Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 09/05/2015 09:20:48
-
A Proton is said to be made up of 3 quarks, quarks being attracted to quarks, therefore in suggestion 3 quarks or a proton is attracted to other quarks/Protons.
-
Non sequitur.
-
Non sequitur.
What do you mean Non sequitur. Science says that the nuclei of an atom is a Proton, science also says that the Proton is made up of 3 quarks, these quarks obviously then must be attracted to each other and other quarks.
I know your information, and your information reads like that in logic.
-
I know your information, and your information reads like that in logic.
We bow to your superior knowledge and logic. I will from now on follow your lead:
2 H atoms bond together. Water contains H, oil contains H, therefore water bonds to oil.
QED a la Box.
-
Non sequitur.
Surprise, surprise! I almost fell out of my chair when I read TB's comment here. He's actually correct on this point. Go to:
http://freescienceengineering.library.elibgen.org/index.php
In the search window check the author radio button. Then type in the name David Griffiths. When it finishes click on Introduction to Elementary Particles by David Griffiths, 1987. It will then switch to a new window. In that window click on "Get it" and you'll be able to download the text from there. Turn to page 64 and study the diagram at the bottom of the page. Notice how it shows two protons in the diagram displayed in the diagram as an object consisting of three quarks.
The quarks in one proton interact with the quarks in the other proton exchanging pions. As Griffiths notes You will recognize here the remnants of Yukawa's pion-exchange model, but the process is enormously more complex that Yukawa ever imagined.
-
Non sequitur.
Surprise, surprise! I almost fell out of my chair when I read TB's comment here. He's actually correct on this point. Go to:
http://freescienceengineering.library.elibgen.org/index.php
In the search window check the author radio button. Then type in the name David Griffiths. When it finishes click on Introduction to Elementary Particles by David Griffiths, 1987. It will then switch to a new window. In that window click on "Get it" and you'll be able to download the text from there. Turn to page 64 and study the diagram at the bottom of the page. Notice how it shows two protons in the diagram displayed in the diagram as an object consisting of three quarks.
The quarks in one proton interact with the quarks in the other proton exchanging pions. As Griffiths notes You will recognize here the remnants of Yukawa's pion-exchange model, but the process is enormously more complex that Yukawa ever imagined.
I have no idea about pions. What I see is 3 quarks that have an entropy . the quarks act like a capacitor. and gain by thermodynamics and radiant energy (light) stored energy that is then released to maintain an equilibrium entropy. The release of energy opposing and equal to other quarks release of energy. The quarks want to join other quarks . But the equal and opposing energy release not allowing the quarks to join,
-
see new model here -
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1368554#p1368554
-
I have no idea about pions. What I see is 3 quarks that have an entropy . the quarks act like a capacitor. and gain by thermodynamics and radiant energy (light) stored energy that is then released to maintain an equilibrium entropy. The release of energy opposing and equal to other quarks release of energy. The quarks want to join other quarks . But the equal and opposing energy release not allowing the quarks to join,
Antiferromagnetically coupled mesoporous fermions exchange free energy quanta in the unrestricted time domain with quadrupolar contributions from confined bosonic antimatter.
-
The nonsequitur fails to sequit because quarks are charged. With 2 up quarks each with a charge of +2/3 and one down quark with a charge of -1/3, you end up with a net charge of +1, so there will be an electrostatic repulsion between protons, not an attraction. Hence the need for neutrons (which have a preponderance of down quarks) to help bind the nuclei of atoms with atomic number > 1.
-
Antiferromagnetically coupled mesoporous fermions exchange free energy quanta in the unrestricted time domain with quadrupolar contributions from confined bosonic antimatter.
That insight captures the very essence of bovine faeces.
-
Surprise, surprise! I almost fell out of my chair when I read TB's comment here. He's actually correct on this point.
One could assume the infinite monkeys theorem, however, he has probably been looking at the Wiki summary.
Typical TB he starts with useful info and goes and spoils it with:
I have no idea about pions. What I see is 3 quarks that have an entropy . the quarks act like a capacitor. and gain by thermodynamics and radiant energy (light) stored energy that is then released to maintain an equilibrium entropy. The release of energy opposing and equal to other quarks release of energy. The quarks want to join other quarks . But the equal and opposing energy release not allowing the quarks to join,
All he had to do was read further and he would get to Pion interactions.
