• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

pedrone said:
There are people in the internet who did not discover yet the existence of the Google
Click to expand...

And you are rude for not explaining yourself, I have not been rude to you. It is up to you to explain how you intend that phrase to apply to your statement. I know what the defintion is, I am asking you, how does it apply to what you said?

Are you a rude person?
Are you unable to understand what you mean or just unwilling to explain yourself?
 
People with genuine fringe ideas can elicit interesting discussions in a way that this kind of trolling doesn't.
Click to expand...

That is very true.

Not much else to say. That is why I hate trolls. It's often interesting to take a trip off the edge of science... but this is just stupid.
 
Sideroxylon said:
People with genuine fringe ideas can elicit interesting discussions in a way that this kind of trolling doesn't. This thread is going off my subscription list.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there as well. I am putting him back on ignore, and taking this thread off my subscriptions.

RobDegraves said:
That is very true.

Not much else to say. That is why I hate trolls. It's often interesting to take a trip off the edge of science... but this is just stupid.
Click to expand...

:D
 
pedrone said:
Here are the words by Eisberg and Resnick in Portuguese:
Se fizermos a hipótese de que a distribuição de protons no nucleo é a mesma que a distribuiçao de neutrons (existem certas evidências para essa hipótese), então...

Here is the translation by the Google translator:
If we make the assumption that the distribution of protons in the nucleus is the same as the distribution of neutrons (there is some evidence for this hypothesis), then ...
Click to expand...
pedrone, as noted previously (Where are the deuterons, pedrone?), this quote does not support your assertion that neuceons in nuclei exists as deutrons.
All it says is that the the authors will assume protons and neutrons have the same distribution in the nucleus.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The result is not the same result obtained by experiments.
The neutron electric dipole moment has never been measured. What has been measured is an upper limit to its value.
The absolute value of the neutron electric dipole moment is beween zero and 2.9×10−26 e·cm (as of 2006).
Click to expand...
:D
Are you drinking drugs ?
:D
There is NOT any calculation of the electric dipole moment of neutron in the pages 100 and 101 of book Quantum Ring Theory, posted here.

The calculation shown in the pages 100 and 101 is regarding the calculation of the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron
:p:p:p:p:p

Reality Check
go back to Alice Wonderland
:D:D:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The theoretical result derived by Guglinski is wrongly calculated.

His treatment starts with wanting to find the proton radious.
If the proton is considered as a point particle then it has no radius.
If the proton is considered as a composite particle then there are several different radii, e.g. when the quark density is a certain % or the
Click to expand...
:p
Guglinski used in his calculation the radius of proton inferred from a graphic shown in Eisberg and Resnick book, obtained from experimental data.
:rolleyes:

Definitively, dear Reality Check
there is no way to consider you seriously
:p
 
pedrone said:
:D
Are you drinking drugs ?
:D
There is NOT any calculation of the electric quadrupole moment of neutron in the pages 100 and 101 of book Quantum Ring Theory, posted here.

The calculation shown in the pages 100 and 101 is regarding the calculation of the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron
:p:p:p:p:p

Reality Check
go back to Alice Wonderland
:D:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...
Reality Check made a mistake in reading. Wow!

Why are you so obsessed with smillies, pedrone?


So lets look at what Guglinski did on these 2 pages:
  1. He ignored the actual measured radius of the proton.
  2. He tried to derive a new measure of the for the radius of the proton from the structure of nuclei.
  3. He then used that radius and got the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of thedeuteron of 3.0 * 10 -31 m2.
    He also has the wrong units but is is common to use units where the charge of an electron is set to 1.
  4. He then changed the proton radius to another value with te excuse that experimental data are not exact!
    That is ignorant. The scientific method of doing this is to put the experimental uncertainties into the equation and get a range for the electric dipole moment.
  5. He still gets the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron of 2.7 * 10 -31 m2.
The measured electric quadrupole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm2.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
pedrone, as noted previously (Where are the deuterons, pedrone?), this quote does not support your assertion that neuceons in nuclei exists as deutrons.
All it says is that the the authors will assume protons and neutrons have the same distribution in the nucleus.
Click to expand...
:D
So, it's not necessary to be a genius to understand that, as they have the same distribution in the nucleus, then of course they are in the form of deuterons, because:

1- In a distance of the range of 2F the interaction by strong force actuates between proton and neutron.

2- As the protons and neutrons have the same distribution, and as the diameter of the nuclei has the order of 15F, there is no chance the proton and neutron with the same distribution do not form a deuteron.

2- Only Reality Check, with the power of his paranormal mind:D, is able to separate one proton and one neutron interacting by the strong force within the nucei
:p
:p
:p
 
pedrone said:
As the Yukawa stupid model was replaced by the quark model , of course that 2% of accuracy has gone directly to the garbage box
:D:p:D
Click to expand...
Idiotically expressed but you are right:
Determination of deuteron quadrupole moment from calculations of the electric field gradient in D2 and HD Michele Pavanello, Wei-Cheng Tung, and Ludwik Adamowicz 2010
The derived value is Q=0.285783(30) fm2.
Click to expand...
The 2% accuracy has gone directly to the garbage box and replaced with a 0.001% accuracy :jaw-dropp!
 
pedrone said:
Guglinski used in his calculation the radius of proton inferred from a graphic shown in Eisberg and Resnick book, obtained from experimental data.
Click to expand...
I know that the graphic shown in Eisberg and Resnick book was obtained from experimental data.

