Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction
- Thread starter DHamilton
- Start date
MORE FOUNDATIONAL PHYSICS
ORIGIN OF THE NOTION OF ‘SPACE’
Perhaps the most pervasive yet subtle idea of all that exists in the minds of men is the idea that there is a vast volume that together with the particles that are distributed in that volume is comprised the whole extent or composition of the universe. In other words, there is the idea that the universe has a sort of pre-existing volume that is infinite in extent or alternatively is geometrically closed upon itself. Men struggle with this idea for we are never satisfied because we, being, in our own estimation, finite creatures, cannot quite grasp or come to terms with that which, according to its appearance, seems to be infinite in extent. ORIGIN OF THE NOTION OF ‘SPACE’
Then men considered that the appearance of the volume itself was a function of the particles yet there has never been a reasonable articulation of how these things could be. Do the particles of the universe take up volume or create volume? Are they separate things or are they one thing? Conveyed within the framework of Einstein’s General Relativity has been the notion that there is a unification of the two but without a clear logical expression of how this could all be, this broadly accepted set of ideas, still leaves men wanting for a comprehensible idea of the existence of the universe itself.
In a previous chapter we’ve seen that we can deduce the existence of a charged particle as being a bundle of primitive velocity relationships between the local ‘bundle’ and other ‘bundles’ that are opposite in basic nature. We deduce this from basic axioms, from the very definition of the concept of motion. And all of these primitive velocity relationships (velocity potentials) are instantaneously one dimensional relationships or relationships which are producing a change in the one dimensional relationship between such bundles. So, these relationships don’t have the attribute of three dimensionality about them at all, taken singly.
The concept of volume arises, however, out of the concept of a multiplicity of one dimensional relationships between quanta. One quantum particle cannot exist alone because the quantum particle as either a charged particle or as a flux loop such as a photon that consists of a charge and its conjugate is itself composed of motion relationships. Quanta cannot have motion with respect to themselves so one quantum particle cannot exist alone.
From two quanta we get, at best, the notion of one dimensionality. From three quanta we obtain the notion of a plane. No matter the magnitude of the one dimensional relationships that specify a triad of three quanta we still have only a plane or they all lie upon the intellectual idea of a plane. Only when we have four quantum particles do we begin to see possibility of the origin of the notion of volume.
Four or more quanta can still all be coincident with an intellectual plane but if certain geometric concepts are used we can specify when four quanta do not lie upon the same plane. For example, any two points lie upon a line. Three or more points can lie up on a line also. The rule for determining if A, B, and C lie upon the same line is simple. If AB+BC=AC then A, B, and C all lie upon the same line. (see Examples 1and 1.a below) Extending this concept, if there are four points, A, B, C, and D then if the sum of the areas of triangles ABC, ADC, ABD, and BCD is exactly equal to twice the area of ABCD then A,B, C, and D all lie on a common plane. If the sum of the areas of triangles ABC, ADC, ABD, and BCD is greater than twice the area of ABCD then A, B, C, and D do not all lie on a common plane and we have the beginning of the notion of volume. (see Example 2) From that set of quantum points you can select any three of A, B, C, and D and they all will lie on a common plane but the fourth one, no matter which one you choose, will not lie on the same plane as the other three.
And every combination of three will all lie on a different common plane than any other combination of three. However, we still don’t have uniqueness of a single point with respect to three other points and hence the notion of a specific position cannot exist with only four points that do not all reside on a common plane. Let me explain. For the three dimensional tetrahedron ABCD, D is not coincident to the plane that contains A, B, and C, nor is C coincident to the plane that contains ABD and so on. But the plane that is coincident with any triangle ABC, for example, has two sides, P and P’, and we must be able to specify if D is above P or above P’ to give a unique position to D.
So, you see, to derive three dimensionality, at least five quantum particles must exist that must have non-zero value one dimensional relationships between them; and further, every combination of three of the five quanta must lie on a unique plane from any other combination of three quanta (of the five). From this we can begin to understand why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) is true.
To specify a position for a particle requires the existence of four other particles which do not all lie on a common plane. A quantum particle, A, cannot have position with respect to only one other quantum particle, B, because all that it can have is a one dimensional relationship with respect to B. So, say that A is two units distance from B; then A could lie anywhere upon the surface of a sphere with a radius of two units where the center of that sphere was B. A doesn’t have a unique position but is only constrained to lie somewhere upon the sphere with a radius equal to BA.
Only by adding more and more quanta do we finally come to the minimum requirements needed to produce the concept of a unique position. Only if the components of a body composed of a large number of quanta can have unique positions can we have the basis for structure in the universe to appear.
Returning to the basic facts behind the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) we see that this has been a great bother or consternation to very many good people including Einstein. But the reason that people have trouble with HUP (even though it is correct) is because there isn’t a rational presentation of the notions of position or motion.
In a universe of n particles each particle can have motion with respect to exactly n-1 other particles and from a center of momentum frame with respect to each and every other particle in the universe it has exactly n-1 momentum states. The process or functional requirements of the notion of position for a given quantum particle requires that a reference frame be established and such a frame cannot be established with less that four other particles (as components of the frame) all of which cannot be on the same plane.
In other words, the very notion of position for a quantum particle requires, at a minimum, that it have a set of one dimensional relationships with four other quantum particles all of which cannot be on the same plane. Two particles may have relative motion and the one dimensional relationship between them may be changing at a fixed or changing rate so that both particles, from a center of momentum frame, will have a discrete momentum but it is relational only to the other particle and hence cannot have a true velocity (which requires the existence of changing positions in time) but can only have a primitive velocity which I have referred to as a velocity potential.
