• 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

The hell is this thread, and why is it so full of....:p;):):D:(:mad::mad::mad::p ****ugliness?:D:D***** Ugly typefaces and colors, and full of em:rolleyes:tic:rolleyes:ns?

While I have not read one single word in this thread, I immediately know whose the that is "wrong." :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
:D
Reality Check, you have to change your fake name.
I suggest some names to you:

Fooling Myself
Reality gone to garbage
Fantasy Check
Reality Check on Wonderland
;)

I have one for you. He who knows bugger all about physics. Not so snappy,but apposite.
 
How about this...

Let's have one of our resident physics experts... a real one, not a pretend one like pedrone... come up with a standard physics problem, with math, that pedrone has to solve.

Just make sure it's not something you can look up on the net and let's have idiot boy solve it. Should be amusing at the very least.

Meanwhile I have a question for pedrone.


It's really obvious that your credibility here is exactly equal to zero.

Why do you stay?

Only a troll would have a reason to stay. Either you are a troll or you are an idiot. Which is it?
 
:D:D:D
The Man,
show me the experiments in which virtual mesons were detected.

As Reality check has already noted…


The idiocy within this question is obvious, pedrone: Virtual means that they exist for so short a time that they cannot be detested directly. Like all virtual particles we have to detect them by their effects.

From the link provided before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

However your nutron/protron mass quandary was not about virtual particles but a detectible mass difference involving detectable particles required for the decay of a neutron to a photon. That is the specific point you seem to be ignoring.

Again…

So evidently you’re just confusing, perhaps deliberately, real particles (involved in neutron decay) and virtual mesons (involved in strong froce interactions).


As you know, anything not comproved by experiments is pseudoscience

Comproved? What exactly is that? Theoretical models make predictions that are either supported or refuted by experiments. If you have some specific experimental evidence refuting Quantum Field Theory and virtual particles, by all means, please present it.

Yukawa model is not considered so long by scientific community.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean but mesons are still considered to be the mediators of the strong force between nucleons. This is what Yukawa predicted, if you have experimental evidence of some other mechanism for such interactions then by all means please present it.


Just because his model is stupid, it was replaced by the quark model of neutron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

No it is just because the quark model and more specifically QFT and QCD were not developed at that time that such a model developed, well, (some 30 years) later.

You again seem to be confusing, perhaps deliberately, a model for the neutron with a model for the interactions between nucleons.
 
The hell is this thread, and why is it so full of....:p;):):D:(:mad::mad::mad::p ****ugliness?:D:D***** Ugly typefaces and colors, and full of em:rolleyes:tic:rolleyes:ns?

While I have not read one single word in this thread, I immediately know whose the that is "wrong." :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

It's the sure sign of a crank. Why many cranks tend to do this is an interesting question.
 
This is precisely my point as well. I pointed that example out not to tweak you on that specific point - again, I'm no physicist, and I actually don't know squat about how spin is characterized - but rather, to point out your behavior. When confronted with a factual rebuttal, instead of acting like an honest participant, you acted just like a crank would. Hence, my lengthy post laying out how pseudoscience peddlers operate. Anyone would get defensive in the face of factual rebuttal, myself included, but you ceased trying to clarify your original point, you only grudgingly acknowledged the point, and then for some odd reason you continued to treat the very people offering you the correct answer as if they were still inferior and ignorant compared to you.

Nobody's looking for humility. Nobody's agitating for apology. All that anyone here is looking for is clarification of the original claim, and a fact based defesnse of it. Instead, we get the behaviors I outlined in my post.

No, I haven't put you on ignore yet, but I'm still tempted to. In the face of a fairly, decently educated crowd, you tried to play as if you were superior and you got slapped down for it. That right there is a signal that what you should do instead of playing superior is attempt to be superior by provding a superior argument. I'm not seeing that at all. Instead, I'm seeing continued obsession over minutiae and minor points. You shouldn't even have cherry picked from my post that single item; that's essentially surrendering the rest of the points I made as being correct.

Explain. Attempt to clarify. Use reason. That is the way to succeed in debate like this.

Ya know, I've only read up to this point thus far on the second page.

Anyone can make the claim they are superior in whatever field. I liken to sports. I grew up on baseball, and even nearly made a professional baseball team once a few year ago.

In sports, when it comes right down to it; if you speak a big game, you better damn well PLAY a big game. Any player who comes out on the field bragging about how "great" of a ball player they are before any game....if they end up committing an error, or whiffing on three straight strikes from the pitcher....they end up looking the complete fool, and will be PWNED by not only the opposing team, but by the spectators themselves (in this case, the "laymen" who know nothing about the subject, such as myself and ElMondoHummus.)

To put it into perspective of my own experience:

I went to a private Catholic school up until 8th grade. As I have said, I grew up playing the game of baseball. I am related to Mike Mussina, who dragged me and my twin brother out to the field every day whether we had practice or not, and would line us up and force us to take turns stepping into the batter's box in order to throw his dirtiest nastiest stuff at us. At the time, we were like 11 or 12, and he was like 20 or 21, and paying for Stanford! lol. But this experience has really made us into fine players.

By the time we were in 7th grade, we went from the elementary school, to the junior/senior high school (the building was 7th-12th.) My twin and I were the tiniest kids in the entire school, and our parents didn't have a lot of money. Needless to say, we were picked on, on a daily basis. But baseball was our life. So we tried out for the team.

Now, the rest of the boys were "popular," and we were not. We were laughed at and harrassed on a daily basis, and so we remained humble. We never even got a chance to show them what we had.

But we grew up with the other kids in our neighborhood. We played together on the same teams since the age of 6, and at the age of 12 (the year before our 7th grade year,) we made it all the way to regionals. We had to win just one more game to make it to the Little League World Series, which happens to be hosted in my hometown.

So, instead of playing for the 7th and 8th grade team, we played for our normal public Little League team. Our coach set up a scrimmage against our school. The rest of the boys knew about the scrimmage, and would tease us, and tell us how terrible we were because of our size. Just plain acting like ********. Little did they know, both my brother and I were the best lead-off hitters in the state (we know this for a fact, because of previous years, and being the leaders in stolen bases.)

Game time: I am first batter up, and the opposing pitcher is the most popular kid in our class. He is also the best basketball player. He's the tallest and the strongest kid in the class. Pretty much the most athletic. This was the ring-leader who talked a big game.

So, I come up, and he turns around and yells for the outfield to move in, and everyone else is yelling "No batter, no batter!!"

Very first pitch was a dumb hanging curve ball out over the plate. I connect with it, and purposely aim for his head. The ball flew like a rocket directly to where I was aiming, and barely got out the way.

My brother comes up, and I steal second on the catcher (who talked about his "great arm!" I then proceeded to steal third, which is the pitcher's third pitch of the game, and the count was 2-0. I then stole home in his fourth pitch. Only time I have ever stolen home in my life. Count is 3-0, and the fifth pitch in the game against my brother, ended up with a solo-HR. We were up 2-0.

By the end of the game, (it ended prematurely, because of the 10 run rule w had decided to implement) we had SLAUGHTERED Bishop Neumann by the score of 27-2. We had scored 15 runs in the last inning of play.

Of course, the coach normally doesn't allow us to run up the score. But he purposely did so this game, because he witnesses the idiotic arrogance of our classmates. He allowed us to continue to hit and steal and walk to knock them down a peg or two, and completely annihilate them.

The next day, most of the kids in the class were too embarrassed to look us in the eye. They know they acted the fools, and paid the price on their unfounded, idiotic, and arrogant pride.

Needless to say, the coach wanted to try out again. We refused, as we had a place to play on a good team. The school's 7th/8th grade team ended up with a record of 2-23, while my team went on to Regional play again, this time for the Senior league.
 
The hell is this thread, and why is it so full of....:p;):):D:(:mad::mad::mad::p ****ugliness?:D:D***** Ugly typefaces and colors, and full of em:rolleyes:tic:rolleyes:ns?

While I have not read one single word in this thread, I immediately know whose the that is "wrong." :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

... My eyes. Ow, my eyes... :covereyes



:p Yes, I understand your point about his posts, and I agree. But how in the world could I pass up an opportunity to make snark on the internet! :D
 
It's the sure sign of a crank. Why many cranks tend to do this is an interesting question.

Notice the lack of a proper coherent sentence structure as well. :D

While I was making that post, I had no idea what it would look like, but was giggling enthusiastically like a little girl as I was creating it. After I clicked "Submit Reply," I cackled like a moron. :blush:
 
... My eyes. Ow, my eyes... :covereyes



:p Yes, I understand your point about his posts, and I agree. But how in the world could I pass up an opportunity to make snark on the internet! :D

lol, the language awards thread brought this thread to my attention. I thought Belz was the first person to make a post like that in order to make fun. But I see he wasn't. :D

I will say though, that mine was the most creative. :p
 
Ben M,
the way you calculate it does not matter.

What is of interest is to fit the force of spin-interaction to the known laws of Physics


If you cannot fit it to the known laws of Physics, your calculation means NOTHING.
Your calculation is only a quantification of a physical phenomenon.
Actually you are unable to explain the phenomenon, and you dont know to explain how it occurs, because you dont know to explain it from the known laws of Physics.



Then, let's continue:



Ben M,
according to Modern Physics there are 4 fundamental forces in Nature:

1- gravity

2- electromagnetic

3- weak force

4- strong force

The question is:
in which those forces spin-interaction force fits in ?



In another words:
What is the NATURE of the spin-interaction force ?

Is it its nature:

gravitational ?

electromagnetic ?

weak force

strong force ?

Please tell us what is its nature.

I have to stop here once again.

