1

New Theories / Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?

« on: 30/01/2019 10:32:22 »

Why do you refer to Uranium nucleus?
I don't know how you get those numbers, and how to isolate a single atom nucleus from interaction with its environment, including orbiting electrons and adjacent other atoms to measure the binding energy.

By the way, your model also violates conservation of lepton number. When a tritium nucleus decays into a helium-3 nucleus, it releases an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. If the atomic nucleus contains neutrons, this is not a problem. If, however, there is a proton and electron in the nucleus instead of a neutron, then the net lepton number before and after the decay are different.

What are the lepton numbers of those particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number#Violations_of_the_lepton_number_conservation_laws

2

New Theories / Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?

« on: 29/01/2019 09:55:35 »

Care to show those calculations?That model doesn't work anyway, since we know that neutrons exist.and they aren't simply a proton plus an electron.

Let's say an electron is placed in the origin of a coordinate. Three protons are arranged in equilateral triangle 1 length unit away from the electron in a flat plane. Thus, the distance between protons is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateral-triangle-heights.svg

Electrostatic electric force by electron to each proton is attractive. The magnitude is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between electron and proton. In this case it's 1.
The repulsive force between protons is thus 1/3.
Combined repulsive force by other proton is
= ≈ 0.577
Hence for each proton, total attractive force is larger than total repulsive force.
The existence of particles other than electron and proton, such as neutron, muon, as well as any other particles doesn't prove nor disprove the argument above, hence it's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

3

New Theories / Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?

« on: 29/01/2019 09:00:34 »

The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium-2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.

How much is the strong force?
why not decay to hydrogen-1?

4

New Theories / Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?

« on: 23/01/2019 06:45:21 »

Then I can use helium-3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium-3 nucleus.

How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium-3, but fails to do so in Helium-2?

If Helium-3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.

5

New Theories / Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?

« on: 22/01/2019 10:39:10 »

He says that if you model a pair of protons as two black holes, the gravitational force between them turns out to be equal to the strength of the strong force. To be fair, a pair of proton-mass black holes could have an attractive force acting between them that was equal to what we call the strong force if they were sufficiently close together. The problem with this, however, is that the electrical repulsion between those charged black holes is going to increase at the exact same rate as the gravitational attraction is. So changing the distance between those black holes will actually have no affect on how strongly they attract or repel each other (and the repulsion will be much, much higher).One could get around that problem if you posit that the inverse-square law ceases to operate for gravity and/or the electromagnetic force at extremely tiny distances, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Even if you did make a model where that was true, then it would need to explain why it doesn't work for many different particles. Electrons, muons and tau particles all have mass, so they should be able to bind together using the strong force if the strong force is a form of gravity. Yet they don't.Then there are particle experiments that demonstrate the existence of gluon particles, which were predicted in advance in order to explain how the strong force operates. The strong force also has its own conservation laws that do not apply to gravity (hypercharge and color charge).

The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_(diproton)
Proton also has non-zero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

6

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 18/01/2019 11:04:14 »

Instead of reducing population by force, it would be much more effective and efficient to educate them properly. They should be introduced to logic and logical fallacies as soon as they understand languages. Hopefully they can get maximum advantages from incoming information using their logic, while avoiding erroneous conclusions from logical fallacies.

7

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 17/01/2019 21:56:23 »

Almost the whole volume of the universe is nearly empty space. Hence if we want to maximize the probability to survive, we need to adapt to live there. Freely and actively, not just dormant, independent from any naturally occuring heavenly body. It doesn't mean that we must be able to live there alone and naked. We can create artificial environment such as city size spaceships which are self sustainable. We can utilize symbiosis with other life forms, including non-biological ones. Shortly, whatever it takes to achieve universal ultimate goal.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 16/01/2019 21:31:26 »

. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings.

Please define consciousness.If humans represent the highest level of it, then consciousness appears to be defined by a tendency to self-harm, genocide, irrational belief, or the deliberate destruction of food to support market prices.