A single particle cannot have a single momentum with respect to more than one other particle. As the number of other particles with which it is compared to is increased then the number of discrete momentum states that it possesses will increase directly. The more states, the more indeterminate becomes its momentum. We been educated to consider or view a multiplicity of states not as a multiplicity of states but rather as uncertainty (since it isn’t pinned down to only a single state). But if we reduce the number of states down below the minimum requirement for the establishment of a ‘position’ then by definition we no longer have the necessary information for a three dimensional coordinate.
The HUP makes perfect sense because it can be derived from these basic geometrical truths. All other explanations only demonstrate that people have never intellectually grasped the basic underlying ideas or concepts that make the HUP true. We can see then that three dimensionality with time, which requires sequential comparisons of positions in time must needs be a function of mind or intellect because such comparisons require the necessary attribute of memory. The fixed universe without time requires the simultaneous comparisons of one dimensional relationships between quanta and this we see also is necessarily a function of mind or intellect. 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.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I take it back. Maybe you are the nut case Charles Caple who seems to be a fundamentalist preacher with a weird and primitive understanding of physics.
You express yourself as such a dark hearted person... a fundamentalist would not be an accurate description of me at all. And I'm not a preacher, nor a 'nut case'. Your pejorative comments are so puerile. Of the entire universe... all that we know comes to us second hand, through our senses... but the only thing that we directly experience are thoughts. You fashion the world by your thoughts and by your words. There's actually a great deal of order in the universe and it is only to your own hurt that you will not alter your character so as to avail yourself of the wonders available. I feel sorry for those of you in this forum who are too blind to acknowledge the existence of your creator...it isn't that you've lost your way...but rather that you have manifestly and with malice thrown it away...
I've made my experimental predictions.. a strong charge separation effect of a gravity field. I hand over a rational description of a gravitational field while you've had nothing ... so that ...you're used to the null content word 'gravity' and I tell you succinctly what a gravitational 'field' really is. Gravitational structures or packets produce a charge separation effect. It is a matter of looking at the data...the data you already possess and re-analyze that data any closed E or H flux loop structure will produce a charge separation effect. Any structure that can be described as n charges and n charge conjugates in physical superposition will be a gravitational structure or gravitational charge packet (as a photon or a neutron).
I'm well aware they are different. I wouldn't be much of a physicist if I thought protons and neutrons were identical. The point is experiment shows that when Coulomb effects are accounted for, any differences are very small indeed. Take 21Ne and 21Na for example. The difference between these nuclei is that the former has 10 protons and 11 neutrons where as the latter has 11 protons and 10 neutrons. You seem to be implying that neutrons and protons are completely different. If this were the case then you would expect no correlation between the energy levels of the two. And yet, if you look at them, the similarities are remarkable.
How do you explain this?
I must have missed your prediction---can you clarify that? Do protons exert gravitational forces, while neutrons don't? Will a test mass fall faster towards a mass of lead (40% protons) or glass (50% protons)?
Remember, the only statement worth making is:
"My theory predicts that a small test mass will accelerate X% FASTER/SLOWER towards a lead source than towards a glass source. This is so obviously true that I am dead certain that experiments will bear this out within Y%. If they don't, I must have screwed up my theory."
Place your bets!
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I missed the prediction too. Good catch, ben.
Please tell us, oh guru - will two equally massive chunks of different isotopes of the same material gravitate identically, or not? Will the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass hold regardless of the fraction of neutrons versus protons in the material? If not, but how much will it change? Do you even understand the question?
Last edited:
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Well, the "Day of Wrath" has been pretty well expunged from the web, but thanks to the "Wayback Machine", if this isn't the end of the world...I don't know what is:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000903052807/www.singtech.com/wrath2.html
Last edited:
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
The content of DHamilton's posts is wrong.
Read my mind for what I'd really like to say.
Read my mind for what I'd really like to say.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The moderator is right, the language is geiing a bit petty. So back to the science.
DHamilton:
Did you read the post that I made? I repeat it here just in case. Do you have answers yet?
Is it positive or negative?
Please define what a "time rate gradient structure" is.
What is a "unit charge conjugate"?
How does having them in conjunction make something a gravitational source?
What the statements about a neutron have to do a proton?
DHamilton:
Did you read the post that I made? I repeat it here just in case. Do you have answers yet?
What the the unit charge on a neutron?
Is it positive or negative?
Please define what a "time rate gradient structure" is.
What is a "unit charge conjugate"?
How does having them in conjunction make something a gravitational source?
What the statements about a neutron have to do a proton?
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
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?
If people characterize two protons that are falling to a lower energy state as being subjected to a force it is because they believe that two protons that are overlapping in the same momentum space are repulsive due to a mythical coulombic force that has never been demonstrated to exist between two like charges that are at rest with respect to one another. In fact, I'd say that there is no Coulombic force as presently envisioned but rather that the behavior characterized as due to Coulombic attraction or repulsion is entirely electromagnetic...that is to say that is it always as a result of the conditions that are generated due to the intersection of the vector fields produced by the relative motion of the particles. It is time to simplify a few things in physics and when we get rid of these childish concepts that have emerged from our minds as a result of our tactile experiences...then physics will make a great leap forward. Real physics is about to make that leap with or without the bulk of the physics community coming along... There's a new generation of people arriving who are not happy with the nonsense that has prolifferated since the invention of the 'strong force' about 90 years ago...
C. Cagle
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...
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
Last edited: