Gravity & Strong Force

[Goldminer]

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.

"I argued the previous point to show that all atoms create their own energy?????"

EU theory is that energy in the form of electricity powers the galaxies and stars. Self power is called perpetual motion.

" . . . generate their own power by movement within a magnetic field???????

Ferromagnetism creates a static magnetic field. As far as is known, all other magnetic fields require an electric current. In this instance it is not which came first, the current produces the magnetism. Unless you can show a really big piece of ferromagnetic material, outside energy is required to produce your supposed preexisting magnetic field.

Please reread this entire book

[sjw40364]

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."

That is because once it reaches a certain critical mass the total energy output is larger than the mass can stabilize, i.e. it's energy output is larger than the energy the mass can contain. I say it is not loosing energy but generating energy and it is this generation of energy that is mistaken as energy loss. Since it has no physical interaction from outside, all the energy must be generated from inside. It emits an alpha particle and decays into a daughter isotope. In other words it loses some of the neutrons in its nucleus as its energy became too great to hold them any longer, and in most instances the inner electrons. Since it no longer has the same number of neutrons or electrons it is no longer the same isotope, produces less energy and it's decay rate is normally more stable. Gamma radiation is different in that the isotope does not decay into a different isotope, it simply emits the excess energy and remains the same. Since it continues to emit energy without interaction from an outside source and does not decay into a daughter element, it must be generating the energy it is loosing to remain the same isotope. Continual energy loss without decay into a daughter isotope in unexplainable unless it is generating its own energy, enough to remain the same isotope and emit excess in the form of gamma radiation. remember, such descriptions in text books are written by those explaining things in non-electrical means, as that is a forbidden topic.

[Bengt Nyman]

Since it continues to emit energy without interaction from an outside source and does not decay into a daughter element, it must be generating the energy it is loosing to remain the same isotope.

The atom in question does decay ! The atom in question does not remain the same isotope ! A lump of uranium is a mixture of different uranium isotopes.
Nothing "generates" energy, some processes convert energy from one form to another.
When a radioactive atom looses a neutron, the neutron binding energy is released and the sum of the remaining masses of the atom and the freed neutron are reduced by that same amount of energy; E=mc^2.
If you have a different idea about energy explain it in plain English.

[Sparky]

swj,

--it's energy output is larger than the energy the mass can contain. I say it is not loosing energy but generating energy and it is this generation of energy that is mistaken as energy loss. Since it has no physical interaction from outside, all the energy must be generated from inside.--

that is not logical.....you are assuming that there is no energy from outside...if energy is emitted, it came from somewhere. if it is not from decay, it is being absorbed from a source that you are not aware of....The Law of Conservation of Energy, which is supported by observation , measurements, and calculations.

Your highly speculative and illogical theory has no scientific support;
It is all your imagination.

[sjw40364]

A textbook example:

By contrast, there exist two types of radioactive decay processes (gamma decay and internal conversion decay) that do not result in transmutation, but only decrease the energy of an excited nucleus. This results in an atom of the same element as before but with a nucleus in a lower energy state.

What they mean to say is it "IS" the same element, it has just released the excess of built up energy, it has not decayed or transmuted into the exact same element. Runaround and sleight of hand. This releasing of energy if a mass is large enough can add energy to the next atom, causing a chain reaction.

All other states of decay produce an isotope with an atomic mass of 4 less and an atomic number 2 less (always). They have not decayed, they have ejected part of their nucleus and electrons, they have transmuted into another element. The term radioactive decay is quite misleading as to what actual happens.

E=mc^2 tells me that one pound of lead and one pound of uranium contain the exact same energy. Do you actually believe that given enough added energy I could cause the same size explosion with both materials? Do we discount the added energy (would be tremendous) to the lead in the results? Even the energy release of a thermonuclear bomb is not enough to cause secondary explosions in the surrounding earth. Nor as far as we can measure is a ground burst more energetic than an air burst, even though some ground is certainly vaporized. More ground mass-wise than the original mass of the bomb. Where was the E=mc^2 release of energy of all that mass of vaporized ground?

[sjw40364]

swj,

--it's energy output is larger than the energy the mass can contain. I say it is not loosing energy but generating energy and it is this generation of energy that is mistaken as energy loss. Since it has no physical interaction from outside, all the energy must be generated from inside.--

that is not logical.....you are assuming that there is no energy from outside...if energy is emitted, it came from somewhere. if it is not from decay, it is being absorbed from a source that you are not aware of....The Law of Conservation of Energy, which is supported by observation , measurements, and calculations.

Your highly speculative and illogical theory has no scientific support;
It is all your imagination.

And decay is the most misleading word ever invented. Radioactive isotopes do not "decay" they eject part of their nucleus (what is termed an alpha particle) and loose electrons and become other isotopes. They do this because they produce/receive more energy than they can contain. Energy conservation is met as the original isotope transmutes into a lower isotope and the excess material is ejected. The term decay is an ejection of material, not a loss of material converted into energy. And every particle in existence radiates energy, do you really expect me to believe that all this excess energy is coming from what, other particles somewhere we cant see beyond our length of sight? Where would they get their energy from? This needed energy from an outside source is the most flawed concept in modern science. I ask again, what is the source of this power except for the exact same things we observe to the furthest reaches we can see? particles.

[seasmith]

Michael

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

full presentation is here:

http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=5221

[sjw40364]

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.

"I argued the previous point to show that all atoms create their own energy?????"

EU theory is that energy in the form of electricity powers the galaxies and stars. Self power is called perpetual motion.

" . . . generate their own power by movement within a magnetic field???????

Ferromagnetism creates a static magnetic field. As far as is known, all other magnetic fields require an electric current. In this instance it is not which came first, the current produces the magnetism. Unless you can show a really big piece of ferromagnetic material, outside energy is required to produce your supposed preexisting magnetic field.

Please reread this entire book

And yet you cannot explain the addition of energy into all the observable galaxies without some perpetual motion machine that just happens to be beyond our observations, unfalsifiable and undetectable. Every particle we know of emits E/M, yet they say it comes from outside. I've said it before and I will say it again. This energy source could be nothing other than what we already observe to the furthest reaches of our science, particles moving in magnetic fields. I do not believe that the EU admits to a different physics beyond our observational range, so what is this energy source composed of but exactly what we already observe?

No outside energy is required to produce a magnetic field, all it takes is two particles moving in opposition to one another, its called static electricity, and that starts the magnetic field, and further movement within that field increases the charge. I am not aware of any non-moving particle, are you? Do you actually believe that an electron circling a nucleus at close to the speed of c in the atoms magnetic field produces no energy at all? Modern cosmology doesn't want you to think so, they want to exclude electrical activity in the universe. I only find it surprising and totally mystifying that anyone believes that an electron rotating at near c in a magnetic field could do anything but produce electrical charge.

[mjv1121]

sjw,

I only find it surprising and totally mystifying that anyone believes that an electron rotating at near c in a magnetic field could do anything but produce electrical charge.

1) you have literally no idea how fast the orbiting electron is moving - 0.5%c or 99.9%c or anywhere in between - I would suggest that it is well below 10%c - but your only evidence for c is your imagination.

2) What is a magnetic field and how can you have any confidence that the electron is moving through said magnetic field. Your assertion here relies on the nucleus being the source of the magnetic field.

3) What is charge. How does an electron moving in a magnetic field generate charge? You are already relying on 2), which is already quite unsafe.

Michael

[sjw40364]

sjw,

I only find it surprising and totally mystifying that anyone believes that an electron rotating at near c in a magnetic field could do anything but produce electrical charge.

1) you have literally no idea how fast the orbiting electron is moving - 0.5%c or 99.9%c or anywhere in between - I would suggest that it is well below 10%c - but your only evidence for c is your imagination.

2) What is a magnetic field and how can you have any confidence that the electron is moving through said magnetic field. Your assertion here relies on the nucleus being the source of the magnetic field.

3) What is charge. How does an electron moving in a magnetic field generate charge? You are already relying on 2), which is already quite unsafe.

Michael

1) Even at the slow speed of 10% of light that would be orders of magnitude faster than any generator known to man. let me know how many RPM that is would you?

2) I am quite confident it is moving through a magnetic field as all atoms produce a magnetic moment, even tree bark atoms. The fact that tree bark atoms do not align their magnetic fields to become magnetic does not in any way detract from the fact that each atom produces its own magnetic field. Well, lets see, the Sun is spinning, the earth, the galaxy, and all these things have magnetic fields. Do I believe nature reproduces patterns, why yes I do. from galaxy to solar system to atom, to even smaller as soon as our technology advances. Likewise I expect QSO's and baby galaxies orbit around their parent galaxy in their galaxy cluster.

3) Want to bet that if I spin you fast enough in a magnetic field that you could light a light bulb? You may not be very efficient at it and may not survive the process , but I am willing to bet you generate charge. I am willing to bet that anything moving in a magnetic field produces charge, some things better than others. The question is can you move it fast enough, be sure to let me know how many RPM 10% of light is.

[Bengt Nyman]

Even at the slow speed of 10% of light that would be orders of magnitude faster than any generator known to man. let me know how many RPM that is would you?

Hi Steven,

That would be 10800000000000000000 rpm or 1.08x10^19 rpm
You make me think of April first.
The atom, with its spinning electron has the potential to react to an external magnetic field. But with bark atom magnetic moments pointing every which way the bark stays on the tree.
The atom nucleus itself does NOT have magnetic field lines which cross the path of the electron. Therefore the electron does NOT cross a magnetic field.
The electron that produces the magnetic field is not crossing its own magnetic field lines and therefore does not "generate" or convert any energy. You can not have a magnetic field and eat it too! Ask your Mom.
IF the electron did, it would come to a screeching halt because the energy "produced", or converted, would come from the inertial energy of the slowing down electron.

It would be a very different universe Steven.
Maybe none at all.

[GManIM]

So, if I run round a van der Graaf generator will I generate a magnetic field?

[sjw40364]

@Bengt

Tell me, what do magnetic fields do? They cause things to circle perpendicular to the electric force, they do not brake things, they take moving things and cause then to spin/orbit. You want the electron to be stopped by a magnetic field when magnetic fields apply no force but orbital force.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/11 ... chapter-4/

The Lorentz Force Law determines the electric and magnetic forces on a charged particle moving within the fields. This force will cause each particle to move (accelerate) in accordance with Newton’s Laws. The changes in the positions and motions of the charged particles in turn causes changes in the electric and magnetic fields.

Accelerating particles emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. they generate charge just from their acceleration within a magnetic field. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-cont ... 00x509.jpg
I am sorry, but my theory is supported by evidence while yours is not. Moving objects in magnetic fields create charge and emit electromagnetic radiation. And you have measured the nucleus of an atom and discovered no magnetic field lines when all of science agrees that each atom has its own magnetic moment? The electron can never come to a screeching halt as the magnetic field causes it to circle, not brake, it causes the missing tangential velocity in all orbital systems calculated by gravity alone. This is why gravity fails to describe orbits properly and always will, because without magnetism there is no tangential force. This is why the earth does not come to a screeching halt as the Sun's magnetic field applies the tangential acceleration, perpendicular to the electric force. This is why the Earth does not spiral into the Sun nor drift off into space, it can't, it is being forced to circle.

[Bengt Nyman]

Tell me, what do magnetic fields do? They cause things to circle perpendicular to the electric force.

Somebody help !

[Sparky]

So, what's with this "Strong Force" ?