|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... OG Yes I do know how the inverse square law works. Have a post right here in our news group. Sorry if you don't know how it works so read,ask David or go to Google. You would never believe me(YES) Bert Inverse square law The effect is proportional to (1/x)^2 Therefore as x increases, the effect is diminished in the ratio of the square of x. Thus if x is twice as great, the effect is (1/2)^2 , or 1/4 (a quarter - implying less effect). Your post said "strong force could obey the inverse square law,by pulling harder as particles move further away from each other" Which is why I wondered whether you knew why it was given that name, because no way could any single force obey the inverse square law AND SIMULTANEOUSLY pull harder as the particles move further away from each other. Now maybe your understanding of the law is different. Feel free to explain how, but please stick to the point. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ... Hi Painius Thinking about the strong nuclear force that holds protons together even though they would like to push apart by their like charges,this strong force could obey the inverse square law,by pulling harder as particles move further away from each other. It seems to fit with my convex,concave theory that Einstien thinking would go with Bert Let's recap, Bert... As protons tend to push further away from each other because their electric charges are positive and repel each other, the strong nuclear force is a particle- (gluon)-transfer that keeps protons together... ....so they *cannot* and *do not* move further away from each other. And since the strong nuclear force operates this way only within the confines of the atom's nucleus, or more precisely, the strong force appears to have *no* influence outside the nucleus, then it cannot be described as an "inverse square law" force. If it *were* this kind of a force, then as you know, its power would diminish as the square of the distance, and its influence would be felt beyond the nucleus. Bill and i happen to believe that the strong nuclear force *does* show an influence beyond the nucleus in the form of large-scale magnetic force. We disagree in that Bill also connects the strong force with the large-scale force of gravity, and i happen to associate gravity with the weak nuclear force. That last paragraph is pure conjecture on our part and is not science strictly speaking. It may be intuitive, but there is no scientific evidence as yet to confirm or deny the connections. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Do you have yourself a dream? Are you burning with desire? If no dream, you have no steam To fan your ember into fire! Do you have yourself a dream? Paine Ellsworth |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
... 'Lo Paine Appreciate the feedback. As was emphasized to you previously on the 'primacy of math fixation', the argument is not with the application of math, but with the application of math _to a flawed premise_. The flawed premise in this case is the void-space paradigm(VSP), the axiom that space is functionally void-- which automatically precludes the existance of a medium amenable to expansion, compression, and flow. OG stipulates that science be "rigourous". Well Uncle Albert rigourously applied math for his last 30 years to the unification of gravity. And he came up zip. Why? Because his math, perfect as it was, was predicated on the VSP, which prohibits a dynamic flowing medium. This does not mean that we should give up on math, Bill. Just as Copernicus and others found fault with Ptolemy's math and used their own mathematical prowess to show that Earth goes around the Sun instead of vice versa, we may use your description above to conclude either that Einstein's math became faulty at some point, perhaps due to his aging process, *or* that the VSP is indeed an incorrect paradigm. In either case, it will be math that resolves the mystery. It *must* be math, and this *must* be accepted. The problem of a grand unification theory will not be definitively solved until math is correctly applied to the challenge. As far as Wolter's connecting gravity and the strong force, exactly the same thing was echoed years later by Lindner and Warren, with Lindner calling it the 'hadronic flow' at the level where the flow enters the nucleus. Wolter saw electroweak as operating entirely within the nucleus, and not participating _directly_ in spatial flows 'out here' in the spacetime domain. Thus EW was not included in his Unified Field of Spatial Flows. EW is certainly real as you point out, and we have clear evidence of it in radioactive decay ejecta from 'down in the hole' (sorta like fulmanating Drano ejectag). And modern science also sees the strong force as operating entirely within the nucleus. I still say the no-brainer is that the weak force is connected with large-scale gravity (the weaker of the two large-scale forces), while the strong force is then connected with large-scale magnetism (the stronger of the two large-scale forces). Since science does not consider the strong nuclear force as being an inverse square force, science of course does not accept these associations. Science does not accept the existance of a flowing spatial medoum. That's the rub. And there seem to be good reasons for this. ...i believe that many of Wolter's ideas would be confirmed if math were to be applied to them. Wolter stated that the math is already in place in the equations of SR and GR and that no further math is needed. Once the reality of the expansible/ compressible/ flowing medium is recognized, the math will extrapolate directly to it. And G.U. will follow as the unsolicited, fortuitous spinoff. I'm afraid Wolter appears to have been wrong on this point. More math is most definitely needed, even if only to *confirm* the "reality of the expansible/compressible/flowing medium." The only other possibility would be that someone else will apply the math and take credit for Wolter's confirmed ideas. This seems to be what you want to happen. 