If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 » Misc Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

#31
April 4th 04, 12:09 AM
 OG external usenet poster Posts: n/a

"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).

"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
April 4th 04, 09:46 AM
 Painius external usenet poster Posts: n/a

"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
April 4th 04, 10:35 AM
 Painius external usenet poster Posts: n/a

"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
April 4th 04, 02:25 PM
 Bill Sheppard external usenet poster Posts: n/a

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
respect the other fellow's referance frame". W. and Gandhi woulda made
a great pair. oc

#35
April 4th 04, 03:51 PM
 Painius external usenet poster Posts: n/a

"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
respect the other fellow's referance frame". W. and Gandhi woulda made
a great pair. oc

LOL... my favorite G. quote...

response was, "I think it would be a good idea."

I imagine that W. might have given a like response if he had been

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
April 4th 04, 04:26 PM
 Bill Sheppard external usenet poster Posts: n/a

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
oc

#37
April 4th 04, 05:16 PM
 Bill Sheppard external usenet poster Posts: n/a

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
April 4th 04, 10:01 PM
 nightbat external usenet poster Posts: n/a

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

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
April 6th 04, 03:50 PM
 Robert McCurdy external usenet poster Posts: n/a

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

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
respect the other fellow's referance frame". W. and Gandhi woulda made
a great pair. oc

LOL... my favorite G. quote...

response was, "I think it would be a good idea."

I imagine that W. might have given a like response if he had been

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
April 6th 04, 05:48 PM
 Bill Sheppard external usenet poster Posts: n/a

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 Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 PM.