The fact that Guglinski did this calculation just makes him seem ignorant because the charge radius of a proton has been directly measured in experiments. It is not what he came up with. So his calculation is wrong.

The reason that he did it this way seems to be so that he could ignore his result and arbitrarily set the proton radius to a value that does not actually give the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron from his equation. But it is close enough for a crackpot book.
 
Dancing David said:
You did not answer my question, so let me try again.

What causes hot fusion to occur Pedrone?

Coulomb's law law says that the force repeling the protons apart will get stronger the closer that they get. So higher pressure means that they will repel each other more strongly.

So what happens to cause two protons to fuse?

I asked you and it is relevant to a prior statement of yours.

Iteration2
Click to expand...
There is not fusion between two protons.

In the sun hot fusion occurs thanks to the high gravity, and so two deuterons fuse and form 2He4

In cold fusion there are several mechanisms, depending on as the experiment is made.

It seems in Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment the main contribution is due to repulsive gravity.

Attractive gravity and repulsive gravity have the magnitude of the electromagnetism:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3268


The scientific community thinks wrongly that the interaction by gravitons is 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism.

Gravity as a macroscopic phenomenon (as discovered by Newton) is a combination of interactions by two sort of gravitons:

Repulsive gravitons
Attractive gravitons

The interaction by repulsive gravitons is a little weaker than the interaction by attractive gravitons.

Such "soup" of gravitons cause a resultant macroscopic gravity 1040 times weaker then electromagnetism.

However, in special conditions near to nuclei, only the attractive gravity actuates, and so it helps the cold fusion, since it has the magnitude of the electromagnetism.
However, cold fusion occurs through resonance, in special conditions, and so the gravity only helps its occurrence.
Gravity ifself, alone, cannot produce cold fusion
 
pedrone said:
So, it's not necessary to be a genius to understand that, as they have the same distribution in the nucleus, then of course they are in the form of deuterons, because:

1- In a distance of the range of 2F the interaction by strong force actuates between proton and neutron.

2- As the protons and neutrons have the same distribution, and as the diameter of the nuclei has the order of 15F, there is no chance the proton and neutron with the same distribution do not form a deuteron
Click to expand...
So, it's not necessary to be a genius to understand that, as they have the same distribution in the nucleus, then of course they have the same distribution in the nucleus and this states nothing about whether they pair up or not


We know that they do not pair up because
  1. The strong force is dominant between at the range of 2 fm
    • protons and protons,
    • neutrons and neutrons
    • and protons and neutrons .
  2. As the protons and neutrons have the same distribution, and as the diameter of the nuclei has the order of 15 fm and the nucleons are arranged in shells, there is no chance the proton and neutron with the same distribution can form a deuteron.
Maybe the first point is the problem, pedrone: You do know that the strong force acts between all nucleons?

P.S. Where are the deuterons, pedrone? in that quote?

Where are the protons and neutrons forming deuteron in any nuclear physics textbook?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
[/LIST]Maybe the first point is the problem, pedrone: You do know that the strong force acts between all nucleons?
Click to expand...
:D
I know,
but it seems you dont know the following:

1- There NO exist diprotons (but there is strong force between two protons)

2- There NO exist dineutrons (but there is strong force between two neutrons)

3- But deuterons, YES, they do exist


Therefore, only deuterons can be formed within the nuclei.
:rolleyes:
 
pedrone said:
Attractive gravity and repulsive gravity have the magnitude of the electromagnetism:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3268
Click to expand...
Wrong: That web page shows what scientists have known for centuries:
The equations of gravity and electromagnetism look alike.
​
pedrone said:
The scientific community thinks wrongly that the interaction by gravitons is 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism.
Click to expand...
The scientific community does not think this at all.
The scientific community knows that the coupling constants of the gravitational forces and electromagnetic forces differ by a factor of 10-39. This is commonly used as an indication of the relative strengths of the forces in general.
The actual strengths of the 2 forces depends on the physical situation. There are situations when gravity is very much weaker than electromagnetism (e.g. in atomic nuclei).
There are situations when gravity is very much stronger than electromagnetism (e.g. in stars).

pedrone said:
Gravity as a macroscopic phenomenon (as discovered by Newton) is a combination of interactions by two sort of gravitons:

Repulsive gravitons
Attractive gravitons
Click to expand...
Really wrong: Gravitons have no charge. They neither repulse nor attract.
 
Reality Check said:
Reality Check made a mistake in reading. Wow!

Why are you so obsessed with smillies, pedrone?


So lets look at what Guglinski did on these 2 pages:
  1. He ignored the actual measured radius of the proton.
  2. He tried to derive a new measure of the for the radius of the proton from the structure of nuclei.
  3. He then used that radius and got the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of thedeuteron of 3.0 * 10 -31 m2.
    He also has the wrong units but is is common to use units where the charge of an electron is set to 1.
  4. He then changed the proton radius to another value with te excuse that experimental data are not exact!
    That is ignorant. The scientific method of doing this is to put the experimental uncertainties into the equation and get a range for the electric dipole moment.
  5. He still gets the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron of 2.7 * 10 -31 m2.
The measured electric quadrupole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm2.
Click to expand...
Andrea Rossi cold fusion reactor will show who is wrong
:D​
Do you know that cold fusion is impossible by considering a quark model of neutron?
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom