0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Non sequitur.
I know your information, and your information reads like that in logic.
Quote from: alancalverdNon 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.phpIn 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,
Antiferromagnetically coupled mesoporous fermions exchange free energy quanta in the unrestricted time domain with quadrupolar contributions from confined bosonic antimatter.
Surprise, surprise! I almost fell out of my chair when I read TB's comment here. He's actually correct on this point.
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.
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.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 09/05/2015 14:01:47Surprise, 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:Quote from: Thebox on 09/05/2015 15:03:30I 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.Quote from: PmbPhy on 09/05/2015 14:01:47The 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. BoxLooking 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 secretThese 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.Quote from: Thebox on 09/05/2015 15:22:57see new model here - http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1368554#p1368554
....... less dense less mass ........
Quote from: Thebox on 10/05/2015 11:05:07....... less dense less mass ........NO, NO, NOI 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.
very simple physics.
Quote from: Thebox on 10/05/2015 15:37:13very simple physics.Whatever it is it isn't physics, 'box physics' ?Confused, convoluted thinking = thought spaghetti! result = word spaghettiResponses 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!