. Obviously I want to know why you are posting here not continue to play along with your oft remarked upon trolling.



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

Why?
Have the people in this forum allergy to experimental findings ?

Again evasion. Answering a question with a question is typical of a troll.

If a person who posts experimental findings is a troll and completely insane, yes, I'm a completelly insane troll.

Sigh... let's look at the definition shall we.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

So... posting something like... "why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct" is both misspelled and an obvious troll topic.

You then follow up that topic... and others you started with equally inflammatory topics... with the basic behavior of a troll.

When confronted with someone who knows actual physics and tries to explain why you are wrong you either...

1. Say he's a liar.
2. Ask for proof.
3. Question the basis of all science when proof is given.
4. Claim that a conspiracy of all scientists is to blame for your point of view not being adopted.

Standard troll behavior.

Or...

You actually believe what you are saying and you are just insane, in which case you behave just like a troll by sheer coincidence.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are the deuterons, pedrone

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

You are wrong: It is shown in post 664 that you are reading a translation of an English textbook into Portuguese. That translations looks like it is missing the word "approximately" from the English text.
The text are:
Portuguese

If we make the hypothesis that proton's distribution in the nucleus is the same distribution of neutrons (there are some evidences for this hypothesis), then the charge density..."

English

If we assume that the distribution of protons in nuclei is approximately the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is good evidence for this assumption)

Both state that protons and neutrons are separately distributed in a nucleus. This distribution is the same for these separate protons and neutrons. Separate protons and neutrons are not deuterons.

You proved what Tubbythin and I claimed - Eisberg and Resnick do not state that nucleons pair up to form deuteron within nuclei.

You have a fantasy though that that similar distribution of protons and neutrons in nuclei means that they hang around together for some strange reason. That is not true. As edd pointed out:

Pedrone: I have a dartboard and a large number of darts coloured red and blue nut otherwise identical. I throw them at my dartboard. They land according to the same statistical distribution.
Do you believe that the red and blue darts have paired themselves up?

 

[pedrone]

Nuclear Physics works by the laws of ethics​

According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit two deuterons 1H2. By this way it would obey to the principle of least action.

However the nuclei emit one particle 2He4, instead of two particles 1H2. So, the current Nuclear Physics is wrong, because as it violates the principle of least action of course something is wrong with the theory.

By emitting two 1H2, energetically the result would be the same compared with the emission of one 2He4. And the emission of two 1H2 is according to the principle of least action, because it's easier to emit two 1H2 than to emit one 2He4.

What say Eisberg and Resnick ?

They claim that a radioactive nucleus emits one 2He4 because it's more favorable for the nucleus, from the energetic viewpoint.
This is not true, because from the emission of two 1H2 the profit in energy is the same, and the emission of two 1H2 is easier.

But from what say Eisberg and Resnick we conclude that the nuclei work by the laws of ethics.
Indeed, according to Nuclear Physics, the decay occurs as the nucleus should be thinking, and saying to himself:

"Oh, I know that by emitting one 2He4 I am violation a fundamental principle of Nature: the principle of least action.
However, I prefer to violate such principle of Nature, because the emission of one particle 2He4 is more favorable for the nucleus. After all, I must to cooperate with the nucleus".


Therefore, instead of working by the physical laws of Nature, actually Nuclear Physics works by the laws of ethics.

 

[Reality Check]

Principle of Least Action​

Actually: Principle of least action.
Nothing to do with this thread
But the answer to your high school physics question is neither (gravitational potential energy = mgh).

 

[pedrone]

You are wrong: It is shown in post 664 that you are reading a translation of an English textbook into Portuguese. That translations looks like it is missing the word "approximately" from the English text.
The text are:
Portuguese
Quote:
If we make the hypothesis that proton's distribution in the nucleus is the same distribution of neutrons (there are some evidences for this hypothesis), then the charge density..."
English
Quote:
If we assume that the distribution of protons in nuclei is approximately the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is good evidence for this assumption)

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

Reality Check,
make the scan of the page, and put it here.

 

[Reality Check]

According to the principle of least action...

A really ignorant question. The principle of least action is

In physics, the principle of least action – or, more accurately, the principle of stationary action – is a variational principle that, when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the equations of motion for that system. The principle led to the development of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are the deuterons, pedrone

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Reality Check,
make the scan of the page, and put it here.

So, pedrone continues ranting...

I do not have the book. I have read what you quoted from the book and that makes you a liar. Eisberg and Resnick do not state that nucleons pair up to form deuteron within nuclei. That is your fantasy.

pedrone

1. read what you quoted.
2. count up the number of times that the word "deuteron" appears
3. Can you count to zero

 

[Reality Check]

According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit two deuterons 1H2. By this way it would obey to the principle of least action.

According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit 1 apha particle. By this way it would obey the known laws of physics.
And then you cite Eisberg and Resnick to prove that you are lying!

Still showing your ignorance:
principle of least action

In physics, the principle of least action – or, more accurately, the principle of stationary action – is a variational principle that, when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the equations of motion for that system. The principle led to the development of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics.

The hypocrisy is large in you pedrone. On one hand you cite them (wrongly: Where are the deuteron's, pedrone?) as a support for a fantasy of yours. On the other hand you say that they are wrong when they state the obvious (alpha emission is energetically favored over 2 deuteron emissions) !

Alpha decay

Alpha decay is by far the most common form of cluster decay where the parent atom ejects a defined daughter collection of nucleons, leaving another defined product behind (in nuclear fission, a number of different pairs of daughters of approximately equal size are formed). Alpha decay is the most likely cluster decay because of the combined extremely high binding energy and relatively small mass of the helium-4 product nucleus (the alpha particle).

 

[pedrone]

The unpublished preprint Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons , Ruggero Maria Santilli, unfortunately starts off with a really basic mistake: Rutherford's 1920 hypothesis that the neutron is a proton and an electron was wrong!
The neutron is 3 quarks.

The next mistake is that he thinks that electron capture (equation 2) can happen outside of a nucleus. It cannot. The reaction as written has an effective increase in mass for the proton and is not energetically favourable.
The process is allowed within the environment of the nucleus because when the nucleus as a whole is taken into account the capture represents an overall decrease in mass. This is not QM. This is good old energy conservation and E=mc²!

You're wrong

A new correct model of neutron formed by proton+selectron is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion.

In Quantum Ring Theory the electron moves with helical trajectory. When the electron is captured by a proton and they form a neutron, the electron loses its helical trajectory, it emits a neutrino, and it becomes a selectron.

In this model the electron turns about the proton with 92% of light speed, and so its mass has a growth, according to Einstein's theory.

In Quantum Ring Theory it's calculated the mass of neutron formed by proton+selectron, and the result is exactly the same like the experimental mass of neutron
The final calculation is shown in page 104:

 

[pedrone]

According to current Nuclear Physics, the radioactive nuclei should have to emit 1 apha particle. By this way it would obey the known laws of physics.
And then you cite Eisberg and Resnick to prove that you are lying!

Still showing your ignorance:
principle of least action


The hypocrisy is large in you pedrone. On one hand you cite them (wrongly: Where are the deuteron's, pedrone?) as a support for a fantasy of yours. On the other hand you say that they are wrong when they state the obvious (alpha emission is energetically favored over 2 deuteron emissions) !

Alpha decay

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[pedrone]

So, pedrone continues ranting...

I do not have the book.

Of course not.
You use to discuss about books which you never has read.

Then I have a suggestion to you.
Scan the book Alice in the Wonderland, which of course you have, and post it here

 

[Reality Check]

You're wrong
A new correct model of neutron formed by proton+selectron is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion.
....

I am right - Quantum Ring Theory is a crackpots idea, not a scientific theory. The stupidity in what you attribute to this idea is clear:

1. "electron moves with helical trajectory"
   Electrons move with any trajectory that they like according to the external conditions (lines, circles and even helixes)!
2. "In this model the electron turns about the proton with 92% of light speed".
   That is a classical picture which means that the electron gives off radiation and crashes into the proton. No sign of that radiation.
3. the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core