Notices
Results 1 to 94 of 94

Thread: Grand Unified Theory

  1. #1 Grand Unified Theory 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    A New Gut Theory

    The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the only force that can not be unified. However, I would like to propose a theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while eliminating the strong and weak forces. This then would result in only one force which would be the electromagnetic (EMF) with its dual nature and which we know exists and thoroughly understand.
    The reason for this is simple. Gravity and EMF have three pronounced similarities. They both extend to infinity and are inversely proportional to the square of the distances from their sources. A recent similarity was announced that they both have the same transitional velocities. On the other hand, the other two nuclear forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.
    Now if the attraction component of the EMF is slightly greater than the repulsion component, by about 10^-37, this would create a gravitational effect equal to the force of gravity*.
    And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10^-14 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon (proton or neutron).
    Another fact to discredit the strong force is the lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8*, since these forces act like gravity being attractive only. Also, atomic mass number 6, and 5 if it existed, would have stronger binding forces (contact points) within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium nucleus which has the strongest binding force within the low mass range).
    With these discrepancies, the strong force cannot be the binding nuclear force.
    Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the nuclei referred to as the magic numbers.
    If the strong force does not exist, then what is the binding force within these nuclei?
    In the condensing regions of new star formations where the hydrogen atoms are compressed to very close proximities, then my theory is that the particles within these nuclei, trap an electron between two protons that are spinning at very high velocities where the outer portions approach the velocity of light and coupled with their high permeability to magnetic fields because of their high mass density, would create the strong binding force needed to hold these nucleons together. This would create a deuteron, that is a stable nucleus of the deuterium atom. The orientation of the magnetic fields and the direction of spin of these deuterons would bind to form the helium nucleus. The helium nucleus would reject a 5th particle as an odd un-balancing and unneeded component. These nuclei and portions of nuclei, could account for the missing mass numbers 5 and 8 as well as all the other characteristics.

    * Although I arrived at my theory independently, H. A. Lorentz, the famous physicist, had the same idea at the beginning of this century. Refer to “Progress in physics” by A. Shuster, pages 156-157.
    * Refer to “Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics” by H. Semat” 4th edition, p. 588.

    NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    My Lord NS,
    you crank these out faster than tachyons.

    Cheers,
    wm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I apologize for being disrespectful, but does anyone even read these anymore? I'm just curious
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Funny you mention that Neutrino...
    I posted on this thread without reading it....


    I did plan to though, but at a later time.

    Cheers,
    wm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    Can't see what all the fuss is about meself, A large iron magnet has mass, a gravitational pull, can conduct electricity, and is made of atoms, If that ain't unified everything I don't know what will! :wink:

    So ask the magnet!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the only force that can not be unified. However, I would like to propose a theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while eliminating the strong and weak forces
    Unaccepteblke. Goes against observations. Illogical. Idiotic Idea. Bzzz

    The reason for this is simple. Gravity and EMF have three pronounced similarities. They both extend to infinity and are inversely proportional to the square of the distances from their sources. A recent similarity was announced that they both have the same transitional velocities. On the other hand, the other two nuclear forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.
    if einstein couldn't unite it. you won't. yet even thoe they are less simular theyt have more in common to melt toghater while gravity won't

    And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10^-14 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon (proton or neutron).
    probebility has nothing to do here
    dEdT <= h/4pi
    thats the reason it has such shortrange. in the time it exists with its heavy mass it wont travel farther.

    With these discrepancies, the strong force cannot be the binding nuclear force.
    know-nothing smart? sure are. how can you honestly even consider that you are smarter than any of todays scientists? if you do you must be the dummest person alive.


    mike. realise it. Your brain can't understand the fundamentals of the universe. It was never ment to be that. your genetics aren't good enough for that. Its like bieng 90cm short and try to become a basket pro. it won't happen.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Can't see what all the fuss is about meself, A large iron magnet has mass, a gravitational pull, can conduct electricity, and is made of atoms, If that ain't unified everything I don't know what will! :wink:
    So ask the magnet!
    That is an attractive idea. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    To All above

    You guys are refuting all the physics I know like the Conservation Laws, the M-M experiments and Arps redshift anamoly.

    Lets face it, is their any physics outside of math that you do accept?

    Two spinning protons coupled by an electron and the resulting magnetic fields of the spinning protons would create a powerful attraction to create the strong force. The result is a deuteron. Two deuterons surrounded by these strong magnetic fields would cause one to flip to join the other to create a helium nucleus.

    Sounds reasonable to me and scientific too, based on the nature of bar magnets.

    The reason Einstein could not solve the theory of everything is because he went through the established educational system. Ha ha.
    He relied too much on math and not enough on 'visualization.

    You are all buried in 16 century science. No free thinkers. Just educated religious creationists.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    You guys are refuting all the physics I know like the Conservation Laws, the M-M experiments and Arps redshift anamoly.
    you seem to only know the basic ones then. Newer physics seems you not to know. The conservation laws are ruled all the time. they are just broken for short period of times and its accepteble since thats how it is.

    Lets face it, is their any physics outside of math that you do accept?
    not really, since it isnt physics then. and has nothing to do wih physics

    Two spinning protons coupled by an electron and the resulting magnetic fields of the spinning protons would create a powerful attraction to create the strong force. The result is a deuteron. Two deuterons surrounded by these strong magnetic fields would cause one to flip to join the other to create a helium nucleus.
    error!! diprotonic structure is impossible with our physics. Electric repulsion is to great. Magnetic force isn't either suffient. with larger structures a magnetic based atom would fall apart.
    Concluton: Impossible. Strong force exists

    Sounds reasonable to me and scientific too, based on the nature of bar magnets.
    nope. Since it would be possible to detect such clsoe orbiting electrons and it hasn't. Case closed

    The reason Einstein could not solve the theory of everything is because he went through the established educational system. Ha ha.
    He relied too much on math and not enough on 'visualization.
    ERROR!
    he went thou yes. just barely. had alot of problem.
    visualisation isn't worth a shit in physics. so please put it in the trashcan. He did right using math. you do wrong not using it.

    You are all buried in 16 century science. No free thinkers. Just educated religious creationists.
    nope. Maybe you come from a christian school but we are not. here we let free thinkers be and look at their ideas. But mad ideas that isn't supported is trashed since it has nothing to do in our world.