The quarks in one proton interact with the quarks in the other proton exchanging pions. As Griffiths notes You will recognize here the remnants of Yukawa's pion-exchange model, but the process is enormously more complex that Yukawa ever imagined.
I looked into this area a while back following a jccc thread and discovered how complex but interesting it really is. As you will know the 3 quark is the net quark count and in reality (if such a thing exists!) the proton and neutron are a zoo of quarks, anti quarks and gluons.
Best description I found is Prof Matt Strassler http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-structure-of-matter/protons-and-neutrons/
He points out that the 'attraction' between quarks is due to gluons.
Box
Looking at your thread 'what makes an object fall ....' You are confusing nuclear attraction, gravity and mass. If you read the Wiki articles properly and the link above you might start to understand.
Gravity is not strong enough to explain the very strong attraction of proton and neutron, this is due to 'residual strong nuclear force'.
Yes, atoms have mass, yes atoms in large numbers give us larger mass and will have a gravitational attraction between those masses.
BUT, that still doesn't explain gravity. Yes, something is going on in the Higgs field that results in mass (of some things) but how mass affects spacetime and if there is a graviton is not yet known. We only see the top level, but people working in this area know that charge, quarks, pions, magnetism, voltage, amps etc are not responsible - if it was it would be a great discovery and wouldn't be kept secret
These are exciting times, but you need a lot of understanding and some very expensive equipment to work it out. Just inventing word spaghetti gets you no street cred at all.
Edit: your link is broken, it leads to an amateur fiction writing site.
see new model here -
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1368554#p1368554
-
The nonsequitur fails to sequit because quarks are charged. With 2 up quarks each with a charge of +2/3 and one down quark with a charge of -1/3, you end up with a net charge of +1, so there will be an electrostatic repulsion between protons, not an attraction. Hence the need for neutrons (which have a preponderance of down quarks) to help bind the nuclei of atoms with atomic number > 1.
A error in your logic.You agree with me without realising you have agreed.
The proton +1 charge emitted opposes +1 charge emitted of other protons.
without the charge protons are attracted to protons the same as quarks re attracted to quarks.
The charge is not the proton , you seem to be confusing 2 different things and making it one thing.
-
Surprise, surprise! I almost fell out of my chair when I read TB's comment here. He's actually correct on this point.
One could assume the infinite monkeys theorem, however, he has probably been looking at the Wiki summary.
Typical TB he starts with useful info and goes and spoils it with:
I have no idea about pions. What I see is 3 quarks that have an entropy . the quarks act like a capacitor. and gain by thermodynamics and radiant energy (light) stored energy that is then released to maintain an equilibrium entropy. The release of energy opposing and equal to other quarks release of energy. The quarks want to join other quarks . But the equal and opposing energy release not allowing the quarks to join,
All he had to do was read further and he would get to Pion interactions.
The quarks in one proton interact with the quarks in the other proton exchanging pions. As Griffiths notes You will recognize here the remnants of Yukawa's pion-exchange model, but the process is enormously more complex that Yukawa ever imagined.
I looked into this area a while back following a jccc thread and discovered how complex but interesting it really is. As you will know the 3 quark is the net quark count and in reality (if such a thing exists!) the proton and neutron are a zoo of quarks, anti quarks and gluons.
Best description I found is Prof Matt Strassler http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-structure-of-matter/protons-and-neutrons/
He points out that the 'attraction' between quarks is due to gluons.
Box
Looking at your thread 'what makes an object fall ....' You are confusing nuclear attraction, gravity and mass. If you read the Wiki articles properly and the link above you might start to understand.
Gravity is not strong enough to explain the very strong attraction of proton and neutron, this is due to 'residual strong nuclear force'.
Yes, atoms have mass, yes atoms in large numbers give us larger mass and will have a gravitational attraction between those masses.
