 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2005Challenge to Tom Roberts
Hi Tom, I guess it is safe to say that you cannot calculate the nuclear binding energy or nuclear binding force using QCD. So I have earned another point by developing a simple nuclear binding force equation and nuclear binding energy equation that does something the SM and its sub theories cannot. People might think you would have the decency to admit that my theory is useful and worth further pursuing after this monumental presentation (as simple as it was). Well, do you? Dave David Thomson wrote: > Hi Tom, > I'm still waiting for your presentation of calculating the nuclear > binding force and energy for H4 using QCD. > Dave > David Thomson wrote: > >> Be more specific, provide an equation that shows the units and > > dimensions of the strong force. For example, calculate the strong > > force between two protons and two neutrons (H4). > > My equation is fairly simple. Let us calculate the strong force of the > > berylium isotope Be11: > > Z = 4 N = 11 > > strong binding force equation: > > BNDF = k.c * Z * e.pmax^2 * N * e.nmax^2 / w.C^2 > > BNDF = 4.32 newton > > (k.c = Coulomb's constant, e.pmax^2 = strong charge of proton, e.nmax^2 > > = strong charge of neutron, w.C = Compton wavelength, Z = number of > > protons, N = number of neutrons) > > To find the nuclear binding energy, use this form of the above > > equation: > > BNDE = k.c * Z * e.pmax^2 * N * e.nmax^2 / w.C > > BNDE = 65.416 MeV > > The actual measured binding energy of Beryllium 11 is 65.481 MeV. The > > difference between my calculated value and the measured value is that > > my calculation is simplified and does not take into account the > > distortion caused by the twisting of the Aether. Naturally I chose an > > isotope with nearly zero net distortion. > > But let us see the simple force law that you are discussing and how it > > maintains the dimensions throughout the equations. [snip] Do you even know calculus? You show no signs of having an education in either physics or mathematics... > Do you even know calculus? > > You show no signs of having an education in either physics or > mathematics... Do you know algebra? I have presented a working formula using simple algebra. Can you beat that by calculating the binding forces or binding energies of isotopes using *any* method of mathematics? I can do calculus, but that is completely irrelevant to the challenge. Tom wanted to see my theory do something, so I showed him how easy it is to calculate nuclear binding energies and binding forces. Are you going to ignore the functionality of my theory, too, and just blow more hot air? What's wrong with you guys? Dave > Hi Tom, > I guess it is safe to say that you cannot calculate the nuclear binding > energy or nuclear binding force using QCD. Yes, I cannot do that. <shrug> > So I have earned another > point by developing a simple nuclear binding force equation and nuclear > binding energy equation that does something the SM and its sub theories > cannot. I have no idea what sort of "point" that would be. More to the point, what _experimental_ test could be applied? Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > > Hi Tom, > > I guess it is safe to say that you cannot calculate the nuclear binding > > energy or nuclear binding force using QCD. > > Yes, I cannot do that. <shrug> Well, you wanted to see what my theory does that the SM does not. Now you have it. <shrug> > > So I have earned another > > point by developing a simple nuclear binding force equation and nuclear > > binding energy equation that does something the SM and its sub theories > > cannot. > > I have no idea what sort of "point" that would be. The point is that I have once again delivered real results with my physics theory. You keep blabbing that it doesn't do anything. I keep showing you what the Aether Physics Model can do. So what are you going to do now? Just ignore it? > More to the point, what _experimental_ test could be applied? What more do you need? I have given you the equation, just calculate a nuclear binding energy, measure it, and see how they compare. You can also use the nuclear force equation and see if the amount of force needed to separate a deuterium atom matches the predicted force of the equation. Dave David Thomson: >> > Hi Tom, >> > I guess it is safe to say that you cannot calculate the nuclear binding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Well, you wanted to see what my theory does that the SM does not. Now >you have it. <shrug> The standard model also isn't useful for comparing the mass of two cannon balls from a measure of muzzle velocity obtained from a carefully measured amount of powder. [...] >> I have no idea what sort of "point" that would be. > >The point is that I have once again delivered real results with my >physics theory. You mean by comparing apples to oranges? How about a test that compares apples to apples, like say your model against the nuclear shell model? [...] >> More to the point, what _experimental_ test could be applied? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >needed to separate a deuterium atom matches the predicted force of the >equation. And what does your model say about the shape of the deuteron? Why is there no 2He or dineutron? How about 5H, 5He, 5Li, 5Be, etc.? What does your model say about 8Be? > >> > I guess it is safe to say that you cannot calculate the nuclear binding > >> > energy or nuclear binding force using QCD. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > two cannon balls from a measure of muzzle velocity obtained from > a carefully measured amount of powder. Bilge, of all people, I would expect better from you. You are quite aware how important a Unified Force Theory and nuclear binding energy equation should be to modern physics. > You mean by comparing apples to oranges? How about a test that > compares apples to apples, like say your model against the nuclear > shell model? The Aether Physics Model incorporates the Linus Pauling Spheron model. > >> More to the point, what _experimental_ test could be applied? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why is there no 2He or dineutron? How about 5H, 5He, 5Li, 5Be, > etc.? What does your model say about 8Be? Are we jumping through hoops again? How about some feedback on the questions I have already answered? My model predicts the shape of the deuteron as seen on this page: http://www.jlab.org/highlights/nuclear/Nuclear.html I'm aware that the shapes of other isotope nuclei have been determined by the SM, but I haven't gone as far down this road. Having deduced the shape of the space-time in which the subatomic particles exist, I was able to predict the simple condition of one proton and one neutron quite easily. I'm sure the geometry of the other isotopes can be predicted from the theory and that doing so will increase the accuracy of the nuclear binding energy and nuclear binding force equations to near exact. This is one of the things I have not yet had the resources to pursue. If you were so inclined, you could be the first to determine this and get the credit for yourself. Dave David Thomson: >> >> > I guess it is safe to say that you cannot calculate the nuclear binding >> >> > energy or nuclear binding force using QCD. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >aware how important a Unified Force Theory and nuclear binding energy >equation should be to modern physics. I am aware of a lot of things, one of which is that you don't have a model than answer anything related to those topics. I have plenty of examples you can use to try and make your case, though. So far, you have successfully avoided making your case. >> You mean by comparing apples to oranges? How about a test that >> compares apples to apples, like say your model against the nuclear >> shell model? > >The Aether Physics Model incorporates the Linus Pauling Spheron model. I don't care if incorporates cake frosting, you didn't answer the question. [...] >> And what does your model say about the shape of the deuteron? >> Why is there no 2He or dineutron? How about 5H, 5He, 5Li, 5Be, >> etc.? What does your model say about 8Be? > >Are we jumping through hoops again? Since you are claiming to have a theory of something, jumping through hoops is your job. If you don't like the work, don't do it. If you can't get through the few simple tasks I've set out, you have no chance under any serious scrutiny. >How about some feedback on the questions I have already answered? You haven't answered any questions. >My model predicts the shape of the deuteron as seen on this page: >http://www.jlab.org/highlights/nuclear/Nuclear.html Last time I checked, you weren't the jefferson labs. If I wanted the information on that url, I could have just asked myself for it. The next time you post a reference to work that is not yours and claim you can reproduce it, I'm going to be a lot less user friendly. >I'm aware that the shapes of other isotope nuclei have been determined >by the SM, but I haven't gone as far down this road. Apparently, you aren't aware of what the standard model is, since you keep invoking it to refer to nuclear physics but not any of the nuclear physics of interest to the standard model. > Since you are claiming to have a theory of something, jumping > through hoops is your job. If you don't like the work, don't do > it. If I don't like the fact that you have ignored all my answers in the past, I will just continue to ignore your disingenuous hoopla. > If you can't get through the few simple tasks I've set out, > you have no chance under any serious scrutiny. That's what you think. I have actually been getting lots of interest in my theories, lately. I just met with a former government contractor who has worked closely with certain prominent universities, who made phone calls and arranged for my work to be carefully reviewed. You're just a hobby to me. > >How about some feedback on the questions I have already answered? > > You haven't answered any questions. Go back and read my posts, rather than make assumptions. > >My model predicts the shape of the deuteron as seen on this page: > >http://www.jlab.org/highlights/nuclear/Nuclear.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The next time you post a reference to work that is not yours and > claim you can reproduce it, I'm going to be a lot less user friendly. LOL. When have you *ever* been friendly? If you want to see how my theory predicts the structure of the deuteron, then read it. Don't ask me to continually reproduce it in plain text. When you get up off your duff and actually start commenting on my work, rather than demonstrating your lack of critical analysis skills, I'll reconsider just how genuine I think your intentions are. > >I'm aware that the shapes of other isotope nuclei have been determined > >by the SM, but I haven't gone as far down this road. > > Apparently, you aren't aware of what the standard model is, since > you keep invoking it to refer to nuclear physics but not any of > the nuclear physics of interest to the standard model. You are so lame. Dave David Thomson: >> Since you are claiming to have a theory of something, jumping >> through hoops is your job. If you don't like the work, don't do >> it. > >If I don't like the fact that you have ignored all my answers in the >past, I will just continue to ignore your disingenuous hoopla. You've never answered any question you've ever been asked. >> If you can't get through the few simple tasks I've set out, >> you have no chance under any serious scrutiny. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >who has worked closely with certain prominent universities, who made >phone calls and arranged for my work to be carefully reviewed. The University of PO Box 2005 doesn't count. >You're just a hobby to me. Flattery will get you nowhere. >> >How about some feedback on the questions I have already answered? >> >> You haven't answered any questions. > >Go back and read my posts, rather than make assumptions. Non-reponsive. David Thomson: >Hi Tom, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >binding energy equation that does something the SM and its sub theories >cannot. Care to test your equation for the nuclear binding? OK, since you insist, calculate the mass difference between, 3He-3H, 41Ca-41Sc, 57Ni-57Cu and explain the masses. Note that each of those are single particle mirror nuclei, so the the differ by the difference in the neutron/proton mass and the difference in coulomb energy (plus whatever explanation you have for anything left over). You should be able to match all of the experimental data including the nuclear radius and a structure which is consistent with the observed transitions between states (esp. the beta decay between the mirror nuclei.) >People might think you would have the decency to admit that my theory >is useful and worth further pursuing after this monumental presentation >(as simple as it was). Why is that? I can find lots of empirical and semi-empirical binding energy formulae for nuclei. The last thing anyone needs or cares about is yet another empirical mass formula. Finding one that can explain the detailed nuclear structure is a little harder. > Care to test your equation for the nuclear binding? OK, since > you insist, calculate the mass difference between, 3He-3H, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > consistent with the observed transitions between states (esp. > the beta decay between the mirror nuclei.) I will gladly calculate the above masses using my equations. But first, I would like to see your calculation of 11Be nuclear binding energy using QCD. I'm curious to see whether or not it can be done. > >People might think you would have the decency to admit that my theory > >is useful and worth further pursuing after this monumental presentation [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one that can explain the detailed nuclear structure is a little > harder. First of all, I am not aware of a single formula for calculating *all* the nuclear binding energies, let alone the nuclear binding forces, other than my own formula. My theory, as I have often explained on these newsgroups, geometrically quantifies space-time, the subatomic particles, and the force laws into a coherent Theory of Everything. The nuclear binding energy equations I produce, while not yet perfected, were derived from *first principles*, not from the empirical data. The equations describing the space-time, particulate, and force structures of the quantum realm *were* derived from empirical data. The empirical nuclear binding energy data merely confirms the formula I derived from first principles is on the right track. Also, my formula is not a "mass" formula per se, it is a "strong charge" formula. That is, because the Aether Physics Model quantifies the strong charge in compatible dimensions with mass, we can directly calculate the strong force and binding energies directly using a simple force law. Knowing there is a precise mass to strong charge ratio that is consistent throughout the Universe, we can then convert the strong charge to mass, and we can also directly convert the strong charge to angular momentum via the universal conductance constant. I await your demonstration of the QCD, or even a simple statement that it cannot be done. Then I will do the equations you requested. Dave >> Care to test your equation for the nuclear binding? OK, since >> you insist, calculate the mass difference between, 3He-3H, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I will gladly calculate the above masses using my equations. Then stop evading, shut up, and do it. Rest of evasive junk snipped. Bill > > I will gladly calculate the above masses using my equations. > Then stop evading, shut up, and do it. > Rest of evasive junk snipped. Don't be such a snot. I have put up with you guy's crap long enough. If you're going to make me jump through hoops, you can jump through of few yourself. Dave >> > I will gladly calculate the above masses using my equations. >> Then stop evading, shut up, and do it. >> Rest of evasive junk snipped. > > Don't be such a snot. Quit evading. You claimed you can answer Bilge's question - do it. > I have put up with you guy's crap long enough. More like we have put up with your crap for too long. Answer the question or be branded for what you so obviously are - both a liar and an idiot. > If you're going to make me jump through hoops, If you can't jump through the hoop don't claim you can. > you can jump through of few yourself. All you really are doing is confirming what Dirk has already documented - namely your Sucking Logic, Sucking Algebra, Sucking Attitude, Sucking Thumbs, the deadly combination of IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE, topped