    You are burried in your own ignorance

    so please either realise you are not special. you aren't smarter than the greatest geniuses throu time. Else i ask you to do like in south park and eat things in the other direction
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    To All above

    You guys are refuting all the physics I know like the Conservation Laws, the M-M experiments and Arps redshift anamoly.
    NS
    how do we know that conservation exists if we don't use maths?
    visualisation can't prove that in every case momentum is conserved or that mass is never lost.

    we explain the M-M experiments using relativity, if you can't accept this explanation then you will sadly never be able to accept any explanation and will be stuck in your imagine all landscape.

    lets face it, is there any physics outside of math?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    lets face it, is there any physics outside of math?
    not really
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    you seem to only know the basic ones then. Newer physics seems you not to know. The conservation laws are ruled all the time. they are just broken for short period of times and its accepteble since thats how it is
    Nonsense. Power science is NOT science. That was proven back in the 15th century.

    not really, since it isnt physics then. and has nothing to do wih physics
    Ha ha. Math is a byproduct of physics that constitutes experiments, observations and resulting interpretations.

    error!! diprotonic structure is impossible with our physics. Electric repulsion is to great. Magnetic force isn't either suffient. with larger structures a magnetic based atom would fall apart.
    Concluton: Impossible. Strong force exists
    In the compressed central regions of stars, there are created neutrons that are components of electrons and protons. Why did not the electric repulsion prevent this?
    It is obvious that these hydrogen atoms are compressed where the electrons are pushed closer to the protons at lesser radii and increasing velocities to cause the protons to also spin at much higher spin velocities. Eventually neutrons result to couple with ‘free’ protons to form the deuterons..

    If you still think the strong force is real, then explain why the atomic mass number 5 does not exist?

    nope. Since it would be possible to detect such clsoe orbiting electrons and it hasn't. Case closed
    Ha ha. You are going to detect such close orbiting electrons that are in the central region of stars? Again, ha ha.

    ERROR!
    he went thou yes. just barely. had alot of problem.
    visualisation isn't worth a shit in physics. so please put it in the trashcan. He did right using math. you do wrong not using it
    As I said above, math is a byproduct of real physics. You need that first before you can do any math..

    nope. Maybe you come from a christian school but we are not. here we let free thinkers be and look at their ideas. But mad ideas that isn't supported is trashed since it has nothing to do in our world.
    You are burried in your own ignorance
    so please either realise you are not special. you aren't smarter than the greatest geniuses throu time
    I come from a FREE thinking school of self education, not a regimented establishment system. I would not waste my time learning all these errors in science today. This is a regression back to the 15th century.
    You do not answer my questions directly but just supply your own opinions.

    Answer this question:
    What basic science got the BB started?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    how do we know that conservation exists if we don't use maths?
    visualisation can't prove that in every case momentum is conserved or that mass is never lost.
    we explain the M-M experiments using relativity, if you can't accept this explanation then you will sadly never be able to accept any explanation and will be stuck in your imagine all landscape
    Conservation laws are based on experiments, observations and measurements.
    The math follows to provide precise data, so it is a byproduct of this research. You just do not create these component interactions out of thin air and create science by subjective reasoning, alone.

    The M-M experiment just proved that space does not have any influence with the light pulses.
    In other words, the Earths relative motion to space proved this.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    not really
    Math is a byproduct of observations and experiments.
    Math can be erroneous.

    Einsteins math/energy formula is not correct because it has components that do not conform to real physics.

    Energy is a product of forces because forces create all motions.
    Light has different energy levels, so the wavelength of light, has to be included.
    Light moves as a single dimension, so why should the velocity of light be squared?
    The velocity of light is not an absolute spatial constant because the emitting objects of light are moving relative to space and so the carrier of these light photons is also moving with the emitter. The carrier velocity relative to space has to be included.
    My opinion is that even within the EM fields, the VoL has a slight variable velocity because of the energy levels, although this is very minute.

    So, this formula would be much more complex than the simple formula Einstein proposed.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Power science is NOT science
    i dont know what power science is. but i bet your wrong since that proof is 500 years to old

    Nonsense
    no. its a fact that conservation laws can be broken. Just for a very short period of time. it's so tiny you don't notice it in your life.

    Ha ha. Math is a byproduct of physics that constitutes experiments, observations and resulting interpretations.
    Your insulting math. I demand you to apologise to it and sease all the insulting of things who have done more for you than your brain or i shall treat you equal.

    In the compressed central regions of stars, there are created neutrons that are components of electrons and protons. Why did not the electric repulsion prevent this?
    maybe your not familiar with newton and einstein? gravity was to powerful. It merge the electrons with protons and creates neutrons. Wich by exclusion princple(oir what ever its called) is kept apart and don't form a black hole

    It is obvious that these hydrogen atoms are compressed where the electrons are pushed closer to the protons at lesser radii and increasing velocities to cause the protons to also spin at much higher spin velocities. Eventually neutrons result to couple with ‘free’ protons to form the deuterons..
    the only thing obvius here is your ignorance. That would be possible to be detected. and such structures isn't entirely electrical neutral and would bend of sligthly as it gets closer to a nucleus. Even a neutral atom isn't electrical neutral when it comes to electrical force. Vaan der waals force?

    If you still think the strong force is real, then explain why the atomic mass number 5 does not exist?
    Mass number 5
    Proton number what?

    Ha ha. You are going to detect such close orbiting electrons that are in the central region of stars? Again, ha ha.
    if thats how normal matter is we should detect it in carbon, nitrogen etc.

    As I said above, math is a byproduct of real physics. You need that first before you can do any math..
    Positron please forgive this fool. He isn't able to understand all the things you have done for him. And do for humanity now

    I come from a FREE thinking school of self education, not a regimented establishment system. I would not waste my time learning all these errors in science today. This is a regression back to the 15th century.
    so your saying everything after 1500 is wrong? wow i wonder how they manished to create internet. and all this. and how it comes all observations confirm the theories. its a real mystery that its so wrong yet so right

    But the most amazing thing is your lack of knowledge.

    What basic science got the BB started?
    eleborate(is it spelled right and its right used in this sentence?)
    don't understand your question
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The reason Einstein could not solve the theory of everything is because he went through the established educational system. Ha ha.
    He relied too much on math and not enough on 'visualization.
    What a friggen joke. I hope you realize that the bulk of Einstein's work was creating a geometric view of how gravity works.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I think its evil of mike to show such disrespect for people/things that is so much more important than him, have done much more than him and such.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The reason Einstein could not solve the theory of everything is because he went through the established educational system. Ha ha.
    He relied too much on math and not enough on 'visualization.
    What a friggen joke. I hope you realize that the bulk of Einstein's work was creating a geometric view of how gravity works.
    As well as reading hundreds of crackpot ideas while he worked at the patent office, bet he thought - he could do better than that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    He shows us the value of sanity.