'Twon't never happen under the VSP. As exemplified by OG, Zinni, Scott and crew, the 'no medium' doctrine is here to stay for the forseeable future. And that's fine. That is their truth, their reality. As Wolter would say, it's their referance frame which is to be respected as long as they are happy with it. oc I suppose i agree with this in principle, but in reality i have to be thankful that there were many people in history that did not follow this line of thinking. Most of these men and women were, right or wrong, ridiculed during their lifetimes. But if they *were* right, then their rightness came out eventually. It's precisely this kind of thinking that kept Ptolemaic ideas alive for so long. We can be thankful that Copernicus did not cave like this. Bill, do you *really* think that it's okay to allow ignorance to reign just because people are so happy being ignorant??? Let me ask you something... Why do you think the VSP is so damn deeply imbedded in science today? I know the story of the historic religious origins, but that can't be the *whole* story. There must be more to account for the rigorous way the VSP continues to be defended by science! Why do you think that is? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Do you have yourself a dream? Are you burning with desire? If no dream, you have no steam To fan your ember into fire! Do you have yourself a dream? Paine Ellsworth |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote,
I still say...... that the weak force is connected with large-scale gravity (the weaker of the two large-scale forces), What about when gravity crunches a massive star down to a BH? Did the weak force do that? Or was it done by the 'curvature' of the "Something that is yet nothing"? Let me ask you something... Why do you think the VSP is so damn deeply imbedded in science today? I know the story of the historic religious origins, but that can't be the *whole* story. There must be more to account for the rigorous way the VSP continues to be defended by science! Why do you think that is? Well, in chain of causation, there were the concerted religious edicts in Europe to eradicate all traces of 'aether' theories, which set the stage for the 'no medium' doctrine. Then there was the M-M null result, which was interpreted to confirm the no-medium premise. Finally, it was Uncle Albert's final abandonment of the Lorentz ether after 1920, and the establishment's near-deification of him that set in stone the no-medium doctrine. And there seems to be an institutional phobia, a virtual paranoia, against anything remotely smacking of an 'aether'. And since there is 'no medium', there can be no density gradients affecting deep-past redshift readings. And there can be no understanding of the mechanism of gravity, nor unification of gravity in the UFT. Admittedly, I have a hard time emulating Wolter's total charity for the Void-Spacers and their paradigm, and his pacifist admonition to "always respect the other fellow's referance frame". W. and Gandhi woulda made a great pair. oc |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
... Painius wrote, I still say...... that the weak force is connected with large-scale gravity (the weaker of the two large-scale forces), What about when gravity crunches a massive star down to a BH? Did the weak force do that? Or was it done by the 'curvature' of the "Something that is yet nothing"? I understand your point. But on the other hand, i sometimes find it difficult to envision the strong nuclear force as being ultimately accountable for the Sun's massive magnetic field that reaches well beyond the orbit of Pluto! Let me ask you something... Why do you think the VSP is so damn deeply imbedded in science today? I know the story of the historic religious origins, but that can't be the *whole* story. There must be more to account for the rigorous way the VSP continues to be defended by science! Why do you think that is? Well, in chain of causation, there were the concerted religious edicts in Europe to eradicate all traces of 'aether' theories, which set the stage for the 'no medium' doctrine. Then there was the M-M null result, which was interpreted to confirm the no-medium premise. Finally, it was Uncle Albert's final abandonment of the Lorentz ether after 1920, and the establishment's near-deification of him that set in stone the no-medium doctrine. And there seems to be an institutional phobia, a virtual paranoia, against anything remotely smacking of an 'aether'. And since there is 'no medium', there can be no density gradients affecting deep-past redshift readings. And there can be no understanding of the mechanism of gravity, nor unification of gravity in the UFT. Admittedly, I have a hard time emulating Wolter's total charity for the Void-Spacers and their paradigm, and his pacifist admonition to "always respect the other fellow's referance frame". W. and Gandhi woulda made a great pair. oc LOL... my favorite G. quote... When asked once what he thought about western civilization, his response was, "I think it would be a good idea." I imagine that W. might have given a like response if he had been asked what he thought about the thinking of today's cosmologists. g happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Do you have yourself a dream? Are you burning with desire? If no dream, you have no steam To fan your ember into fire! Do you have yourself a dream? Paine Ellsworth |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Painius, responding to Bert writes,
i happen to believe that the strong nuclear force *does* show an influence beyond the nucleus in the form of large-scale magnetic force. We disagree in that Bill also connects the strong force with the large-scale force of gravity, and i happen to associate gravity with the weak nuclear force. Well Paine, since you make the concession that magnetism is an 'outside the nucleus' manifestation of the strong force, why not carry the chain of logic a little further.. Magnetism behaves as a bipolar inflow with its polarity or 'sign' determined by spin direction, does it not? When sufficient numbers of nuclei become aligned en masse, they collectively generate the bipolar flow field we call a 'magnetic field'. But what about when the nuclei are *not* aligned (are aligned randomly)? The inflow is still happening, but lacks the spin component of magnetism. Thus it is monopolar, the basis of the 'reverse starburst' inflow of what we call gravity. Ever so subtly at first, it draws together the gases of protostellar clouds into stars and star systems, and ultimately accretes sufficient mass to produce BHs. It operates across astronomical distances and mediates Keplerian and Newtonian laws, yet has its genesis in the seat of the strong nuclear force. Wolter deduced the gravity-strong force connection years before it was echoed by Lindner/Warren. But the connection is impossible to make under the VSP, since there is 'nothing' to flow. IIRC, some while back you questioned why some materials are magnetic and others not. Under the spinning flow model, apparently the atomic structure of most matter is 'transparent' to the spin component, rendering it nonmagnetic, while magnetic material is 'opaque' to the spin component. Zinni'll have a field day with that oneg if he hasn't already used his 'Plonker'. oc |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
From Painius:
i sometimes find it difficult to envision the strong nuclear force as being ultimately accountable for the Sun's massive magnetic field that reaches well beyond the orbit of Pluto! There are certainly other mechanisms that generate magnetism, such as the geo-dynamo within the Earth. An on the sun, those great looping prominences are clearly spinning 'flux tubes' generated deep within the sun. With the sun so robust magnetically, it's not surprizing its field should reach 'way out thar, i would think. Anything that'll impart a spin component to a spatial flow will produce magnetism, not just the strong force within atomic nuclei. oc |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat wrote
Bill Sheppard wrote: From Painius: i sometimes find it difficult to envision the strong nuclear force as being ultimately accountable for the Sun's massive magnetic field that reaches well beyond the orbit of Pluto! There are certainly other mechanisms that generate magnetism, such as the geo-dynamo within the Earth. An on the sun, those great looping prominences are clearly spinning 'flux tubes' generated deep within the sun. With the sun so robust magnetically, it's not surprizing its field should reach 'way out thar, i would think. Anything that'll impart a spin component to a spatial flow will produce magnetism, not just the strong force within atomic nuclei. oc nightbat Hello oc and Painius, thought you might like this link about reference to renormalization group flow, spin, quantum class magnetism, and universality classes. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group Hope this helps in your discussion. the nightbat |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Sun's massive magnetic field that reaches well
beyond the orbit of Pluto! The Sun has a paltry magnetic field, are you thinking of the Solar Wind? If the fields of Earth and Jupiter were both approximately represented by bar magnets at the planet's centre, then Jupiter's magnet would be about 20,000 times stronger. The bright regions identify the regions where magnetic field lines from Jupiter are tangent with Io's surface, creating a 500,000 volt electric circuit that energize the molecules. When Io reaches certain positions, an electric current of 5 million amps may flow between Jupiter's ionosphere and Io, which would produce the tremendous radio bursts. Just a few quotes above - scary stuff - no? Regards Robert "Painius" wrote in message ... "Bill Sheppard" wrote in message... ... Painius wrote, I still say...... that the weak force is connected with large-scale gravity (the weaker of the two large-scale forces), What about when gravity crunches a massive star down to a BH? Did the weak force do that? Or was it done by the 'curvature' of the "Something that is yet nothing"? I understand your point. But on the other hand, i sometimes find it difficult to envision the strong nuclear force as being ultimately accountable for the Sun's massive magnetic field that reaches well beyond the orbit of Pluto! Let me ask you something... Why do you think the VSP is so damn deeply imbedded in science today? I know the story of the historic religious origins, but that can't be the *whole* story. There must be more to account for the rigorous way the VSP continues to be defended by science! Why do you think that is? Well, in chain of causation, there were the concerted religious edicts in Europe to eradicate all traces of 'aether' theories, which set the stage for the 'no medium' doctrine. Then there was the M-M null result, which was interpreted to confirm the no-medium premise. Finally, it was Uncle Albert's final abandonment of the Lorentz ether after 1920, and the establishment's near-deification of him that set in stone the no-medium doctrine. And there seems to be an institutional phobia, a virtual paranoia, against anything remotely smacking of an 'aether'. And since there is 'no medium', there can be no density gradients affecting deep-past redshift readings. And there can be no understanding of the mechanism of gravity, nor unification of gravity in the UFT. Admittedly, I have a hard time emulating Wolter's total charity for the Void-Spacers and their paradigm, and his pacifist admonition to "always respect the other fellow's referance frame". W. and Gandhi woulda made a great pair. oc LOL... my favorite G. quote... When asked once what he thought about western civilization, his response was, "I think it would be a good idea." I imagine that W. might have given a like response if he had been asked what he thought about the thinking of today's cosmologists. g happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Do you have yourself a dream? Are you burning with desire? If no dream, you have no steam To fan your ember into fire! Do you have yourself a dream? Paine Ellsworth --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 17/03/2004 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
From Robert McCurdy to Painius:
The Sun has a paltry magnetic field, are you thinking of the Solar Wind? Are you sure about that? For example see- http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarmag.html oc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang busted? | Bob Wallum | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 16th 04 02:44 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 1 | July 30th 03 12:01 AM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 29th 03 04:50 PM |