with a coulis of SELF-RESPECT as from now known under the name ARROGNORANCE http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html Bill <hot air snipped> Did you say something? Dave > <hot air snipped> > > Did you say something? Yes -but as usual you were not listening. Bill > Dave > > <hot air snipped> > > > > Did you say something? > > Yes -but as usual you were not listening. I'm too busy working with actual science to be bothered listening to your boring and unfounded personal opinions. Dave > > > <hot air snipped> > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm too busy working with actual science to be bothered listening to > your boring and unfounded personal opinions. So you are finally making the long-awaited sojourn to a library to be introduced to mid-20th century physics? > Dave David Thomson: >> Care to test your equation for the nuclear binding? OK, since >> you insist, calculate the mass difference between, 3He-3H, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I will gladly calculate the above masses using my equations. No, you won't and in any case, I asked for more than just the masses. As I have mentioned previously, there are lots of formulae one can use to obtain the mass of a nucleus, the liquid drop model and the garvey-kelson mass formula are but two. >But >first, I would like to see your calculation of 11Be nuclear binding >energy using QCD. I'm curious to see whether or not it can be done. You don't read very well. One cannot calculate the mass of a large nucleus using QCD, nor is it ever likely anyone would expect such a calculation to be done any more than anyone expects to start with the coulomb interaction and predict global weather patterns. Do you really have even a hint of what qcd is or are you just engaging in self-promotion by picking up buzzwords? Try comparing your model to the nuclear shell model and see if you can even get within striking distance of the most naive shell model predictions. What you have done is called fitting data. >> Why is that? I can find lots of empirical and semi-empirical >> binding energy formulae for nuclei. The last thing anyone needs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >First of all, I am not aware of a single formula for calculating *all* >the nuclear binding energies, let alone the nuclear binding forces, Since I've told you before of a number of such formulae, that ruse won't fly. In any case, if you are going to claim to be doing research, it's your responsibility to know. >other than my own formula. My theory, as I have often explained on >these newsgroups, geometrically quantifies space-time, the subatomic >particles, and the force laws into a coherent Theory of Everything. Can the crap. You can't even explain nuclear structure, much less anything more difficult. Don't say you can unless you are in a position to demonstrate it using an example or two that I will supply. >The nuclear binding energy equations I produce, while not yet >perfected, were derived from *first principles*, not from the empirical >data. Be serious. There is nothing remotely resembling first, second or even third principles in your fits. > > Care to test your equation for the nuclear binding? OK, since > > you insist, calculate the mass difference between, 3He-3H, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > charge to mass, and we can also directly convert the strong charge to > angular momentum via the universal conductance constant. One dumb question: If your equations are different than current physics then how come they give the same correct numerical predictions as current physics equations for all experiments?? Ken Seto > One dumb question: > If your equations are different than current physics then how come they give > the same correct numerical predictions as current physics equations for all > experiments?? Hi Ken, If you read the posts carefully, you'll notice that there are no equations in the SM that compare to mine. The only way the SM can calculate nuclear binding energies is to measure them first and then back calculate a so-called "mass defect." This mass defect is then reused to "calculate" the nuclear binding energy. My equations are based upon a strong force law, and recently I have also been able to refine the equation to account for the proton and neutron's magnetic moments. As it stands right now, my equation when applied to all the known isotopes, calculates the nuclear binding energies to within an average 92.58% accuracy. The equation as it stands now is particularly accurate for the isotopes near the elements of iron and nickel, the most stable in terms of binding energy per nucleon. You might think there are equations that predict the nuclear binding energies in the SM, but they simply do not exist. There have been some particularly numerical attempts to predict the nuclear binding energies, but they were truly data fitting techniques. My equations are firmly rooted in a strong force law I have developed and the relationships of subatomic particle magnetic moments. I suspect the third part of the equation will be related to the spin structure of the space-time in which the subatomic particles exist (Aether). I've had some insights into how this might work just recently and have been working on it. Dave > > One dumb question: > > If your equations are different than current physics then how come they give > > the same correct numerical predictions as current physics equations for all > > experiments?? :-)) > Hi Ken, Beaten by the biggest imbecile of the club. Congratulations. To both of you. Dirk Vdm > > One