    Im a sane person in a insane world
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    I think if Einstein were alive today Zelos would want to have his babies! tee hee hee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Conservation laws are based on experiments, observations and measurements.
    The math follows to provide precise data, so it is a byproduct of this research. You just do not create these component interactions out of thin air and create science by subjective reasoning, alone.

    The M-M experiment just proved that space does not have any influence with the light pulses.
    In other words, the Earths relative motion to space proved this.

    NS
    the idea was provided through experiments but you can't prove that the law is true for every single case unless its a mathematical law.
    the math behind the physics is independant of the physics, physics is the byproduct of observations experiments and MATHS!!!
    maths doesn't just apply to physics or science and it has been in development since long before anyone questioned the nature of the universe.

    i didn't ask what it proved, i said that relativity (highly mathematical) explains this effect, really it was probably more maxwell equations, but thats still maths. do you see the point i was making now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    I think if Einstein were alive today Zelos would want to have his babies! tee hee hee.
    Thats it you bastard. Go and *Beep* Yourself. I am not gay
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [Zelos=quote]
    Mass number 5
    Proton number what[/quote]

    (excuse the excerpts)
    What difference does it make? Regardless of the ratio, the AMN 5 does not exist.

    Positron please forgive this fool. He isn't able to understand all the things you have done for him. And do for humanity now
    Are you talking to this particle? Ha ha

    so your saying everything after 1500 is wrong?
    Well, everything that Latin science has promoted like Lemaitrae, a catholic priest

    .don't understand your question
    That is a convenient excuse when you can't answer the question.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    What a friggen joke. I hope you realize that the bulk of Einstein's work was creating a geometric view of how gravity works.
    Well, how does his work explain the Zwicky gravity (MDM) problem?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565

    Wallaby

    Math without previous experimental work or observations is purely subjective and therefore a religion.

    The works of Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr is all based on previous work. So I give credibility to thiir math.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    (excuse the excerpts)
    What difference does it make? Regardless of the ratio, the AMN 5 does not exist.
    Energy value isn't stable then. You can't have a electrons in other than allowed orbits with allowed energies. the same is it with nuclues

    Are you talking to this particle? Ha ha
    good your laughing, apperently you got some humor inside that empty skull

    Well, everything that Latin science has promoted like Lemaitrae, a catholic priest
    specefy

    That is a convenient excuse when you can't answer the question.
    id love to answer. explain your question a bit better and i will answer. either with a answer or "sorry i can't answer" o don't flee from a question. so EXPLAIN it FURTHER

    Well, how does his work explain the Zwicky gravity (MDM) problem?
    its not his job. We have many theories to explain it. String theories acctualy gives a intriging(spelled?) explination

    Math without previous experimental work or observations is purely subjective and therefore a religion.
    Religion isn't based on anything. Math like that is based on previus observation
    Conclution: Mathematic works aren't religion

    Once again i say positron, it came before observations.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Wallaby

    Math without previous experimental work or observations is purely subjective and therefore a religion.

    The works of Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr is all based on previous work. So I give credibility to thiir math.

    NS
    einsteins work is no different.
    relativity furthers the works of newton, galilieo, maxwell and many others who worked to make classical physics.
    it comes from previous work, previous experiments and observations. why do you seem to have a problem with it when it meets even your criteria of credible math?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [Zelos=quote]
    Energy value isn't stable then. You can't have a electrons in other than allowed orbits with allowed energies. the same is it with nuclues[/quote]

    We are talking about nuclei, not electrons.

    specefy
    If you are not familiar with Lemaitrae, then you cannot argue about the BB.
    I am not going to educate you here. See an encyclopedia on this subject.
    I am not going to bother with the rest of this thread because you are not that well educated on this subject matter.

    [wallaby=quote]
    it comes from previous work, previous experiments and observations. why do you seem to have a problem with it when it meets even your criteria of credible math[/quote]

    What are you talkinmg about? Did you read my refute of Einsteins mass/energy formula? Wake up.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    We are talking about nuclei, not electrons.
    a theory says nuclues works in the same way. it predicts ununquadium of somekinda will be much more stable. we have gotten ununquadium with to little neutrons and it have shown to be more stable than other super heavy atoms. so it seems to be like so.

    But it doesn't matter if its a nucleus or not. not allowed energy values wont apphere.

    If you are not familiar with Lemaitrae, then you cannot argue about the BB.
    I am not going to educate you here. See an encyclopedia on this subject.
    I am not going to bother with the rest of this thread because you are not that well educated on this subject matter.
    how convinient that you say that. you are afraid i´ll crack that aswell as i have done with everything about you
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    I think if Einstein were alive today Zelos would want to have his babies! tee hee hee.
    Thats it you bastard. Go and *Beep* Yourself. I am not gay
    I merely thought from your prose and knowledge of science you were female. Also my research into 'Zelos' pointed to there being some 'uncertainty' It's so difficult to tell these days, for Example I am a lesbian- I only sleep with women. 8) Nice to see you have taken it in the light-hearted fashion intended.


    ZELOS was the male or female Daimon (Spirit) of eager rivalry,
    http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Zelos.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    for Example I am a lesbian- I only sleep with women.
    DISTURBING

    Zelos is my internet name. Its not the right forum to say this but i say it anyway. why i take bieng called gay so serius is since i consider it wrong and a biological error

    amd also are you somekinda femenist? just becuase im smart dont mean im a female. god i dont hope your a female i hate those so much. a male brain is biologicaly "better" for science than a females. since its more logical, while females are rather emotional.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    for Example I am a lesbian- I only sleep with women.
    DISTURBING

    Zelos is my internet name. Its not the right forum to say this but i say it anyway. why i take bieng called gay so serius is since i consider it wrong and a biological error

    amd also are you somekinda femenist? just becuase im smart dont mean im a female. god i dont hope your a female i hate those so much. a male brain is biologicaly "better" for science than a females. since its more logical, while females are rather emotional.
    I do not, classify my fellow humans by their personal preferences.

    It was intended (originally) as a light-hearted compliment. I do apologise if you mis-understood this. The highest compliment one can pay to a fellow human is to share a bed with them, to have their babies for them - it is NOT an insult.

    Similarly a male calling himself a lesbian, is also humour.