DO NOT....and I mean...DO NOT!! EVER!! Use the underline function on an internet forum. It looks too much like you have provided an actual real link, to actual real evidence. As in:

If you cannot fit it to the known laws of Physics[/B], your calculation means NOTHING.

You had me believing for a second that you actually provided a real citation to something that had to do with the erroneous nature of his calculation. Alas, when my mouse pointer turned into the little vertical text line thing (forget what it's called,) I was disappointed, and your credibility sunk much further. Had you NOT underlined that, I would not have checked to see if it was a link, and I would not have been as disappointed, and you would have preserved at least SOME modicum of credibility.
 
Zig,
just the semantic debates which can point out the faillures of a theory.

If a theory is unable to survive to semantic debates involving the fundamental laws of Physics, then something is wrong with the theory. Probably something is missing in the theory.


This is a way to avoid fundamental questions that point out some deficiency of the theory.
To be pretty flexible dont solve the problem. The misfire continues in the theory.
And if everybody be flexible, the problem never will be solved.

If Einstein should be pretty flexible, he would not have developed the relativity.

Einstein didn't develop "the relativity." He developed the Theory of Relativity.

You are being incredibly flexible with your terminology in here. As someone who doesn't know much about science, I can see through your false claims.
 
In the book Quantum Physics, Eisberg an Resnick write:
"Though we dispose nowadays of a sufficient complete assembly of information about the nuclear forces, we realize that they are too much complexes, not having been possible up to now to use this cknowledge for building an extensive theory of the nuclei. In other words, we cannot explain the whole properties of nuclei in function of the properties of the nuclear forces that actuate on their protons and neutrons".

So, there are fundamental unanswered questions in Nuclear Physics. And the spin-interaction is one among them.

Wow, since I am no physicist, and have no clue what anyone is talking about in terms of spin-interaction, I can determine that this is probably not a good source. I have never heard of Eisberg of Resnick, but if they actually write in the fashion that is quoted here, I wouldn't even touch it as a source. There are at minimum three grammatical errors. Well, two grammatical errors, and one misspelling all within a single sentence. Since this is in
tags, I can only assume this is what is written exactly, word-for-word....letter-for-letter. If that is so, perhaps these Resnick and Eisberg people need to hit up elementary school and learn to read, write, and spell correctly.

Just sayin....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I don't think that his credentials are even all that important if he can show the math that illustrates the problems and his solutions for them. ...

If. Agreed.
But they'd be interesting nonetheless. If they existed.
If.
 
:confused:
It's not true.
See my reply No. 309
:)

No you did not. You used the word math in a sentence. You mentioned equations.

You did not show any equations. You did not point out the problems with the equations. You did not demonstrate a solution to those equations. Can you produce them? Otherwise, as I said previously, it's much the same as criticizing the editing of a story written in Japanese when you don't know the language in the first place. Where would you even start if you can't read the story much less understand the syntax used by Japanese to edit a story?

So how do you know there is a problem if you can't first demonstrate that you know the math? Without that at best you only have analogies based on approximate translations. And if your interpretations of those are wrong you are about 4 steps removed from knowing what you are talking about.
 
As well as his lack of learning. In this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7069341&postcount=392
he uses the word "mith" twice, in response to a post in which the word "myth" had the correct spelling.

I just read through the 5th page (This thread is freakin fun! My gosh, who knew such....nvm....could be so much fun!? :D

Anyway, the post you linked to was pretty hilarious. Not only did he directly respond to a post with the correct spelling for the word "myth," but the entire second sentence was great overall:

Yukawa model is a mith too.
And what is worst: a stupid mith

"What is worst," and that it was "stupid." A 7 word sentence with two mistakes, and a kindergarten-type word to describe something: "It is stupid!" Wow. :eye-poppi:D
 


Lagrangian

Newton developed the Mechanics considering forces that actuate in a system.
But often there is no way to know all the forces that actuate in a system, and then Hamilton and Lagrange developed a new method for the analysis of a system: instead to consider the forces, their method consider the energy of that system and its evolution along the time.
So, when a system is analysed, there is need to discover its equation, ie, its Lagrangian or Hamiltonian.

Modern Physics has been develloped from the method of Lagrange and Hamilton.

Schrödinger discovered the equation for the Atomic Physics.

The atom has an equation with an Hamiltonian: ih.dF/dt = HF


Now I ask to the experts in Nuclear Physics:

  • what is the Lagrangian of Nuclear Theory ?

  • what is the equation for the nucleus, and its Hamiltonian?

Doesn't Lagrange have to do with orbital physics about a planet? I know the Earth and all other bodies have what is known as the "Lagrangian points" or whatever.

What's that have to do with nuclear physics?
 
You know, the saying "All Greek to me" is supposed to be hyperbole, not literal description! [qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/CurseYou.gif[/qimg]

;)

I laughed. Mostly, I like the little head-banging smiley guy. He's a pretty cute little guy, that looks like he's mad at himself for not understanding Greek.
 

Back
Top Bottom