dumb question: > > If your equations are different than current physics then how come they give [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > back calculate a so-called "mass defect." This mass defect is then > reused to "calculate" the nuclear binding energy. I was under the impression that you have different equations for all interactions....not just the nuclear binding energies. I am wrong on that assumption? Also what about relativity?...do you have different equations than SR/GR? Thanks. Ken Seto > My equations are based upon a strong force law, and recently I have > also been able to refine the equation to account for the proton and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dave > "David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message > > If you read the posts carefully, you'll notice that there are no [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > assumption? Also what about relativity?...do you have different equations > than SR/GR? Thanks. No, I do not have different equations for all interactions. My equations are based upon the known equations and interactions. I have developed a completely new level of physics, which describes the *structure* of the quantum realm. The only thing my theory replaces are the nonsensical interpretations of wave/particle duality, probability functions, force particles, and such. I provide a quantified alternative to these mythological descriptions of quantum structure. I determined this quantified structure from analyzing the same empirical data and equations that these mythological interpretations were attributed to. My theory also shows an alternative explanation to General Relativity theory. Instead of seeing the Einstein tensors as being gravitational, they are shown to be electrical. The tug is not between a geometric curvature tensor and mass/energy tensor, but between the electrostatic charge of the Aether and the strong charge of matter. My theory clearly and simply quantifies the dimension of mass as being orthogonal to the dimension of charge, and thus the two are always directly proportional to each other. Thus, Einstein can develop GR based upon gravity and I can explain it based upon charge, and we would come up with the same result. The difference, however, is that the electrical interpretation has far more practical use in engineering than does the gravitational interpretation. With the electrical interpretation, the Electric Universe theory comes alive but we can also understand the electrostatic propulsion effect, engineered distortions of space-time, signalling without photons, tapping the vast sea of dark matter for free energy, and numerous other applications. Einstein's simlifed field equation is: G = 8pi T mine is: e^2 = 8pi (e.emax^2 * a) where e^2 is the electrostatic charge, e.emax^2 is the strong charge, and a is the fine structure of the electron. The above equation is an expression of the Unified Charge Equation and there exists a unique unified charge equation for each subatomic particle. My theory does not forage deeply into the physics of describing *how* things work. It is from the physics of *how* things work that the APM can describe *what it is that is doing the work." From this quantification of quantum structure it is then possible to extend physics into areas that today are merely called "anomalies." Also, from this quantification of quantum structure we can clearly eliminate the nonsensical interpretations that attempted to describe the quantum structures. Dave > > "David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message > > > If you read the posts carefully, you'll notice that there are no [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > same empirical data and equations that these mythological > interpretations were attributed to. HA HA HA HA. You propose to overwrite all of quantum physics yet you can't replicate any of its' predictions? You claim you base your theory off "empirical data" yet you cannot even be bothered to search the archives of the two journals you have access to for evidence that blatently contradicts your theory? > My theory also shows an alternative explanation to General Relativity > theory. Instead of seeing the Einstein tensors as being gravitational, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > signalling without photons, tapping the vast sea of dark matter for > free energy, and numerous other applications. More babble which means f.ck-all. > Einstein's simlifed field equation is: > > G = 8pi T Are you even capable of solving this field equation? If I gave you the stress-energy tensor for a perfect fluid could you give me all, if any, of the nonzero connection coefficients? > mine is: > > e^2 = 8pi (e.emax^2 * a) This isn't a field equation. > where e^2 is the electrostatic charge, e.emax^2 is the strong charge, > and a is the fine structure of the electron. The above equation is an > expression of the Unified Charge Equation and there exists a unique > unified charge equation for each subatomic particle. Why don't you use your 'field equation' to develop these 'unified charge equations' ? > My theory does not forage deeply into the physics of describing *how* > things work. It is from the physics of *how* things work that the APM [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the nonsensical interpretations that attempted to describe the quantum > structures. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is nonsense. > Dave I thought you were going to spend more time doing 'real physics' or somesuch? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.