Re: The 'Strong Force' is a fiction! (Part 1)

From: Dr Chaos (mbkennelSPAMBEGONE_at_NOSPAMyahoo.com)
Date: 07/26/04

  • Next message: Karl: "FA: Five Rare Old Physics Books - Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum mysteries, time travels, etc." 
    Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:40:12 +0000 (UTC)

    On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:08:20 -0700, CCRyder <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote:
    >> Can you propose an experiment or measurement that will distinguish the
    >> "strongly attractive interaction" you describe from that described by the
    >> strong force theory?

    I can. Let's scatter hydrogen and deuterium at targets. Funny, the
    numbers of neutrons and spin changes what comes out.

    Where did that come from?

    > What is wrong with just learning the deductive method of logic?

    5 out of 5 epistemologists agree: Hiroshima beats Descartes

    > I said
    > that the facts can be deduced from Maxwell's equations and axioms which
    > can be extracted straight from the implicit facts which can be
    > extracted by a careful analysis of the principle of the relativity of
    > motion. In other words it is straightforwardly easy to prove.

    Take Landau & Lifshitz Classical Theory of Fields. Name the first
    wrong equation.

    > We
    > already have a tremendous amount of data available with respect to the
    > interaction of elementary charges and to the interaction of parallel
    > current elements. I deduced a set of flux loop linking, stacking and
    > merging rules from experimental data. I'm saying that no one has ever
    > taken this investigative route before. I took it. I discovered that
    > the unnecessary fiction of a nuclear strong force was contrived to
    > simply cover up a lack of knowledge or a lack of intellectual
    > discipline which had it existed could have led others to the same exact
    > conclusion which I have discovered. What the hell are all these fakes
    > going to do now? They've built an entire castle in the sky based upon
    > this contrived 'just so story' of a 'nuclear strong force'.

    On the way to my office restroom there is a very very large table
    called "Periodic table of the nuclei". It is nasty.

    How do you explain the huge differences in empirically observed
    properties between isotopes of equal charge with CCRyder/Maxwell?

    > So, the
    > deal is that there are already mountains of experimental data and now
    > all it takes is the strength of character and will to reject the
    > falsehoods that have dominated modern physics for the last 70 or more
    > years. That isn't going to happen voluntarily. So, what I really have
    > is not just an experiment but rather I have designed absolutely new
    > technology that couldn't possibly work unless I have a correct model of
    > the interactive behavior of elementary charged particles. I have a
    > completely new physics which includes the correct modeling of the
    > nature of charge and makes trivial the unification of electromagnetism
    > and gravity.

    Why did Oppenheimer have to spend billions to separate U-235 from
    U-238? Their nuclei have the same charge.

    > I have solved a veritable host of problems in
    > astrophysics and cosmology, solar physics, and planetary physics and it
    > all comes out of this new physics. see

    what about the old ones, like 80 years of boring observations about
    nuclear physics?

    Like, why aren't there Z=817 nuclei lying around?

    Or, let's take a simpler one: why does spontaneous radioactivity work
    the way it does if there's no strong force, and it's all
    electromagnetic with bizzare kinematics?

    > http://www.freewebs.com/fusionnow/
    >
    > CCRyder

  • Next message: Karl: "FA: Five Rare Old Physics Books - Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum mysteries, time travels, etc."