I've mentioned that consciousness is multidimensional. We can make comparison among conscious beings by how far ahead they can make plans or prepare their actions. Other key performance indicators are information processing speed, memory capacity and reliablility, which determine how well their mind represents reality, which in turn determine the success probability of their goal achievements. Their ability to filter incoming information is also important to prevent them from making false assumptions which lead to bad decisions and unexpected results.
Humans who destroy their environment don't think very far ahead, hence their consciousness level isn't much higher than other species. Intelligence of smart animals are often compared to that of human children at certain age.

9

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 16/01/2019 21:15:05 »

As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.

Far from it.

If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.

If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.

If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.

The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.

So you think fewer human is better. How low can you go? Is zero the best? What do you propose to get there? Do you agree with the genius who makes all people to stop reproducing as I mentioned in a previous post in this topic?
How do you define what's better or worst morally then?

10

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 16/01/2019 04:30:00 »

The default is to give strangers the benefit of the doubt and, like every other animal, to give preference to our own species in the absence of any other information. But given the choice between Donald Trump and a chicken, I'd save the chicken every time.

As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings. Hence, preservation of human is inline with the universal moral rule.
More number of human individuals can increase the probability of the achievement of ultimate goal through redundancy, and in lesser extent, diversity as its side effect. But due to economic law of diminishing marginal utility, at some point, increasing the number of human individuals are no longer beneficial to the overall achievement of ultimate goal. In some cases, it can even be beneficial to lower the threshold of death penalty.

11

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 16/01/2019 03:32:31 »

What makes humans special is other humans. From the point of view of every other species (except dogs) we are either food, competition for food, or predators. Nothing special. Even dogs have an equivocal attitude: one or two familiar dogs may help you hunt or protect you, but "dog eats baby" is an everyday headline and a hungry pack will happily kill an adult.Forming packs is nothing unusual. Termites and bees have a hugely structured society that plans ahead. Ants even farm other animals. Warfare between packs is usually rational (wolves defend their hunting territory against other packs) and occasionally irrational (marauding bands of male chimpanzees attack other families for no apparent reason) but only humans kill each other at long range because they think that their chosen enemy worships a different god - or none at all.The extent to which humans will exert themselves to make poisons like tobacco or methamphetamine, to climb ice-covered rocks, or to jump out of aeroplanes, is unparalleled. The best definition of intelligence is "constructive laziness", and it's a surprisingly rare commodity, whereas its opposite is abundant and even revered as "art" or "philosophy".

Humanity can be seen as successor of our ancestors. If we trace back far enough, they won't be recognized as human. Similarly, our far future successors may not be recognized as human. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings. The gap with the next group is quite significant.
Self preservation is one of important shortcut rule of morality. Due to the advantage of collaboration, the coverage can be expanded to include other beings having the same (or at least, compatible) goal.

12

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 15/01/2019 22:27:14 »

What happens if aliens turn up and apply our moral standards to us with the roles reversed? If we complain about their insistence that they matter and that we don't, they'll just tell us that we're primitive animals because we were stupid enough to consider ourselves to be superior to them, whereas if we hadn't made that mistake, they'd have recognised us as their equals. Getting morality wrong is to sign your own death warrant.

High level of consciousness is manifested in the form of wisdom, which includes avoiding unnecessary risks. We should avoid mutual destruction, such as what we felt during cold war.
If the aliens really have high conscious level, they should know the answer to how question to achieve universal ultimate goal. One of them is embracing diversity to avoid common mode of failure. It requires collaboration among various beings, including other intelligent beings.
Humanity itself is a product of collaboration with gut bacteria. All multicellular organisms are product of endosymbiosis. The collaboration will include non-biological system to maximize the probability to achieve the goal.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 15/01/2019 21:54:19 »

Pleasure and pain are shortcut rules to simplify the moral calculation. They are so simple that even organisms with much lower level of consciousness than average human can follow, which are to seek for pleasure and avoid pain. They can be bypassed by tinkering with neurotransmitters, such as by using drugs or liquors. Physical pain can be reduced by ice pack.

14

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 15/01/2019 11:36:31 »

AFAIK, inteligent beings only exist on earth. Humans are the only extant species with adequate consciousness to define and follow moral rules. Only they have technological advancement to protect themselves from foreseeable mass extinction events such as asteroid strike or swelling of the sun.

15

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 15/01/2019 01:37:10 »

It's [homo sapiens] currently the only known form of conscious being who is self sustainable.

I thin you are using a very narrow definition of conscious and a very broad definition of self-sustainable. We survive by collaboration and exploitation, and nobody on these boards has ever, to my knowledge, offered a useful definition of "conscious" that excluded any other species of plant or animal.

You're right. It turns out very hard to point out what makes human so special among other life forms which grant them higher priority if morality rules. But still, most people will argue that if a stranger human being and any other life forms are on each side of trolley problem's track, they will choose to save the human. Choosing otherwise will make them branded as immoral.
I've tried to describe the continuum of consciousness in post #74 and #104 based on complexity of rules can be followed by a system. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg561788#msg561788
We can compare consciousness among systems by their capability to make plans on time scale.
Continuum of consciousness spans from zero such as in rocks to infinity such as in Laplace's Demon.
Consciousness can even vary within a single individual, from when they were fetus, baby, kids, adult, elderly.

16

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 13/01/2019 22:50:36 »

When dealing with a dilemmatic situation, we should take the option which has better effects to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal by considering available resources. Those include time, energy, matter, tools, finance, labor/workforces, space, data processing power, knowledge or information. When the effects are equal or uncertain, we should take the option which uses less resources. Here we need to consider the economic law of diminishing marginal utility.

17

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 13/01/2019 22:18:08 »

There is no special form of morality for humans - morality, when done correctly, is universal, applying to animals, aliens and to all sentient things. Any attempt to define morality which excludes some sentient things because they don't fit the rules of that system is wrong, as is any attempt that has a bias towards humans.

That's what I'm trying to prove here. Thanks for your contributions in this discussion. Critical thinkers like you are what I need to help me build a convincing argumentation by pointing out errors, uncover my blind spots, proposing possible alternatives and providing valuable new information.

18

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 13/01/2019 15:38:05 »

I'll recap my assertion into following points:
1. There exists law of causality. Otherwise everything happens randomly, hence there's no point in making plans or responding to anything. In making a plan, a goal must be set, and some rules must be defined to respond to expected situations while executing it, so the goal can be achieved effectively.
2. Moral rules only apply to conscious beings. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being is  one of the highest priority moral rules, if not the highest. If someone can propose another moral rule with even higher priority, it is necessary to have at least one conscious being to follow it. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being gets back as the highest priority.

3. We should evaluate action/decision based on their effect to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal. Due to imperfect information that we have and uncertainty of the far future, we may not be able to finish complete calculation in time. That's why we need rule of thumb, shortcut or simplified calculation to speed up the result while mostly produce correct answers. Hence the calculation output will take the form of probability or likelyhood.
4. The moral calculation should be done using scientific method, which is objective, reliable, and self correcting when new information is available. Good intentions when done in the wrong way will give us unintended results.

19

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 13/01/2019 10:37:25 »

We can take some lessons from the development from Alpha Go to Alpha Zero. Alpha Go learnt to play the game based on experience of human players until it beaten the best human in the game. On the other hand, Alpha zero discards those experiences and starts from zero. It turns out that Alpha Zero is the winner.
Learning from human experience has advantages by discarding most of ineffective moves, hence the calculation to get best strategy can be done efficiently. But there is a drawback: it can miss some moves that don't seem to give advantages until far into the next steps of the game, beyond the calculation capability of human brains.

20

Just Chat! / nRe: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 13/01/2019 10:09:16 »

In preserving humanity we should be open minded to the idea that our current life form can be improved to increase the probability of our survival. As scientific researches in evolutionary biology told us, if we trace back far enough, we came from ancestors who are not human. If our primate ancestors decide that their life form is the best possible one, hence refuse to mutate and evolve into something else, or our bacterial ancestors develop mechanisms to stop mutations completely, we won't be here to discuss morality in the first place.
They can be seen as stepping stones or scaffoldings to give us a chance to exist. Perhaps our successors will see us the same way.