Re: Binding Energy Question

On Mar 1, 11:01 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Does your web site have summary of it or free chapters?

Here is the page describing the book

http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/geomax2a.htm

The intro is there, as well as the presentation speech at
congress-2000, and one appendix on the state of physics.

So you live in Canada. Well. How about this. I'd send
you amazon email gift cheque as payment then you
sent it to my country.

I'm afraid I don't use amazon much. Where do you live ?

Near the amazon jungle.


What do you mean you couldn't explain this without
very extensive set up. It means your book has
details of them that you can't share in short
messages?

Not at all. Only that I don't really care spending
hours at the keyboard explaining every detail from
the ground up.

This is a complete model. Not just some patchwork
of disjointed ideas.

Would you consider explaining all of SR and GR
on a newsgroup to someone who doesn't have
the faintest idea of curved geometry ?

I did discuss just about every aspect of it here
over the course of the past 10 years. Never made
any secret about it.

Ok. If I have time. I'll go over your 10 years of debates
with all the physicists. Maybe you are the greatest
genius who ever lived who has overtaken Dirac,
Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Gell-man, and other physics giants.
I mentioned great genius because you beat all of them
in one stroke. Anyway. Right now I have to learn
some new cooking technique from my mentor because
there is a big reception coming up in 2 weeks so I'm
quite busy.


Well. If that's the case I only need
to know this initial fact for startup (before
getting your book in weeks). The proton has
2 up quarks.

Yes.

Pauli principle excluded two objects in the same
states. This is one of the reasons the color charge
was suggested in order that one of the up quark is
blue quark while the 2nd up quark is green quark.
They not being the same objects hence
can occupy the same state. Now how can
your electromagnetic field being just possible

There is no underlying EM field whatsoever in the
model.

and negative explain the violations of the pauli
principle in the up quarks??

There is no Pauli principle violation involved, for the
simple reason that they are not in the same state.

They cannot possibly occupy the same spatial
coordinates in the model due to translation
velocity.

What's translation velocity? Why do you think
physicists have to introduced color charges, for
what purpose? Maybe just to piss us all and
justify billions of dollars in accelerators funding?
Maybe the Large Hadron Collider is a waste of
time isn't it. Instead maybe the fund should
be diverted to your company to produce new
source of energy, right?


And most important, how do you make it
mathematically consistent?

Very easily. But again, there is no way to explain
it without extensive setting up.

Part of the reason for the 8 kinds of gluons
being cooked up is to make it compatible
with the operations of the Schroedinger
Equations when it is applied relatvistically
in a field invironment to the quarks (called QCD)
and gauge group SU(3).

The Shrödinger equation was meant to describe
the electronic escort. Never meant to describe
stuff that no one even imagined existed when
it was cooked up. It doesn't apply. Nucleons
are totally relativistic.

Not correct. Even though Schroedinger Equation
was originally cooked up to explain the electronic
escort. It is upgraded to deal with fields and
changing states like the electrons emitting photons
and taking into account the mass of the system
as energy as in the klein-gordon equations.

Not applicable with my model since it mandates that
all em particles be localized at all times, even as they
move.

Then it was applied using Gauge principle to the
electroweak theory and the strong force. Maybe
you are not just familiar with the Schroedinger
Equations and modern QFT that's why you seem
can't get it.

Feel free to think that I don't get it if you like.

But QFT, Klein-Gordon relativistic equation or
any other wave based equation simply make
no sense in my model and are just not required
in any way shape or form.

In your model, it doesn't make sense because
you don't embrace it in your model.

No. Because it is not required. Nothing involving
non locality simply makes no sense in the model.

I'd love to embrace your model. That way I don't
have to think of the Copenhagen and can focus
on other things in life than physics. It made me
crazy thinking of physics at times and making me
lose touch with reality. That's why I don't want
to get serious with physics but treat it as some
kind of entertainment. Too bad there is no imax
version of physics.


Anyway.
I'd like to know something. How well do you
understand the Schroedinger Equation
mathematically? What is a wave function? Pls.
explain as I'd like to know what you have in mind
about it.

As I said before, I do no exams. You can get the
Schrödinger equation form any intro ref on
electromagnetism.

I'd love to hear alternative explanations about the
nucleons because there seems to be a problem with
QCD in that you can't pull the quarks apart because
the strong force only gets stronger when there
is larger separation.

In reality they have been pulled apart countless
times. As soon as they cease to be under
high energy stress, they simply come out
as electrons and positrons, when not temporarily
as muons or as twins of quarks that soon degrade
as gamma and electrons, positrons, or muons.

Hmm.. how come physicists haven't detected
free quark that can turn into electrons, etc.?

Well maybe they see the electrons but don't
recognize that they are what they were looking
for.

Don't look for something and you are certain
not to find it.

free quark can only be created as quark-antiquark
pairs but only momentarily.

Why, in your opinion ? What do you think happens
to them ?

Because they annihilate again turning back to the
strong gamma rays.. Very powerful photons can
shift in to any particle-antiparticle pairs. Nobel laureate
Lederman even said there is very tiny possibility of
virtual golf-antigolf ball pairs being created.

Well, Nobel laureate Lederman did not understand much
about fundamental particles then.

Yes. Maybe Sweden needs to withdraw the Nobel from
all of them and give them to some of our folks here.

Sorry no gift cheques.

Your best bet would be to visit your local institution
bookstore and ask them to order it. Less costly
to you all around if you live outside north america.

Direct shipping costs by mail are rather high.


Come on. Make that book available everywhere so
that it can replace school physics textbooks and educate
the next generations of students.

Higis
"Ignorance is Bliss".



.

Relevant Pages