Gravity & Strong Force

[saul]

I would expect major revelations since he was almost ready to present his theory to the world, and firmly believed that relativity was a total blunder that misdirected from the true state of the universe. You have already seen what relativity has lead to, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the avoidance of any description of electrical forces acting in the universe. Tesla never presented any theory without experimentation first, I therefore expect he had at the least diagrams for machines to test this theory. A theory that could only have one consequence, dispute relativity. If it did not dispute relativity he would not have believed it was rubbish. The proof that electrical forces rule the universe would change science as we know it, with perhaps even devices that would enable one to control those forces.

This is a huge misrepresentation of Special Relativity. Avoidance of electrical forces? Au contraire, SR says that electrical forces are the very things which define distance and time. Special Relativity says that Electric forces are more important to us than any preconceived concept of absolute space, in fact shaping our entire view of what is reality. If you wish for proof that electrical forces rule the universe look up "meter" or "second" in the dictionary. You will see that these most fundamental of all physical concepts are defined with electric forces. Dark energy? Neutron stars? No, relativity is about clocks and meter sticks and careful use of coordinates to record observations.. taking into account that it is electromagnetic forces which hold our world and our brains together.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

E=mc^2 mass/energy equivalence comes out of the wholly incorrect theory of SR. In SR it is just plain wrong, without SR it is a concept without a theory.

With respect to mass-energy transmutation I think you romanticising about ad hoc creation - making the impossible possible by imagination. The universe does not imagine, it operates by constantly obeying laws - it cannot violate or even stray from those restrictions. The concept of "pure energy" or energy as a substance is unmechanical, unscientific and severely logically flawed.

Energy is a mathematical property of mass in motion : 1/2 . mass . velocity^2 . A mass in motion can, by collision, generate force and transfer momentum. In other words a mass in motion can do work. Energy is a quantitative description of an body's potential to do work.

There is also a belief, which I suspect you share, that electromagnetism is some kind of "fizzy magic". At some more fundamental level electromagnetism is the simple and inevitable outcome of bodies with mass operating according to the laws of mechanics. Everything is mass in motion. All "energy" is kinetic. You can try to invoke a wispy non-particulate pure-energy substance, but you will fail. Once invoked it must be examined, and once examined, you will find yourself beaten into submission by logic - Logic and Physics will be satisfied and there is no escape.

how do you explain energy from fusion in the sun and fission in a nuclear reactor?

Although Mr Heisenberg and other parasites have chosen to reject the laws of mechanics, it is certain in the fullness of time to come back and bite them. The only possible explanation of gravity and electromagnetism is some sort of aether or aethers - without this we are left with action at a distance and the well deserved contempt and ridicule of future historians. Mass energy equivalency requires the total absence of reason, logic, sense and mechanics. Every essential element of Physics is removed or perverted by mass energy equivalence.

"Binding energy", what a huge pile of profanities. Knowing that "energy" is kinetic, it becomes rather obvious that the difference in mass between atomic constituents and atomic elements can be accounted for, not as binding energy, but as binding mass.

Michael

[Goldminer]

This is a huge misrepresentation of Special Relativity. Avoidance of electrical forces? Au contraire, SR says that electrical forces are the very things which define distance and time . . . No, relativity is about clocks and meter sticks and careful use of coordinates to record observations . . .

Sorry about chopping your quote. I agree with the parts deleted. Just have to state that Einstein's SR is a real cock up. By poorly defining, playing with several meanings of the same words, and giving "coordinate systems" and "frames of reference" an unjustified existence in reality, he invents a marvelous fiction which can be, and is, twisted further by later admirers to fit any "observation." Just one example of such is the conflation of "emission events" with "detection events"

Another is his "length of the train" gedankin, wherein the signal delay supposedly involved in measuring the moving train from the platform can be applied either from the back of the train or the front of the train by the platform personnel. When applied from the back of the train, the train is measured longer than at rest, rather than shorter, as is usually presented.

.

[webolife]

MJV said -- "Binding energy", what a huge pile of profanities. Knowing that "energy" is kinetic, it becomes rather obvious that the difference in mass between atomic constituents and atomic elements can be accounted for, not as binding energy, but as binding mass. --

Whoa there MJV, hate to be your detractor on two different threads, but you may be rather loose with your definition of mass here. Mass, like "energy", is a mathematical "entity", there is no way around this. Unless you accept a view that the ultimate/fundamental particles of material are infinitely dense, "mass" can only be understood in terms of the relative density of materials with respect to a particular centroid. Mass is a measurement, it is not the same as "matter". When it comes right down to it, you must assume that something is holding the matter together at any particular location or scale [and/or keeping it moving], and that is generally referred to using the concepts Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy to some degree of juxtaposition. Or, as I prefer, "Force", or pressure, and "Momentum". As soon as you put "binding" and "mass" together you are re-attributing the quality of energy to matter, which is what you started out debunking.

[sjw40364]

The problem with E=mc^2 is it is NOT the energy that a particle contains, it is the energy that a particle can be converted into with the application of additional energy to begin the conversion process. If it actually contained all that energy it could self-convert. Only when additional energy is applied to a particle will it begin the conversion process and release energy as a result of that process. Whether this additional energy comes in the form of high speed collision or the direct application of electrical processes, additional energy must always first be applied.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Mass, like "energy", is a mathematical "entity", there is no way around this.

Unless mass is a measure of the amount of matter - it was a struggle, but I've found a way round it after all.

Unless you accept a view that the ultimate/fundamental particles of material are infinitely dense,

Could you spare a few more sentences to explain you r reasoning as to why this must be so.

"mass" can only be understood in terms of the relative density of materials with respect to a particular centroid.

err....what is a centroid....exactly?

Mass is a measurement, it is not the same as "matter"

Unless of course, it is the same as matter. Could you explain what mass is a measurement of?


By combining the words "binding" and "mass" is was introducing a minor sarcasm. I was hinting that the mass was changing, because the amount of matter was changing. That is to say that the amount of matter required to build atoms varies depending on the configuration of the nucleus. Admittedly, there could be inertial effects which affect the "apparent" mass measurement, and that this also brings doubt upon the mass = matter premise.

As soon as you put "binding" and "mass" together you are re-attributing the quality of energy to matter,

I do not follow this reasoning - could you spare a few paragraphs to explain further?

Michael

[sjw40364]

But, but, spinning objects have so little inertia.....
http://www.gyros.biz/lecture/wmv/4.wmv

[mjv1121]

sjw,

The problem with E=mc^2 is it is NOT the energy that a particle contains, it is the energy that a particle can be converted into with the application of additional energy to begin the conversion process. If it actually contained all that energy it could self-convert. Only when additional energy is applied to a particle will it begin the conversion process and release energy as a result of that process. Whether this additional energy comes in the form of high speed collision or the direct application of electrical processes, additional energy must always first be applied.

Agreed and it bears repeating.

Michael

PS I'm still tripping on that gyro vid, thanks

[Sparky]

sjw,

The problem with E=mc^2 is it is NOT the energy that a particle contains, it is the energy that a particle can be converted into with the application of additional energy to begin the conversion process. If it actually contained all that energy it could self-convert. Only when additional energy is applied to a particle will it begin the conversion process and release energy as a result of that process. Whether this additional energy comes in the form of high speed collision or the direct application of electrical processes, additional energy must always first be applied.

Agreed and it bears repeating.

Michael

PS I'm still tripping on that gyro vid, thanks

WHAT??!!

STOP starring at the gyro's and read what he said....mass contains energy, as electric, kinetic, and binding. energy is released directly proportional to what is contained, though usually the process is not 100% efficient in a weapon.

self-convert? ..you mean like in radioactive decay? some elements are more stable than others...what is the half life of gold?

It is energy applied to extract energy from an atom which demonstrates the amount of energy that it contains.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

I assumed sjw was being sarcastic. Even if not, the point is well made - in order for the mass to transmute into energy, it requires an input of energy.

Seems to me that the "energy" released in nuclear reactions is more simply explained as quantum/aethereal mass being released which is absorbed by electrons and emitted as photons - since the "energy" is invariably detected as photonic.

Given the limitations/restrictions put in place by a succession of influential figures (Einstein, Heisenberg and others) to prevent reasoning of the actual physical processes, it is no wonder that we end up with nonsensical theories devoid of physical explanations. I find quite ironic, that for theories based on mathematical modelling rather than physical reasoning, electromagnetics ends up being marginalised because the maths is too complex.

It is not that plasma's instabilities are rejected, it is the hideously complex computations required, which makes accurate prediction impossible. Shut up and calculate is useless when it is way too complex to calculate. The only way to gain any level of understanding is to theorise as to the physical process, but in a world of mathematical "proofs" (read: sometimes vaguely usable approximations), admission of lack of prediction is rejected by "professional" science. This unwillingness to commit to theories which contain essentially unpredictable processes, is the reason it is not accepted - there's no money in it.

Michael

PS Mass/energy equivalence and magnetic reconnection can seriously affect one's rant index.

[webolife]

MJV,
Yes, you admitted that mass is a measurement, a mathematical procedure, just as temperature is a measure of heat or volume is a measure of space. The actual material is another thing altogether. By the way, the mass of matter cannot be measured without reference to the space [ie 3-d system] that contains it [or that it contains], hence "density" is the better convention. Are your smallest particles [would that be your "quantums"?] hollow [a bit like an atom perhaps] yet solid, ie. is there space within them with an hard shell on the outside? If not they [ie each one of these elementary particles] must be infinitely dense and have space in between them. When they "come into contact" then, is their mass multiplied by the number of particles interacting? So how many of your particles are interacting in any one place? Would you say this is relatively uniform behavior across say any particular distance? The centroid is the geometric center of mass of any particular system of interacting particles, yet this center need not actually contain any particles, because it is a mathematic entity, just like the system mass it is a proxy for. You are supposing that matter [you are calling it mass] has the ability to hold, er, bind other matter to it... how exactly does it "know" there is any other matter around? If it is all colliding balls of ____?____, then what would induce it to stick together ever? Oops, I said "induce", an action at a distance... let's try it this way: why would any particles [being in random[?] motion as they all are, ever conglomerate into something measurable? Perhaps you will say that only their motion is measurable, but this is not very useful in answering my question.

[sjw40364]

And yet no matter how you place the plutonium and uranium or whatever mass you use, you get not even one little poof until you first supply energy to the process. You must SMASH one into the other at high force and with just the right force. So the question to me isn't what the half life of compounds are, but what additional energy is being supplied to make it decay? Since every particle emits some form of E/M radiation, and most more than they receive, is the energy supply external or internal for radioactive decay? The thing is smash a lump of lead and gold together and why do you not get that same release of energy? E=mc^2 should not matter if it is one pound of gold or one pound of lead or one pound of uranium. So apparently E=mc^2 only applies to certain compounds with short half life's, and not every compound.

[Bengt Nyman]

It should not matter if it is one pound of gold or one pound of lead or one pound of uranium. So apparently E=mc^2 only applies to certain compounds with short half life's, and not every compound.

Is this a joke ?
I thought everybody on this forum had a basic knowledge of non-controversial physics.
I can sympathize with being angry at things we do not understand or do not agree with.
However, I thought the facts about radioactive materials, half life, critical mass and cascading chain reactions like nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs were beyond controversy.
Neither gold or lead are radioactive enough to have a critical mass.
The negligible amount of energy required to bring two sub-critical masses of plutonium together to reach the critical mass off a nuclear bomb has nothing to do with the energy event of the nuclear reaction.
It is simply a way to create control over activation of the bomb.
You can hold one half of a critical mass in one hand and one in the other, bring them together slowly and get the same result. I do not recommend trying it.
A nuclear reactor is yet an example. No external energy is required to start the reaction. Moderation of the velocity and amount of shooting neutrons is done to facilitate control of the reaction. As we all know, neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima needed any external energy to keep on splitting atoms into uncontrollable amounts of energy.
I still hope you guys were kidding !

[sjw40364]

So you are saying that one pound of gold does not contain the same energy that one pound of uranium has? I agree. You bring two radioactive substances together slowly and you will get a continuous reaction and meltdown. I argued the previous point to show that all atoms create their own energy and need no outside source. Just as no outside source is needed to power the Sun or the galaxy, they generate their own power by movement within a magnetic field.

Uranium has 92 protons and 92 electrons all spinning within its magnetic field. The uranium nucleus binds between 141 and 146 neutrons, establishing six isotopes (U-233 through U-238), the most common of which are uranium-238 (146 neutrons) and uranium-235 (143 neutrons). The more electrons and protons and neutrons an isotope has the more energy it produces and the more radioactive it is, likewise the more unstable it is due to the electrical repulsion. The addition of very little energy can cause the isotope to fly apart. In close proximity the energy emitted by each isotope affects the other adding energy to the already unstable isotope. It already produces enough to decay rapidly, very little is needed to cause a chain reaction as one adds to another which releases more energy which adds to the next and down the line we go. But even in a chain reaction it takes the addition of energy to begin the process, even if it is only the additional energy of another radiating isotope added to the mass. A lump of Uranium does not self initiate a chain reaction until extra energy is added in one form or another, to begin the process. Be that bombardment or the placing of another isotope in proximity to add to the total energy output.

[Bengt Nyman]

A lump of Uranium does not self initiate a chain reaction until extra energy is added in one form or another, to begin the process.

If that lump of Uranium is larger than the critical mass of Uranium it needs no outside help to initiate a chain reaction.

"Radioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation). The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any physical interaction from outside the atom."