Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[DHamilton]

I don't seem to see any math. Is Hamilton from the Kleinman school of just-so stories?

DH, could you please present the math succinctly? Thank you.

~~ Paul

So, you're a moderator...and you pull that kind of **** comment on people... ?? No wonder this place is inhabited by dogs....and hyenas... it is moderated by a dog or hyena...with that sort of comment. How do you expect to give a place to people where they might post controversial ideas if, in fact, a moderator himself, make such ******* comments?

 

[DHamilton]

Hi, sorry to just jump in here, I haven't been following this poster's history and I'm curious about what he's talking about.

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.

Thing is, I actually did a physics degree back in the day, though I wasn't much good at it and have gone on to other things... and I can see the words 'neutron', 'gravitational source', 'velocity', 'potential', 'conjugate', 'time', 'gradient' and 'structure'. And I thought I had some understanding of what those words meant, but that quoted bit is totally opaque to me.

Is that because I lost the plot in the last couple of years of my degree, or is it because the OP has lost the plot (or more precisely, has never had it in the first place)?

Would it be too much to expect you to read the posts? Why don't you make an effort first instead of whining?

 

[Gravy]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Quoted remark removed.

Personal attack reported. It seems you're using the same tactics that you used on the unmoderated Usenet boards that you complained about. There's no need for defensive insults, Charles. You could have just said, "I don't have any math to back up my claims." Is that so hard?

 

[Olowkow]

Well, it is true that I said a 'day of wrath' is certainly coming...but I never once declared that it was going to be in the year 2000. So. stop lying...

I guess folks can read it for themselves and decide. Please point out where I lied. Otherwise please stop your silly accusations and calm down. You might just learn something from the people here.

Oh, and by the way, dogs are men's best friends, and hyenas like to laugh.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's not a logical statement, sir. A neutron is a proton in physical superposition with an electron which is its charge conjugate. Neutrons display broad cross sections for being captured by certain elements.. you can't say that for protons. That feature indicates that a neutron can become a very large extended structure. A neutron is a quantum scale flux loop system that continues to oscillate between the two modes of Del X E and Del X H where it displays the properties of a magnetic dipole in the first mode respectively and of an electric dipole in the second mode. Free neutrons decay in such a manner as showing that they are aligned either parallel or antiparallel to an applied magnetic field...this is because at any given instant half of them are in one state and half in the other... On the extreme side I suspect that neutrons are unbreakable quantum scale flux loops that can be stretched out to great lengths...

The large scale flux loop structures that we see emerging from sunspots are, I think, huge bundles of stretched out neutrons. I'm sure this is a very controversial claim, so...if any posters desire to display their bad manners... mocking this notion... let me advise you in advance.. save it.

DHamilton.. aka C. Cagle

Well to start with, the charge conjugate of a proton is an antiproton.
But perhaps I didn't word my question very well. The experimental evidence of multiple indepent experiments by nuclear and particle physics suggest that protons and neutrons are very similar apart from their electric charge (or lack thereof) . So, if I have interpreted your explanation correctly, what you are implying does not agree with this experimental data, and you believe protons and neutrons are very different. This leads to the following possibilities...
1) My interpretation of what you are suggesting is wrong.
2) The results obtained by many different independent groups of competent physicists is all wrong.
3) The interpretation of data by many different independent groups of competent physicists is all wrong.
4) You are wrong.

So... Is it simply case 1) and I've misinterpreted you? Or are you expecting me to believe its 2)and/or3)? If its the latter you've got a long way to go before I'm convinced.

 

[~enigma~]

and hyenas like to laugh.

You are right....see:

 

[ben m]

Place your own bets... I'm not here to play your silly game... Pay attention to what I wrote ...would be good advice.... Your device to proffer 'the only statement worth making... ' is simple minded, and narrow. What makes you suppose that you should characterize the effect of a gravitational structure as a force?

I didn't suppose anything. I set up an experiment where a steel ball is allowed to accelerate towards a 1 kg lead ball; I set it up again allowing the steel ball to accelerate towards a 1 kg glass ball. I asked you to tell me whether the acceleration will be same or different in the two cases. Characterize it any way you want---force, acceleration, spacetime distortion, whatever.

Three options:
A) Your theory predicts that the accelerations are the same. Fine; that's what mainstream theory predicts, too, and I'll stand by that prediction.
B) Your theory predicts that the accelerations are different---this is what you've been hinting at. Fine, let's test it. Wouldn't you be excited to see you theory defeat General Relativity in a lab experiment? No?
C) You cannot or will not make a prediction.

None of the above. You seem bright but not quite collected.

PS. There is no "none of the above". If the accelerations are the same, that's option A. if they're different, that's option B. There's no way for them to be "neither the same nor different."

Well, if you don't understand your theory well enough to make a prediction, maybe I do. You have said very clearly that neutrons are a source for gravity, protons and electrons are not. Therefore, your theory predicts that the lead source makes the steel ball accelerate more than the glass source. See? That wasn't hard. Yay science! Tune in later for the actual experimental results---from a classic 1968 paper. Ready, Mr. Cagle?

 

[The Man]

One can only throw one’s hands up in exasperation to believe that there are people who do not innately grasp that the universe itself with all of its components, quanta, apparent volume, and time is an attribute of the Holy Mind of God.

Now I think I'm getting your math.

GOD = Anything

 

[CurtC]

Well, it is true that I said a 'day of wrath' is certainly coming...but I never once declared that it was going to be in the year 2000. So. stop lying...

From your web site:

"Cycle 23 is now expected to reach Solar Maximum in the early part of 2000 but there are no guarantees one way or the other."

"a very strong solar maximum poses a tremendous danger to life on earth."

"This tremendous current density in the core of the planet will generate large scale ring currents in the core which will emerge as magnetic loops systems which will be exact analogues to the magnetic loops which produce sunspots on the Sun. The collision and collapse of such loop systems will lead to the catastrophic release of energy. The terrestrial analogues of solar flare events will generate massive earthquakes in the Richter +10 range and will lead to the generation of large scale tsunamis at sea which can reach a nearly a mile high as they come ashore at some locations."

"Therefore, when an energetic solar flare impacts the atmosphere of the Earth it will lead immediately to such rapid heating of the atmosphere (on the sunward side) that it could raise the temperature of the atmosphere for regions as large as a million square miles several hundred degrees in as little as 3-7 minutes."

"it is likely that at least two thirds of the population of the earth will have been killed."

 

[MattusMaximus]

One can only throw one’s hands up in exasperation to believe that there are people who do not innately grasp that the universe itself with all of its components, quanta, apparent volume, and time is an attribute of the Holy Mind of God.

Yup, I must say that I'm truly impressed

Since I've decided to give up any attempt to be serious with you, DHamilton, this is for you...

 

[Hokulele]

Well, they have it coming. Zeus told me so.

What? Slumps, maybe. Subside rapidly? Umm, yeah, sure . . .


*Backs slowly away from the thread*

 

[bjschaeffer]

Electromagnetic nature of the nuclear interaction

1. Coulomb's law does not completely describe the behaviour of charges. Maxwell's equations do.
2. Changes in frame do not affect Maxwell's laws. A change in frame from an electrostatic situation that is described by Coulomb's law results in you getting the magnetic field and everything else in Maxwell's laws anyway (thanks to SR, Ziggurat's posted something on this before I believe). All this talk of motion being relative gains you nothing over what we already know.
3. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.
4. Maxwell's equations do not explain the atomic nucleus.