    As to females, they are far superior to males, there is no doubt of that - they can exist (using science) without us (males) we cannot exist without them - males are the parasites, females are the race. Wherever you look in nature it is the females that are 'protected' males are expendable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    It was intended (originally) as a light-hearted compliment. I do apologise if you mis-understood this. The highest compliment one can pay to a fellow human is to share a bed with them, to have their babies for them - it is NOT an insult.
    it isn´t a insult, if its opposite sexes, if its equal sexes i take it as a serius insult

    As to females, they are far superior to males, there is no doubt of that
    HAHAHAHAHAHA you have a sense of humor.

    males are the parasites
    parasites? hehe your humor is quite unique but fun

    Both sexes can survive without the other using science.

    Wherever you look in nature it is the females that are 'protected' males are expendable.
    males expendeble? hahaha youre cracking me up. We are equaly important. Both sexes evolved for a reason. but before i tell you i´ll tell you that the rule of bieng "female" and having alot of "males" around isn´t cut in stone. there is some specieses that is acctualy the opposite in sexual behavior, where males are females and females are males.

    2 sexes exist to give the child extra immunity against deseases. in a population of asaxual reproduction does each individual look exacly the same and that makes them vunreble(spelled?) to viruses bacteris, if they hit one they can hit all.
    Sexual population isnt like that. In there each are unique combination and is therefor harder to be hitted by bacterias and viruses.

    Also science is more for males. a emotional reasoning brain is usualy not good in a objective logical science. Male brains are adepted to be logical scince that was our purpose in the prehistoric time. while females took care of the children

    Conclution: Both sexes are equaly important in different areas. They are better/worse in different areas.
    Action: None
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Guest
    You're funny too Zelos, very very funny. I like you (but not in the biblical sense).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    it comes from previous work, previous experiments and observations. why do you seem to have a problem with it when it meets even your criteria of credible math
    What are you talkinmg about? Did you read my refute of Einsteins mass/energy formula? Wake up.

    NS
    yes i've read more than enough of your highly imaginative theories.

    but the maths comes from work done on observations and other theories that you have no problem with, unless your saying that ALL of physics is simply wrong. there is no problem with the maths of relativity and you have not shown any such problem, you havn't even shown that you understand the theory.

    why do you hate einstein?
    why are you predjudiced against modern physics?
    why are you telling me to wake up when your the one bathing in ignorance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    why do you hate einstein?
    why are you predjudiced against modern physics?
    why are you telling me to wake up when your the one bathing in ignorance?
    i´ll try answer those questions for him
    1: since he is dummer than einstein
    2: since he don´t understand it
    3: since he is a mad man
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    why do you hate einstein?
    why are you predjudiced against modern physics?
    why are you telling me to wake up when your the one bathing in ignorance?
    i´ll try answer those questions for him
    1: since he is dummer than einstein
    2: since he don´t understand it
    3: since he is a mad man
    good answers... now lets see if Mr NS can do better than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    About the only thing you are good at is insulting people. Your answers are evasive rather then being direct. You answer with questions in most cases rather than giving direct answers.

    Wallaby is not too knowledgeble either.

    I would advise both of you to go study physics more before you make any attempts to defend it unequivacally.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Wallaby is not too knowledgeble either.

    I would advise both of you to go study physics more before you make any attempts to defend it unequivacally.

    NS
    hmmm, i can admit i'm not anywhere near knowing everything about physics but i'm not stupid enough to think that i can topple one of the two greatest theories of the twentieth century with no proof and thought experiment only.

    that is not scientific process and no amount of knowlege of physics will help you disprove a theory in the way you have approached it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Zelos

    About the only thing you are good at is insulting people. Your answers are evasive rather then being direct. You answer with questions in most cases rather than giving direct answers.

    Wallaby is not too knowledgeble either.

    I would advise both of you to go study physics more before you make any attempts to defend it unequivacally.
    mike you are talking about yourself.
    I don´t know all theories and thats why i don´t go against them. Understand them PERFECTLY and you have the right to go against. until then take any unbelife you have and shove it up your ass. Since they are unfounded
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Wallaby and Zelos

    I give real reasons for all my posts based on the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations.

    All you two can do is parrot what you have learned from others.

    You both CANNOT answer why atomic mass #5 does not exist. So quit arguing about something you know nothing about.

    NS

    .
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I give real reasons for all my posts based on the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations.
    yeah, classic ones. science have advanced since then

    All you two can do is parrot what you have learned from others.
    that is a joke. in sweden we have 3 grades. we call them as a joke for the 3 K´s (notice its becuase the word starts with K in swedeb) the words stand for
    Copy
    Combine
    Construct
    so it should be the 3 C´s in english
    the point is to get the highest grade you cant do like a parrot since they dont give that kind of jobs. you have to use your knowledge and construct new things.

    You both CANNOT answer why atomic mass #5 does not exist. So quit arguing about something you know nothing about.
    i gave you a explination
    but you are wrong there is atoms with mass 5
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-5
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-5
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium

    so you fail already there. but its a unallowed energy level and therefor all isotopes of 5 decay.
    as you can see all elements with atomic number < 5 have isotope with 5 nucleons
    as we can all see everything you have come with is unfounded or out of date.
    billco if you read this i say your more up to date than this guy

    also
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
    here is a link that tells about the island of stability. its a zone of more stable isotopes wich is predicted by a theory that claims nucleon energies goes in shells like electrons do. as for experimental data seems to confirm this theory since those most stable elements have shown to have longer halflifes than their sourunding partners
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Wallaby and Zelos

    I give real reasons for all my posts based on the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations.

    All you two can do is parrot what you have learned from others.

    You both CANNOT answer why atomic mass #5 does not exist. So quit arguing about something you know nothing about.

    NS

    .
    if i did you'd never accept it.
    is there a reason why atomic mass #5 should exist mike?
    i see a lot of other atomic masses missing from this table too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass/Table
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [Zelos=quote]
    so you fail already there. but its a unallowed energy level and therefor all isotopes of 5 decay.
    as you can see all elements with atomic number < 5 have isotope with 5 nucleons
    as we can all see everything you have come with is unfounded or out of date[/quote]

    Those you cite are all SYNTHETICS.
    They are not natural isotopes
    Their survival rates are less than ONE second.

    The unallowed energy levels would comply to quantum physics
    This is further proof that rules out the current strong force because it does not appear as a dual force like quantum physics promotes.
    The SF is only attractive.

    [wallaby=quote]
    s there a reason why atomic mass #5 should exist mike?
    i see a lot of other atomic masses missing from this table too[/quote]

    I noticed that myself but with those high counts, it is not that important. At the low level of elements, it is a GLARING omission.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Those you cite are all SYNTHETICS.
    They are not natural isotopes
    Their survival rates are less than ONE second.
    the probebility of those bieng created by nature is significan but since the halflife is so short they wont exist long enough to be detected or come in significan quantities

    The unallowed energy levels would comply to quantum physics
    This is further proof that rules out the current strong force because it does not appear as a dual force like quantum physics promotes.
    The SF is only attractive.
    we have stable atoms. EM/GR isnt enough to keep them toghater. EM breaks them apart if there isnt a stronger force keeping them toghater, therefor there must be a force, strong nuclear force that have been proven with the excpected results. its strenght INCREASE with distances. let me guess, you say tahts not possible? go and study more then

    this shows once agian how little you know. you dont understand do you think is equal to not true.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Wallaby
    s there a reason why atomic mass #5 should exist mike?
    i see a lot of other atomic masses missing from this table too
    I noticed that myself but with those high counts, it is not that important. At the low level of elements, it is a GLARING omission.

    NS
    why is it not important, when i look at that table i see so many missing numbers that i come to the conclusion that missing numbers aren't a big deal.
    so why is #5 particular?
    unless there is an isotope of helium with 3 neutrons, 2 protons and 2 electrons, i don't see any reason why #5 should exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    your right on that. why is there none with 500?
    oh wait, since there is to much energy in it.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    therefor there must be a force, strong nuclear force that have been proven with the excpected results. its strenght INCREASE with distances. let me guess, you say tahts not possible? go and study more then
    You got to be kidding! Do you know what the range of the strong force is? It is 10^-15 meters . This is the diameter of a nucleon!
    The weak force has a still shorter range of 2x10^-18 meters.
    So your statement above is an illusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    why is it not important, when i look at that table i see so many missing numbers that i come to the conclusion that missing numbers aren't a big deal.
    so why is #5 particular?
    unless there is an isotope of helium with 3 neutrons, 2 protons and 2 electrons, i don't see any reason why #5 should exist
    Boy, are you wromg! I decided to check back on the AMN tables and did not see 'one' single missing AMN up to the highest stable element at 209 AMN which is Bismuth and beyond.
    So when I concurred with you on a previous reply, I was wrong because I did not check this out thoroughly.
    See the book I recommended entitled 'Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics', 4th ed., by Henry Semat, page 580, App. IV.
    There is NO AMN missing throughout the entire Mass tables with the exception of AMN's 5 and 8.
    The order in the heavier elements are jumbled in the AMN column but all AMN's are present except the two mentioned above.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    You got to be kidding! Do you know what the range of the strong force is? It is 10^-15 meters . This is the diameter of a nucleon!
    The weak force has a still shorter range of 2x10^-18 meters.
    So your statement above is an illusion.
    nope, its true that you say, and i say. If you want i can tell you what happen when a electron hits a quark and great speeds. Its so it get stronger by distance in the range it works

    Boy, are you wromg! I decided to check back on the AMN tables and did not see 'one' single missing AMN up to the highest stable element at 209 AMN which is Bismuth and beyond.
    So when I concurred with you on a previous reply, I was wrong because I did not check this out thoroughly.
    See the book I recommended entitled 'Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics', 4th ed., by Henry Semat, page 580, App. IV.
    There is NO AMN missing throughout the entire Mass tables with the exception of AMN's 5 and 8.
    The order in the heavier elements are jumbled in the AMN column but all AMN's are present except the two mentioned above.
    once again why is it such a big deal with 5 and 8? it exists. but since it has such short life time it cant exist naturaly. its bound to be created once in a while but its not stable enough to accumilate like uranium is
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Boy, are you wromg! I decided to check back on the AMN tables and did not see 'one' single missing AMN up to the highest stable element at 209 AMN which is Bismuth and beyond.
    So when I concurred with you on a previous reply, I was wrong because I did not check this out thoroughly.
    See the book I recommended entitled 'Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics', 4th ed., by Henry Semat, page 580, App. IV.
    There is NO AMN missing throughout the entire Mass tables with the exception of AMN's 5 and 8.
    The order in the heavier elements are jumbled in the AMN column but all AMN's are present except the two mentioned above.

    NS
    and in the source i provided you can clearly see that heaps are missing,
    plus i wouldn't know where to get that book as the odds the local library has is is pretty slim.

    do you have another?
    did it say why these numbers were missing?
    did it say why every integer value MUST be included from 1 to where ever the hell it ends?

    EDIT: i know they're not integer values but thats the only way i can think of to describe the pattern.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    nope, its true that you say, and i say. If you want i can tell you what happen when a electron hits a quark and great speeds. Its so it get stronger by distance in the range it works
    I am not inmterested in man made physics because it is not naturally occuring in the universe.
    If you want to answer any questions here, than quote only what occurs in nature.

    once again why is it such a big deal with 5 and 8? it exists. but since it has such short life time it cant exist naturaly. its bound to be created once in a while but its not stable enough to accumilate like uranium is
    Again, your answer is a non answer since you cannot give any figures on its existence.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I am not inmterested in man made physics because it is not naturally occuring in the universe.
    then you shouldnt listen to your own ideas
    yours isnt experiment based, but is merly ideas. what i know have been proven

    If you want to answer any questions here, than quote only what occurs in nature.
    i have and i shall

    Again, your answer is a non answer since you cannot give any figures on its existence.
    ive been telling you and you wont listen. Since they are so shortlived they cant accumilate. and they have short halflife since they apphere to be a none-allowed energy level. is it so hard to accept that nucleons can come in energy packets?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    and in the source i provided you can clearly see that heaps are missing,
    plus i wouldn't know where to get that book as the odds the local library has is is pretty slim.

    EDIT: i know they're not integer values but thats the only way i can think of to describe the pattern.
    That source you provided is nothing but a 'periodic table' of the elements.
    You idiot!

    It does not include all the elemental isotopes.
    These isotopes fill in all the AMN's or AMU's as it is also called between the elemental mass units.

    The source I gave you is an older book but any major library should have a copy in their archives.

    That book is the only one I know of that has all these elements and their isotopes listed.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Calm down everyone and stop the insults.

    Focus on the facts and the conjectures.

    Be sure to distinguish between them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Calm down everyone and stop the insults.

    Focus on the facts and the conjectures.

    Be sure to distinguish between them.
    And if you can't do all that, put your feet up, have another malt whiskey and whatever!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    That source you provided is nothing but a 'periodic table' of the elements.
    You idiot!