BUT, that still doesn't explain gravity. Yes, something is going on in the Higgs field that results in mass (of some things) but how mass affects spacetime and if there is a graviton is not yet known. We only see the top level, but people working in this area know that charge, quarks, pions, magnetism, voltage, amps etc are not responsible - if it was it would be a great discovery and wouldn't be kept secret
These are exciting times, but you need a lot of understanding and some very expensive equipment to work it out. Just inventing word spaghetti gets you no street cred at all.
Edit: your link is broken, it leads to an amateur fiction writing site.
see new model here -
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1368554#p1368554
again you are not considering density, attached and unattached, less dense less mass, gravity emitted will not be strong it will almost be 0 and undetectable.
+ and - make a +- field cancelling each other out, a+b=c
pull and push at the same time,
the sun pushes the earths core, the earths core attracts solid matter that is not outputting a strong charge, the proton attracted to the core, the sun also attracts the solids, protons with less charge, this makes an orbit.
If we heated all the ground of the earth to equal the earths core, we will float away into space being pushed by the sun like the expansion of galaxies, the entropy out put of the entire isolated system being of he same polarity output, andromeda ha a slightly more negative entropy than the milkyway, so andromeda is beeing drawn towards us/
the suns heat rises/expands so does the cores .
entropy equilibrium is orbiting bodies.
If you can imagine a monopole + magnet accelerating away from another monopole magnet with the same polarity , in space with no external equal and opposing force the two monopole magnets will continue to expand according to Newtons laws of motion.
So if you imagine one of these monopole magnets travels through negative scarce particles, the negative particles willl gather on the monopoles magnet surface being an opposite polarity. Eventually the travelling monopole magnet gains more negative mass, eventually the negative mass slows down the travelling body attracted back along its own path to the other monopole magnetic.
A<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A
A+B>>>>>>A
monopole>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<dipole=orbit equilibrium
-
....... less dense less mass ........
NO, NO, NO
I can have 2 objects of equal mass but very different densities. Density is NOT part of the gravity equation.
Again you are hampered by your refusal to learn and understand very basic concepts. This is school level, one of the first things children learn in science.
The rest is more word spaghetti and I'm not going to waste my time answering it.
-
....... less dense less mass ........
NO, NO, NO
I can have 2 objects of equal mass but very different densities. Density is NOT part of the gravity equation.
Again you are hampered by your refusal to learn and understand very basic concepts. This is school level, one of the first things children learn in science.
The rest is more word spaghetti and I'm not going to waste my time answering it.
You know very well that it is not word spagetti, my simple monopole .dipole explanation explains it perfect.
a=monopole
a+b=dipole
a is attracted to a of ab
a is repelled by b of ab
very simple physics.
-
very simple physics.
Whatever it is it isn't physics,
'box physics' ?
Confused, convoluted thinking = thought spaghetti! result = word spaghetti
Responses like your posts here make me avoid getting involved in discussions with you. I could for example, have spent time going through the detail of your Binomial post and shown you how the probabilities work and how you can use it to your advantage. But I know you will just dis the effort and come back with your own weird theory, even though it will lose you money! I don't understand!
-
very simple physics.
Whatever it is it isn't physics,
'box physics' ?
Confused, convoluted thinking = thought spaghetti! result = word spaghetti
Responses like your posts here make me avoid getting involved in discussions with you. I could for example, have spent time going through the detail of your Binomial post and shown you how the probabilities work and how you can use it to your advantage. But I know you will just dis the effort and come back with your own weird theory, even though it will lose you money! I don't understand!
It is very strange that once science is put under pressure they resolve to name calling and accusations of the person being a troll as in the thread in main forum . It turns from a discussion into a lynch mob. Obviously these people have no self control, I am working 12 hour days , up at 5 am in the morning, and you really think I am a troll?
You really think that I have learnt no science in about 4 years?
Trolls do not bother to learn some of the maths etc.
Why is science so defensive over a nobody talking about science?
Why does a person in the other thread think people might even believe me, if I have no merit?
Why not just ban me like the rest of the forums do when I apply pressure on science about their own said facts?
Like i keep saying and have said before, I am not a scientist, but your information does not read to be true.
It is not my fault that your information is mostly bogus, and can be simply shown to be bogus.