(I thought that point 3 was important enough to mention twice)

Yes Coulomb's laws explain the atomic nucleus. See nuclearenergy.canalblog.com, showing the electromagnetic potential of the deuteron :

 

[Mashuna]

Yes Coulomb's laws explain the atomic nucleus. See nuclearenergy.canalblog.com, showing the electromagnetic potential of the deuteron :

Welcome to the forums bjschaeffer. You might not get much of a response on this, as the last post prior to yours was over four years ago.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes Coulomb's laws explain the atomic nucleus. See nuclearenergy.canalblog.com, showing the electromagnetic potential of the deuteron :

Nope, this wrong:
"As it is well known, there is an attraction between an electric charge and a neutral conductor. In the deuteron, the positive charge of the neutron is repelled and the negative charge is attracted by the proton with a net attraction."

'The positive charge of the neutron', that is crazy talk. The neutron is not an electron and a proton smashed together. It is not like they are ice skaters holding hands. With a neutrino muff.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h673n477n243vu46/

 

[dafydd]

Since everything about this new physics even points to a completely different mechanism for a supernova...your question in the context of reality is nonsensical. A super nova results from a strong flux loop being displaced from a ring of Isaacium (Heavy Dark Matter) that now can suddenly acquire electrons. That Isaacium will begin to differentiate into a broad range or variety of atomic species... the acquisition electrons will generate a huge radiation flux and going from nuclear volume to atomic volume provides the rest of the explosion... It is simple.. a strong charge separation effect produced by a large scale flux loop system... Not only that but this charge separation effect leads directly to redshifting by not allowing electrons to fall to as low of an energy state. Everything I've disclosed is consistent with the data and accounts for a much broader range of phenomena that the pseudophysics the world presently and ridiculously believes.

C. Cagle

Irony meter explosion warning.

 

[RobDegraves]

@DHamilton


Question.... why do you post here?

Why not write up a scientific paper, have it peer reviewed, make predictions and test your theory?

Have you even tried?

Or do you just post on the internet so that maybe someone will believe you who is not a physicist?

 

[Dancing David]

@DHamilton


Question.... why do you post here?

Why not write up a scientific paper, have it peer reviewed, make predictions and test your theory?

Have you even tried?

Or do you just post on the internet so that maybe someone will believe you who is not a physicist?

Irony meter explosion warning.

These are posts responding to a 2008 post!



thread necromancy

 

[catsmate]

@DHamilton


Question.... why do you post here?

Why not write up a scientific paper, have it peer reviewed, make predictions and test your theory?

Have you even tried?

Or do you just post on the internet so that maybe someone will believe you who is not a physicist?

Cagle is a well known physics crank, dating back to the Usenet days. He still pops up occasionally to decry modern science's failure to embrace him and his ideas.
And the failure of the world to end in 2000 as he predicted.

 

[RobDegraves]

These are posts responding to a 2008 post!

Yeah.. didn't look at the date. Sorry.

His website is still up but I can't tell if it's recent. I hope he got some kind of treatment and is doing better.

 

[John Hewitt]

Cagle is a well known physics crank, dating back to the Usenet days. He still pops up occasionally to decry modern science's failure to embrace him and his ideas.
And the failure of the world to end in 2000 as he predicted.

Well, I've not come across him before and I sort of collect antiestablishment science opinions. I have a couple of questions.
1. Is DHamilton an alias of Charles Cagle and, if so, why would he have used a different name?
2. Thinking about the subject, there are elements of his claims that seem a bit puzzling.
Here I am just thinking from a classical point of view, which is all I, a chemist/molecular biologist, can manage. If YOU view two charges that are stationary with respect to one another and to YOU, YOU should see them repelling one another - Coulomb's law.
On the other hand, I recall that like currents attract. Hence, if I am moving fast with respect to those charges they should behave as like currents and I should see them attract on another.
In other words, and on the face of it, the attraction or repulsion of two like charges should depend upon the speed the frame of reference in which they are observed. I don't see how that works - not that I want to make a big deal out of it.
And I certainly don't see what its got to do with whether the strong force exists.