    It does not include all the elemental isotopes.
    These isotopes fill in all the AMN's or AMU's as it is also called between the elemental mass units.

    The source I gave you is an older book but any major library should have a copy in their archives.

    That book is the only one I know of that has all these elements and their isotopes listed.

    NS
    i know that, i look at the freakin thing every day.
    but how can you say that every god dammed value MUST be used? you havn't explained that yet.

    MAJOR library being the keyword
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    i know that, i look at the freakin thing every day.
    but how can you say that every god (bleeped) value MUST be used? you havn't explained that yet.

    MAJOR library being the keyword
    I used that table because I wanted to show the GLARING omissions of 'AMU's 5 and 8 that are 'isotopes'. So all the isotopes had to be incuded as important components of the article.

    Nuff said.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    dont avoid the question, why do they have to be stable enough to accumilate?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    I used that table because I wanted to show the GLARING omissions of 'AMU's 5 and 8 that are 'isotopes'. So all the isotopes had to be incuded as important components of the article.
    Nuff said.
    Not nearly enough said if you wish to be understood.

    I simply do not follow you. We know that AMUs of 5 and 8 are wholly unstable. Why include them in a table? You seem to be implying that this is deliberate and in some way pernicious. Please clarify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Negotiation is irrelevant
    Understanding is irrelevant
    Mike is irrelevant
    Amu 5 is irrelevant
    Amu 8 is irrelevant

    Only perfection is relevant
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Negotiation is irrelevant
    Understanding is irrelevant
    Mike is irrelevant
    Amu 5 is irrelevant
    Amu 8 is irrelevant

    Only perfection is relevant
    Constantly quoting a fictional sci fi series is irrelevant.

    Change the record..............
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Constantly quoting a fictional sci fi series is irrelevant.

    Change the record..............
    Changing perfection is irrelevant
    You are irrelevant
    You will be assimilated
    I am perfect
    I am borg

    (Some times i acctualy have a hidden message with this that have something to do with the subject, like in the previus case)
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Changing perfection is irrelevant
    You are irrelevant
    You will be assimilated
    I am perfect
    I am borg
    The above is an example of the realism of your arguments.

    I prefer the science of the Copernican era where his 'Heliocentric' theory caused the downfall ot the roman empire to shrink to a mere dot on the European map.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Not nearly enough said if you wish to be understood.

    I simply do not follow you. We know that AMUs of 5 and 8 are wholly unstable. Why include them in a table? You seem to be implying that this is deliberate and in some way pernicious. Please clarify.
    Ophi

    The nature of science is to find out the causes of natural phenomenon.
    So I would like to know 'why' these AMU's are missing.
    So, the 'strong force' does not explain the 'WHY' of these missing numbers.
    Its gravitational description would not prevent these numbers to exist, but Quantum physics would and does as I explained above in my article.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Changing perfection is irrelevant
    You are irrelevant
    You will be assimilated
    I am perfect
    I am borg
    The above is an example of the realism of your arguments.

    I prefer the science of the Copernican era where his 'Heliocentric' theory caused the downfall ot the roman empire to shrink to a mere dot on the European map.

    NS
    its a JOKE

    The nature of science is to find out the causes of natural phenomenon.
    So I would like to know 'why' these AMU's are missing.
    So, the 'strong force' does not explain the 'WHY' of these missing numbers.
    Its gravitational description would not prevent these numbers to exist, but Quantum physics would and does as I explained above in my article.
    im telling you, its a energy level that isnt allowed and thereby have a halflife. the energy level is so small it dont have a chance to accumilate in greater amounts. stop asking now
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos

    m telling you, its a energy level that isnt allowed and thereby have a halflife. the energy level is so small it dont have a chance to accumilate in greater amounts. stop asking now
    You mean the SF is choosey? I never considered the SF to be choosey because it acts like a gravitational force and there is NO energy levels in the gravitational bodies.
    If you are trying to introduce Bodes Law to the gravitational effects, then don't because nuclear components do not have orbitting bodies WITHIN the nuclei.
    But they do apply to the 'majic' numbers which is quantum physics that did not create the SF.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    it isnt like Gravity or electromagneism since they have infinite range. Its q quantum force. and as quantum stuff it is quantized.

    It is in the quantum world where everything is quantisied. Therefor some energies isnt allowed and therefor will have a halflife. The bigger the energy barrier is to reach a allowed energy level the longer is the halflife. the barrier for 5/8 isnt big therefor halflife is short
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    it isnt like Gravity or electromagneism since they have infinite range. Its q quantum force. and as quantum stuff it is quantized.

    It is in the quantum world where everything is quantisied. Therefor some energies isnt allowed and therefor will have a halflife. The bigger the energy barrier is to reach a allowed energy level the longer is the halflife. the barrier for 5/8 isnt big therefor halflife is short
    If gravity has infinte range and, follows an inverse square law, and a black hole has 'infinite density' why er... well you know, aren't we all squashed flat....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    why would we?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    why would we?

    Well if you have infinite density, then for it to exist it must have at least some mass, if the density is infinite it must also contain infinite mass - if it did not then there is some more mass you could squeeze in which means it's NOT infinte. Neither you nor Stephen (HAW HAW HAWKING Radiation) is gonna get away with infinite density!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    youre out of date as ive said.
    i dont have infinite density only blackholes. since the spacetime curvation inside the event horizon is infinite aswell.

    Infinite density doesnt equal infinite mass. you can take a finite mass in 0 space and the density is infinite but its mass is infinite.
    dont be arrogant like mike. Your way to old for that. hawking have done things for science, dont be jelous
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    youre out of date as ive said.
    i dont have infinite density only blackholes. since the spacetime curvation inside the event horizon is infinite aswell.

    Infinite density doesnt equal infinite mass. you can take a finite mass in 0 space and the density is infinite but its mass is infinite.
    dont be arrogant like mike. Your way to old for that. hawking have done things for science, dont be jelous

    Out of date, yes - my peak is yet to come - you who say you have already achieved perfection only have one way to go now, and that's down 8)

    The Nobel Peace prize for Physics ought to be renamed "Cock-a-mamy theory of the year prize".

    If I discuss religion there comes a moment where advocates of creation stand with their backs to the wall, cannot be pushed any further and say "God did it" - and you can't get past that -every question is answered that way. Theoretical Physics is the same except for 'God' substitute singularity. I'll remind you Einstein was dead against singularity even though it was a conclusion of his theory.

    In 1956 (I remember it well), the discovery of background radiation put the nail in the coffin of the steady state universe theory. What was said was that since everything is expanding, then as we go back in time the universe must have been smaller. I can agree with that. Now the next piece of evidence was a reference to the laws of conservation of energy the theory went that "if everything eventually cools off (as radiation is lost in space) and the universe is infinitly old then it should already be cold!" - Yep no problem there either So far I agree with it all. From these two items the universe as we know it had a definite start date, and it was smaller than it is now.

    Now just because it was smaller, it does NOT mean it had to be finite.

    It's when you try and make it finite everything breaks down, but the theoretical physicists come back and say er... let me think..... I know! by Jove I've got it!! Yes! - all the laws change so we can't go back any further. It's as credible (to me) as GOD did it!

    Is that really the best your generation can do just agree with the Immam?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    billco. your statement of nobel prize shows how ridiculusly stupid you aree. Its the greatest prize a scientist can ever get.

    Theoretical Physics is the same except for 'God' substitute singularity. I'll remind you Einstein was dead against singularity even though it was a conclusion of his theory.
    your so extremly rude. how can you be so insulting?

    all the laws change so we can't go back any further. It's as credible (to me) as GOD did it!
    they dont entirely say it changes. they say our theories changes slightly since its so extreme and also that our laws brakes toghater since out formulas can deal with such great numbers and infinites

    Is that really the best your generation can do just agree with the Immam?
    i dont dispute a scientific theory until i understand all basics things behind it and see its wrong. i dont ahve the athourity or knowledge to do that. you should do the same
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    billco. your statement of nobel prize shows how ridiculusly stupid you aree. Its the greatest prize a scientist can ever get.

    Theoretical Physics is the same except for 'God' substitute singularity. I'll remind you Einstein was dead against singularity even though it was a conclusion of his theory.
    your so extremly rude. how can you be so insulting?

    all the laws change so we can't go back any further. It's as credible (to me) as GOD did it!
    they dont entirely say it changes. they say our theories changes slightly since its so extreme and also that our laws brakes toghater since out formulas can deal with such great numbers and infinites

    Is that really the best your generation can do just agree with the Immam?
    i dont dispute a scientific theory until i understand all basics things behind it and see its wrong. i dont ahve the athourity or knowledge to do that. you should do the same

    Exactly, I should heed the word of the [science] imam - Sorry - Bye!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    it isnt like Gravity or electromagneism since they have infinite range. Its q quantum force. and as quantum stuff it is quantized.

    It is in the quantum world where everything is quantisied. Therefor some energies isnt allowed and therefor will have a halflife. The bigger the energy barrier is to reach a allowed energy level the longer is the halflife. the barrier for 5/8 isnt big therefor halflife is short
    Your confused.
    Quantum physics is based on the EM forces such as the coulomb and my version of gravity.
    The magic numbers of the nuclei progression also comply with quantum physics.

    But the SF and weak force do not comply with quantum physics because of their short ranges.
    The forces of QP's extend to infinite distances, so that rules out the two mentioned previously.

    Even though the range of the magnetic proton spin forces in the nuclei extend to infinity, that magnetic component will drop to zero when a colliding particle stops the spin of the protons. Result? In the fission bomb it goes 'BOOM'.

    And the missing AMU's cannot be explained by your version of quantized SF's or WF's because they are not Quantum physics.

    NS

    .
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    But the SF and weak force do not comply with quantum physics because of their short ranges.
    the range has nothing to do with quantum physics. They comply there aswell.

    Even though the range of the magnetic proton spin forces in the nuclei extend to infinity, that magnetic component will drop to zero when a colliding particle stops the spin of the protons. Result? In the fission bomb it goes 'BOOM'.
    no, since they have spin and allways spins. they cant hit a particle and cause it to spin opposite way since it doesnt have a surface to be hitted on. If you have 2 particles that doesnt react to any force and let them move toward each other at a perfect angle and they will hit each other right on they will just pass throu since they dont have any specefic surface and dont have a specefic position

    And the missing AMU's cannot be explained by your version of quantized SF's or WF's because they are not Quantum physics.
    they are quantisied. the range dont matter
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    the range has nothing to do with quantum physics. They comply there aswell
    You do not understan QP's. Quantum Physics deals with the coulomb and magnetic forces only and they have ranges that are infinite.
    The 'black body radiation curve' applies to the HA and its emissions of photons. It simply changed light from a theoretical continuous wave to a pulse of energy.. From that point on, mathematical derivitives have evolved to explain the molecular behavior of electrons in more comples elements or molecules.
    I repeat again, The SF and WF is not a quantum effect. If it was, it would not stop at AMU number 8, because from that point on to the higher elements, all AMU isotopes are present.
    So where is the quantized quantity you are talking about?

    no, since they have spin and allways spins. they cant hit a particle and cause it to spin opposite way since it doesnt have a surface to be hitted on. If you have 2 particles that doesnt react to any force and let them move toward each other at a perfect angle and they will hit each other right on they will just pass throu since they dont have any specefic surface and dont have a specefic position
    You are confusing these particles with galaxies.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    You are confusing these particles with galaxies.
    thats one of the beuties with QM. nothing is what it seems to be there. If you wanna deal with QM you cant use common sense

    The SF and WF is not a quantum effect. If it was, it would not stop at AMU number 8, because from that point on to the higher elements, all AMU isotopes are present.
    So where is the quantized quantity you are talking about?
    once again what does 8/5 have to do with it? its a unstable energy level. like the electron can exist in hydrogen atom at certain stages. of course it can be between but its not stable enough to remain there any significan amount of time and instantly come to a lower energy level
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    thats one of the beuties with QM. nothing is what it seems to be there. If you wanna deal with QM you cant use common sense
    Well I do. Plancks Quantum Physics, is applicable to the hydrogen atom and light generated by it.
    The derivitives are the causes of some of the weirdness.
    I have no problem with the Planck version and niether did Bohr as regarding the HA.

    once again what does 8/5 have to do with it? its a unstable energy level. like the electron can exist in hydrogen atom at certain stages. of course it can be between but its not stable enough to remain there any significan amount of time and instantly come to a lower energy level
    Energy levels have nothing to do with the mass numbers.
    In the HA's, the electrons positions and transitions constite the EL's.
    There are NO mass changes, only electron positions.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    HA? EL?
    Hydrogen Atom?
    Energy Level?

    it has to do with energy level since as for now it seems nucleons also have certain energy levels
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    HA? EL?
    Hydrogen Atom?
    Energy Level?

    it has to do with energy level since as for now it seems nucleons also have certain energy levels
    By nucleons, do you mean protons anf neutrons because that is the meaning of these two particles.

    If you mean the 'energy levels' of nuclei, than that would refer to contained 'potential energy' by the nuclear forces.
    This contained potential energy would be the pressures by the coulomb repulsion forces between the contained protons.
    Anyway, the masses decay gradually and 'peacefully' when the neutron ratio relative to the protons exceeds a 3 to 2 ratio.

    I use this as further proof that neutron stars are unstable and slowly decay to return to gases as a method of physical matter regenerating itself.
    More proof of this would be the 'gamma ray bursters' striking our atmosphere that are determined to be proton particles.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    More proof of this would be the 'gamma ray bursters' striking our atmosphere that are determined to be proton particles.
    gamaray bursts arent neutron stars doing waht ever you mean they do. they hit each otehr create alot of energy taht is released in a GAMA burst and a blackhole is created (atleast the most logical explination ive heard)
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Gamma ray bursts aren't neutron stars doing whatever you mean they do. They hit each other, create alot of energy that is released in a GAMMA burst,and a blackhole is created (atleast the most logical explanation I've heard)
    That does not match current theory on the topic.
    Long gamma ray bursts (those exceeding two seconds) are believed to be result of a collapsar/hypernovae event. A hypernova is a very large supernova, occuring in a massive, early generation star. While the outer elements of the star are expanding, the inner core collapses to a black hole.

    The origin of short gamma ray bursts has not been determined. One possibility is colliding neutron stars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i concure
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Ophi

    What is the nature of the gamma radiations that are detected in the Earths atmosphere? The causes?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Radioactive decay
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Ophi
    What is the nature of the gamma radiations that are detected in the Earths atmosphere? The causes?
    NS
    To the best of my knowledge and belief, I know of no gamma radiation that is detected in the Earth's atmosphere. I am sure that there may well be some, but it is not a topic I am familiar with. Perhaps you could share your information on this with us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    To the best of my knowledge and belief, I know of no gamma radiation that is detected in the Earth's atmosphere. I am sure that there may well be some, but it is not a topic I am familiar with. Perhaps you could share your information on this with us.
    I had some trouble trying to remember the nature of these 'gamma ray' radiations from the atmosphere.

    I finally found an article on the Cerenkov radiations that result when these electrically charged particles hit the Earths atmosphere.
    Had trouble with the spelling.
    I mentioned that one of these particles are protons that generate energies in the Terra EV's range when they hit the atmosphere. It said that their origin is difficult to detect because of the circular nature of their movements through space that trace out a radius of about 1^-3 of a light year radius.

    So protons are involved in these atmospheric gamma ray bursters.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    ok. so???
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18
    It could be the decay of Muons in the upper atmosphere. Then again that is only if they decay by gamma emmision. And by the way, WF and SF do comply with quantum mechanics as does EM, only gravity does not comply. I wouldn't have thought I would have to tell you that EM WF and SF have all been unified as a quantum theory, whereas it is Gravity and Einstein's famous General Relativity which remain to be incorporated into this set.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Corner Neutralino
    It could be the decay of Muons in the upper atmosphere. Then again that is only if they decay by gamma emmision. And by the way, WF and SF do comply with quantum mechanics as does EM, only gravity does not comply. I wouldn't have thought I would have to tell you that EM WF and SF have all been unified as a quantum theory, whereas it is Gravity and Einstein's famous General Relativity which remain to be incorporated into this set.
    The only unification I see is in the beginning of the BB progression from nothing to its current existence.

    I do not believe in the BB and 'creation out of nothing'. Do you?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    ok. so???
    So there is a connection to gamma rays and the protons.
    Of course, I do not believe the proton was transformed into the gamma rays. Its entry just caused a series of collisions. The proton could have slowed and fallen to the Earth intact? Possibly picked up a free electron and formed a HA. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18
    Mike NS Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:09 am Post subject:

    Corner Neutralino wrote:

    It could be the decay of Muons in the upper atmosphere. Then again that is only if they decay by gamma emmision. And by the way, WF and SF do comply with quantum mechanics as does EM, only gravity does not comply. I wouldn't have thought I would have to tell you that EM WF and SF have all been unified as a quantum theory, whereas it is Gravity and Einstein's famous General Relativity which remain to be incorporated into this set.


    The only unification I see is in the beginning of the BB progression from nothing to its current existence.

    I do not believe in the BB and 'creation out of nothing'. Do you?

    NS
    It does not nescessarily have to be creation out of nothing.

    We all now that mass is energy and vice versa. We also know that particles with mutual gravitational, electrogmagnetic, or SF or WF attraction produce a field with a negative energy associated with it (look at electron orbits in an atom, an electron gains a certain amount of negative energy here due to the fact that you would have to use energy in order to move the electron away from the nucleons.)

    So what if at the moment of the big bang the gravitational and electromagnetic etc attractions of particles in the big bang, cancelled out the positive energy of the particles due to the negative energy of this attraction. Therefore it is possible that the energy in the universe is in perfect balance of negative energy from attractions due to force, and positive energy due to mass.

    In no way here would anything be created from nothing because taking energy to be the only non abstract quantity, it could all be in perfect balance at zero, and the big abng would not require any input from other sources, or require stimulus, it would have good reason to just "happen."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by CN

    It does not nescessarily have to be creation out of nothing.

    We all now that mass is energy and vice versa. We also know that particles with mutual gravitational, electrogmagnetic, or SF or WF attraction produce a field with a negative energy associated with it (look at electron orbits in an atom, an electron gains a certain amount of negative energy here due to the fact that you would have to use energy in order to move the electron away from the nucleons.)

    So what if at the moment of the big bang the gravitational and electromagnetic etc attractions of particles in the big bang, cancelled out the positive energy of the particles due to the negative energy of this attraction. Therefore it is possible that the energy in the universe is in perfect balance of negative energy from attractions due to force, and positive energy due to mass.

    In no way here would anything be created from nothing because taking energy to be the only non abstract quantity, it could all be in perfect balance at zero, and the big abng would not require any input from other sources, or require stimulus, it would have good reason to just "happen."
    To your first reply above, You did not give a realistic answer.

    The BB beginning is started at 10^-44 seconds, Planck time.
    Before that is the big question, what happened?
    If you cannot answer that question, than it is still a 'nothing' start.

    See my new post on BB questions.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •