Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

DHamilton said:
DC, really, what does the whether or not I've published a peer reviewed paper have to do with whether or not I'm discussing something new and revolutionary? In fact, the peer review system isn't designed to openly embrace ideas that in a sweep turn a huge set of the things that the 'peers' believe in ... into intellectual rubbish. Instead it is designed to allow the collection of 'knowledge' to receive small incremental changes. If the 'strong force' is thrown down as an intellectual fiction whose time of usefulness has long passed then that also means the entire standard model is pretty much intellectual junk. I'm sure you see that. One has to be open honest enough to receive the Truth no matter the damage that it does to the collection of ideas and concepts that one hold dear. No man is easily persuaded to abandon ideas and conceptd that they have long believed were true and are not. Try and tell a cuckolded man that his wife has been whoring around on him and see what his response might be. He is confident that she would never betray him. It is likely he wouldn't believe you unless you provided him with a video of her in the act. His first response is to hate you for challenging his conceptions of his wife. Physics and many other disciplines are like this... or I should say that physicists and people from many other disciplines are like this. When Drs. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori played a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers and that such ulcers could be successfully be cured by anti-biotics, they were reviled by the medical community. Their Nobel Prize citation praised the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas. This is a well known case where the 'peers' were outright hateful in their naysaying of the researchers findings. For you to suggest that if a peer reviewed paper hasn't been published then I have nothing of value to say is your own shortsighted prejudices speaking. It seems that you are trying on the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. You believe that the peer review system is the authority and if I've not presented my case through a peer review published article then it can't be right or worth your time. Almost any honest person who has reading what you write can see that you won't attack what I say but only attack me, the person, suggesting that I have no right to say anything or that anything that I say is not be believed... You seem to care nothing for honestly examining the arguments that I make but only for discrediting me. This is simply your personal hatred showing.

As for me decrying personal attacks, DC, you emerge with another intentional lie when you say "interesting to see that you are the one that started with it..... very telling" when the article you quote-post is, in fact, one in which I am decrying earlier personal attacks. Do you know when you are lying or attempting mislead people. You have shown nothing but dishonesty and I think it is appropriate that I take another poster's advice and simply not engage with you. I could say that you are against me personally or I could say that you are simply against anything that brings into question what you think you know for sure. I really don't know which it is and at this point I really don't care... I'm so happy that they have an 'ignore poster' button that I can activate.
Click to expand...

None of this is evidence, it is rhetoric.
 
DHamilton said:
DC, really, what does the whether or not I've published a peer reviewed paper have to do with whether or not I'm discussing something new and revolutionary?
Click to expand...
Rather a lot actually.

DHamilton said:
In fact, the peer review system isn't designed to openly embrace ideas that in a sweep turn a huge set of the things that the 'peers' believe in ... into intellectual rubbish.<snippage of much conspiratorial rubbish, vague accusations and hypocritical claims of victimhood>
Click to expand...
You need to pepper your posts with more references to "hidebound reactionaries", "self-appointed defenders of the orthodoxy", they're worth 20 points each.
 
DHamilton said:
Anytime a neutron decays into an electron, proton and anti-neutrino, the electrons will rapidly be excluded from the region.
Click to expand...

Isn't neutron decay part of the standard model? I thought we were throwing out the standard model.

Or are we cherry picking the parts that we like?
 
It probably doesn't need to be repeated that, just because revolutionary ideas are sometimes rejected by the establishment, that being rejected by the establishment makes something revolutionary.
 
Farsight said:
No it isn't. Forget the it's a fermion because that's just Humpty-Dumpty logic, and you don't have a clue about spin. It's got no charge. It goes at a speed that is indistinguishjable from c. It's got no mass to speak of. It's clearly more like the photon than the electron.
Click to expand...
Attempts to wallpaper over huge gaping holes in your "theory" noted.

Farsight said:
You don't understand SR, or the wave nature of matter,
Click to expand...
Have you considered that instead over everyone else not understanding physics, you are they one that doesn't understand?

Farsight said:
Don't clutch at straws. We all know about pair production.
Click to expand...
Well all of us except you.

Tubbythin said:
How is that a mistake? It is completely true.
Click to expand...
Only in real physics, not in Farsight PhysicsTM.
 
DHamilton said:
DC, really, what does the whether or not I've published a peer reviewed paper have to do with whether or not I'm discussing something new and revolutionary?
Click to expand...
Publishing a peer reviewed paper is the difference between you discussing a new and revolutionary fantasy and discussing a new and revolutionary scientific hypothesis.

The peer review system is the process filtering out obvously invalid science.

You are wrong: Drs Barry Marshall and Robin Warren published their work in a peer reviewed journal: Warren JR, Marshall BJ. Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration. Lancet 1984;1(8390):1311-1315
It did take time (about a decade) for these results to be verified and accepted by the medical community. The point emphasized in the Noble Prize speech was that they did no just give up. The continued to present evidence for their hypothesis.

On the other hand we have you.
As far as I can see you have had basically the same fantasy since 1994 when you first proposed a fusion reactor. What you have now (18 years later) is a cartoon picture of a fusion reactor :eye-poppi!
You are still citing the same "evidence" for your fantasy as in 2001 which is none.
You remain unable to understand that the physics that your idea that the strong interaction is the electromagnetic interaction is so easily debunked that it becomes a fantasy. For example:
  • The strong interaction is stronger than the electromagnetic interaction.
  • All of the billions of particle collisions support the strong interaction being a separate interaction.
  • We have detected the mediating particles of the strong interaction and they are not photons (the mediators of the electromagnetic interaction).
  • Experiments show that the strong force acually exists. This starts with Rutherford scattering. As you increase the energy of the scattered particles, the formula using Coulomb forces fails (Departure From Rutherford Formula) :eye-poppi! The only way to explain this is a different short range attractive force.
P.S. DHamilton: What is a "time rate gradient structure"?
 
Tubbythin said:
That's just depressing. All the beautiful real physics he could have learnt in that time...
Click to expand...
Even more depressing is that he had this idea 18 years ago. He could have solved the world's energy problems by simply learning enough physics and engineering to construct his fusion reactor. Instead he has drawn a cartoon on a web site :boggled:!
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, and learn you use the quote function correctly.



And your motivation to claim it's wrong comes from what measurement of differential gravitational acceleration for electrons and protons? Oh, that's right - there is no such measurement.

I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere to disprove general relativity.
Click to expand...

Oh... this is rich! And you have a measurement of differential gravitational acceleration for electrons and protons? The answer that you must give is 'no' because no experiment has yet been designed to look for this... yet the existence of heavy dark matter that accumulates at places of great gravitational acceleration is the 'experiment' that the universe itself has presented to us. No electrons there, so the matter which has accumulated at such places is of nuclear density only (not atomic density which is at least one trillionth that of nuclear density) ... and also because there are no electrons then there can be no emission of electromagnetic radiation which has as its source, electrons falling down to lower energy states. It is looking at the same data that we already have (available to all of us) in a different way that allows us to make breakthroughs. Obviously, you've qualified yourself to be in that class of intellectual beings that cannot appreciate the increase of True knowledge by looking for alternative explanations for the data. You love the darkness that you are in and because of that love of pseudo-knowledge, then more pseudo-knowledge will be your reward.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Isn't neutron decay part of the standard model? I thought we were throwing out the standard model.

Or are we cherry picking the parts that we like?
Click to expand...

Neutron decay has been observed in the laboratory... it didn't arise because the 'standard model' predicted it! It is part of the fundamental physics of the universe. I will always embrace actual physical phenomena but not always embrace the 'accepted explanations' for why the phenomena occurs. How is it that you have decided to include yourself by using the pronoun 'we'? You're not part of me in the sense of being in agreement with me so you are not entitled to use the condescending 'we' unless you wish to demonstrate your condescension and by the timbre of your post ... you've done that most pointedly and hence have simultaneously demonstrated your unbearable arrogance and witlessly have shown that you have no spirit that pursues the Truth but wish rather to castigate those who do. God bless the 'ignore' function that allows one to rid themselves of such dark spirits as you.
 
DHamilton said:
Neutron decay has been observed in the laboratory... it didn't arise because the 'standard model' predicted it! It is part of the fundamental physics of the universe. I will always embrace actual physical phenomena but not always embrace the 'accepted explanations' for why the phenomena occurs. How is it that you have decided to include yourself by using the pronoun 'we'? You're not part of me in the sense of being in agreement with me so you are not entitled to use the condescending 'we' unless you wish to demonstrate your condescension and by the timbre of your post ... you've done that most pointedly and hence have simultaneously demonstrated your unbearable arrogance and witlessly have shown that you have no spirit that pursues the Truth but wish rather to castigate those who do. God bless the 'ignore' function that allows one to rid themselves of such dark spirits as you.
Click to expand...

Truth? Dark spirits? Are you a Fundie?
 
DHamilton said:
Oh... this is rich! And you have a measurement of differential gravitational acceleration for electrons and protons? The answer that you must give is 'no' because no experiment has yet been designed to look for this...
Click to expand...

Sure it has. An electron-proton gravity difference would show up in tests of the weak equivalence principle, i.e. torsion balances that try to compare the weight of 1kg of lead to the weight of 1kg of lithium. "But lead and lithium have the same p/e ratio", you say? Not in mass terms. The protons in lead are modified---and lightened---by the surrounding nuclear matter. The electrons in lead are modified---and made heavier, for lead-mass-measurement purposes---by substantially-relativistic velocities near the inner shell. If the proton rest mass and the electron rest mass have different gravitational effects, that's fine to first order ... but there's no way it can be the same effect in a light element vs. a heavy one.
 
DHamilton said:
Neutron decay has been observed in the laboratory... it didn't arise because the 'standard model' predicted it! It is part of the fundamental physics of the universe. I will always embrace actual physical phenomena but not always embrace the 'accepted explanations' for why the phenomena occurs. How is it that you have decided to include yourself by using the pronoun 'we'? You're not part of me in the sense of being in agreement with me so you are not entitled to use the condescending 'we' unless you wish to demonstrate your condescension and by the timbre of your post ... you've done that most pointedly and hence have simultaneously demonstrated your unbearable arrogance and witlessly have shown that you have no spirit that pursues the Truth but wish rather to castigate those who do. God bless the 'ignore' function that allows one to rid themselves of such dark spirits as you.
Click to expand...

Ouch!
 
aggle-rithm said:
Ouch!
Click to expand...

You must be one of the Lords Of The Dark Face

‘The Lords of the storm are approaching. Their chariots are nearing the land. One night and two days only shall the Lords of the Dark Face (the Sorcerers) live on this patient land. She is doomed, and they have to descend with her. The nether Lords of the Fires (the Gnomes and fire Elementals) are preparing their magic Agneyastra (fire-weapons worked by magic). But the Lords of the Dark Eye (“Evil Eye”) are stronger than they (the Elementals) and they are the slaves of the mighty ones. They are versed in Ashtar (Vidya, the highest magical knowledge).* Come and use yours (i.e., your magic powers, in order to counteract those of the Sorcerers). Let every lord of the Dazzling Face (an adept of the White Magic) cause the Viwan of every lord of the Dark Face to come into his hands (or possession), lest any (of the Sorcerers) should by its means escape from the waters, avoid the rod of the Four, (Karmic deities) and save his wicked’ (followers, or people).-H.P. Blavatsky
 
dafydd said:
Truth? Dark spirits? Are you a Fundie?
Click to expand...

What is a Fundie? Do you mean a fundamentalist? Any person who is dedicated to that which cannot be demonstrated to be true and who prefers to impose their viewpoint on others is someone I might consider to be a fundamentalist. For example, people who say the the Christian Bible is inerrant and true and the Word of God... I consider to be fundamentalists. People who believe Mohammed was God's Prophet and that they can embrace terrorism related to the interpretation of some Imam or Ayatollah also fall into my definition of fundamentalism. But I also consider people who believe that so-called 'scientific' theories that cannot be substantiated by data, experiment and deductive logic are true to also be fundamentalists, albeit of a different sort, as to what they choose to believe. But the fact that none of the above have any dedication to finding and using methods to arrive at certainties puts them, really, in the same camp. Bearing that definition in mind, are you a fundamentalist? Are you dedicated to finding and embracing certainties considering your life or the universe in which you live? Maybe you are a mixture? Newton, for example, was probably a Bible fundamentalist but when it came to physical science (including mathematics) I am convinced he only wished to find and embrace certainties and indicated in writing that he didn't wish to speculate on things he couldn't prove (such as the cause of gravity). Your message seems to emerge from some hate that you harbor. Are you a hateful person or are you a person of reason and respect for others? Do you embrace the notion that people have the unalienable right to believe whatever they wish even if it conflicts with what you believe? For example, would it be a perfect world, in your mind, if everyone was in agreement with you on all matters. Does your ability to hate people based upon their beliefs extend to you wishing them to be destroyed out of the world that you inhabit? Don't be shy... tell us what is really in your heart or mind or brain, or wherever it is that you believe is the place that your intellect and capacity to reason resides, or from whence it emerges. Can you do that?
 
Last edited:
Do you embrace the notion that people have the unalienable right to believe whatever they wish even if it conflicts with what you believe?
Click to expand...

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Fact is...your grasp of physics is largely fantasy.

What separates a good theory from a bad one is that the good one works. It produces results. It has to do with predicting physical processes accurately, which current theories do very well.


What has yours produced... other than wasting years of your life arguing with people who know a lot more than you do about the subject?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom