why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[dafydd]

:

The things a liar says to support his lies

Will you drop the silly circles? It's very juvenile. Where did you study and what are your qualifications?

 

[pedrone]

Pedrone

STOP LYING

Answer my questions.

​

 

[pedrone]

Dont be so silly.
A value such as 2,8 x 10-31 m² is never equal to 2,7 x 10-31 m²
A theoretical value can be within the uncertainteis of an experimental value.
The fact that Guglinski does not state the uncertainties in the experimental value or work out the uncertainties in the theoretical value points out how scientifically incompetent he is.

Deutrium

This implies an uncertainty of 0.0001 e·fm².

The 1998 data you cite has the uncertainties in the 2 experimental values
+0.00286(2) and 0.0028(2) barns, i.e. +/1 0.000002 and 0.0002 barns respectively.

of course

 

[pedrone]

I'm not lying.


No. I far better things to do with my life

for instance: to lie, instead of to prove that what you say is true

 

[AdMan]

Amazingly, pedrone's posts are getting even more juvenile.

 

[pedrone]

Amazingly, pedrone is getting even more juvenile.

foolishes arguments deserve foolishes reply

 

[RobDegraves]

foolishes arguments deserve foolishes reply

Pretty well my argument from the first.

You evade any serious questions and post nothing of consequence. You are a simple troll and should be treated as such.

 

[dafydd]

Amazingly, pedrone's posts are getting even more juvenile.

I think that he is about fifteen years old,to judge by the tone.

 

[Tubbythin]

for instance: to lie, instead of to prove that what you say is true

Except that I haven't lied. And, like pretty much all your other claims, you have no supporting evidence for your accusations.

 

[Dancing David]

So Pedrone, without QM you can not fuse hydrogen into helium.

How does hydrogen fuse into helium?

Iteration7

Without the waveform nature of QM particles, the hydrogen will never fuse.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory

of course

At last you get it: 2.8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2.7 x 10^-31 m²
Thus Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone.

Really quite simple!

Another problem is with the 2 pages from his book in this post. These pages have obvious flaws such as

• using a derived value for proton radius to get the wrong value for the electric quadrpopole moment of deuteron.
• arbitarily changing the derived value and still getting the wrong value!

So the question becomes - it this is ons of the many crackpot science books out there or has Guglinski published his theory in peer-reviewed journals (hopefully without these flaws)

So pedrone,
Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

 

[Tubbythin]

My point being that it is the nature of QM that allows for fusion to happen.

Fair enough. Although, for the record, if Coulomb barrier did actually go to infinity as you previously suggested, not even quantum mechanical tunneling would allow fusion to happen.

 

[Dancing David]

Fair enough. Although, for the record, if Coulomb barrier did actually go to infinity as you previously suggested, not even quantum mechanical tunneling would allow fusion to happen.

I am corrected then.

 

[pedrone]

At last you get it: 2.8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2.7 x 10^-31 m²
Thus Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone.

Really quite simple!

 

[dafydd]

I want to change my guess. You are about twelve years old. Do you really think that is the way to discuss physics? You have never had a physics lesson in your life,all your stuff here comes from dodgy 'science' sites.

 

[pedrone]

At last you get it: 2.8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2.7 x 10^-31 m²
Thus Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone.

Really quite simple!

Another problem is with the 2 pages from his book in this post. These pages have obvious flaws such as

• using a derived value for proton radius to get the wrong value for the electric quadrpopole moment of deuteron.
• arbitarily changing the derived value and still getting the wrong value!

So the question becomes - it this is ons of the many crackpot science books out there or has Guglinski published his theory in peer-reviewed journals (hopefully without these flaws)

So pedrone,
Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

Deviation of light predicted by Einstein

 

[Reality Check]

Idiotic cartoon showing your inability to understand that

1. Hideki Yukawa got his Nobel Prize for "for his prediction of the existence of mesons on the basis of theoretical work on nuclear forces"
2. That the first estates of the mass of meason were ... estimates!
3. That the current theory and experiments agree (that is a little thing known as scientific progress).

P.S.
Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

 

[Reality Check]

Deviation of light predicted by Einstein

Idoitic cartoon displaying your ignorance of the scientific process.

Experiments have uncertainties. The first experiments that test a theory usually have large uncertainties. But scientists make the experiments more accurate. So the tests get more and more accurate.

P.S.
Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

 

[pedrone]

At last you get it: 2.8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2.7 x 10^-31 m²
Thus Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone.

Really quite simple!

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1940PhRv...58..310N

 

[AdMan]

pedrone, you're really not helping your case with your stupid cartoons, any more than with your overuse of smileys...