Gravity & Strong Force

[sjw40364]

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

Somebody help !

Yes somebody please explain what magnetic fields do since he won't take my word for it. A charged particle
moving in a plane perpendicular to a magnetic field will move in a circular orbit with the magnetic force playing the role of centripetal force. The direction of the force is given by the right-hand rule.

Equating the centripetal force with the magnetic force and solving for R the radius of the circular path we get

mv^2 / R = q v B and

R = m v / q B

[sjw40364]

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

If you ask me there is no such critter. Just another misunderstood aspect of the electromagnetic force. As in my opinion is gravity nothing more than a misunderstood aspect of the electromagnetic force. Everything possesses a negative or positive charge or a combination of particles composed thereof. Like charges repel, unlike charges attract. It has recently been suggested that the attraction of a magnet is stronger than its repulsion, which could explain why all things are attracted together with the same force regardless of their mass.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... lay&id=488

[Bengt Nyman]

...

http://www.dipole.se

[sjw40364]

Funny thing is you put that single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge, still have a magnetic field and still be emitting E/M radiation, even though there is no possibility of it receiving anything from outside. They love to talk about how a particle is neutral, but the fact is a neutral particle contains both negative and positive charges (which both attract and repel and cause movement and electrostatic charge,) which without your outside power source those charges could not exist according to you and therefore the neutron could not exist. You can bet those up and down quarks as they call them are orbiting each other inside the radius of the nucleus and generating charge. There needs to be no external influences because the influences are internal. Does anyone actually believe that the negative and positive quarks inside the radius of the nucleus are just sitting there and not interacting??????????

[Bengt Nyman]

??????????

Do you have a hypothesis, theory or point of any kind?

[Sparky]

sjw,

--single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge,

charge, referenced to what?! steven, get yourself a bike and ride around town... it will also be a repetitive, circular exercise, but at least you will be getting some exercise. ... and W.A.S. is for the NIMI threads...

[sjw40364]

??????????

Do you have a hypothesis, theory or point of any kind?

I have already made my point, no outside power source is required. All atoms generate their own power. All atoms together which make up the planets feed their power into the Sun. The sun in turn feeds the excess energy to the galactic core. The galactic core in returns feeds any excess energy to other galaxies. Now close the circuit and the excess power flows back along the same return lines. Whether we like the idea or not it is a self perpetual loop. How much power is lost from radiation into empty space? Yet galaxies still maintain enough power to eject QSO's and jets of plasma at fractions of light speed.

Again it will be claimed that there must be an outside power source and again I state what could this source be but exactly what we already observe? Plasma and particles spinning at a high rate in a magnetic field. There is no logical assumption for an outside power source that could be anything other than what we observe to the farthest reaches of our observations. There is in the end only one logical conclusion, galaxies are self generating power generators. it is impossible that this outside power source could be anything other than what we already observe around us, or work on a different physics.

As a famous quote says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

[sjw40364]

sjw,

--single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge,

charge, referenced to what?! steven, get yourself a bike and ride around town... it will also be a repetitive, circular exercise, but at least you will be getting some exercise. ... and W.A.S. is for the NIMI threads...

Apparently you didn't read the paper that was submitted. http://www.dipole.se/

So it is ok for others to imagine a neutron placed in a universe devoid of all matter and still remain a neutron with no outside source to power it, but I cannot use that same example to show that it must not require an outside power source to continue to exist? Double talk and sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors.

[Sparky]

Steven, no i have not read the paper, and i don't have the focus to do so at this time...I did scan down over it and decided i would need to be well awake to comprehend what he was saying.

If Bengt said the same thing ,

a single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge,

then that seems to be an error on his part.
And you using an error to support your own error riddled hypothesis ? .. tooo wongs don't make a wiete..

charge must have a reference. ie., a meteor in distant space will accumulate the negative charge of it's environment, as measured to it's environment, neutral. When it comes close to the sun's more positive charge, the reference will be the sun, and the meteor/comet may explode because of the different charge strength, as referenced to the sun. the comet's remains may be neutral, referenced to the sun, but positive with reference to distant space, where they are now heading. Any mass, placed in an imaginary void, would have no reference to measure to.

Otherwise, your arguments are repetitive. Repeating the same "hasty conclusion" scenario will not make it any more logical.
Your "perpetual motion atom" hypothesis belongs in the NIMI>

[sjw40364]

Steven, no i have not read the paper, and i don't have the focus to do so at this time...I did scan down over it and decided i would need to be well awake to comprehend what he was saying.

If Bengt said the same thing ,

a single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge,

then that seems to be an error on his part.
And you using an error to support your own error riddled hypothesis ? .. tooo wongs don't make a wiete..

charge must have a reference. ie., a meteor in distant space will accumulate the negative charge of it's environment, as measured to it's environment, neutral. When it comes close to the sun's more positive charge, the reference will be the sun, and the meteor/comet may explode because of the different charge strength, as referenced to the sun. the comet's remains may be neutral, referenced to the sun, but positive with reference to distant space, where they are now heading. Any mass, placed in an imaginary void, would have no reference to measure to.

Otherwise, your arguments are repetitive. Repeating the same "hasty conclusion" scenario will not make it any more logical.
Your "perpetual motion atom" hypothesis belongs in the NIMI>

So let us assume that a nucleus is composed of down quarks and up quarks, i.e. there is not one object but several all interacting. Each possesses it's own charge relative to the other quarks that compose this nucleus. You assume the nucleus is a single entity, when in reality it is composed of several entities, all interacting. To an outside observer it may appear neutral, but to each quark all others are positive or negative, not neutral. To the quarks that make up this nucleus there is no such thing as neutrality. This is the flawed concept that makes an outside source required, to believe that the nucleus is neutral to the quarks that make up this nucleus. To each individual quark there is no neutrality, only interaction with the same or different charges. These interactions create electrostatic charge as all movement of particles against other particles do. Electrostatic charge creates magnetic fields. Further interaction of particles withing magnetic fields create further charge and E/M radiation is emitted.

Break your flawed reasoning that makes you assume the nucleus is neutral to itself. If in reality it was neutral it would not hold electrons and positrons in orbit around it. A positive charge sees an overall neutral charge as negative and a negative charge sees an overall neutral charge as positive, i.e. an unlike charge. The positive charges inside the nucleus attract negative charges and repel positive charges. The negative charges in the nucleus attract positive charges and repel negative charges. This is why neither electrons or positrons spiral into the nucleus or drift away, until and unless of outside intervention. To each individual particle there is no neutrality, only like and unlike charges.

[mharratsc]

If, as it has been discovered, the attractive force is greater than the repulsive force by a very slight margin, could that possibly be 'gravity'?

If this were so, then would monoatomic hydrogen have any 'gravity' at all?

Just thinking out loud.

[Sparky]

If, as it has been discovered, the attractive force is greater than the repulsive force by a very slight margin, could that possibly be 'gravity'?

If this were so, then would monoatomic hydrogen have any 'gravity' at all?

Just thinking out loud.

mike, i have no idea what forces are surrounding a hydrogen atom, but miles thinks gravity is of no importance at that level.

I seem to remember Peratt remarking that gravity required a certain size much larger than an atom, a monatomic ..

[Sparky]

sjw,

--single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge,

You did not quote Bengt! You did not understand what he was saying!. You did not convey his meaning at all!

[sjw40364]

sjw,

--single neutron alone in a universe devoid of all matter and it will still have a charge,

You did not quote Bengt! You did not understand what he was saying!. You did not convey his meaning at all!

I know, I was not trying to quote him. Part of his hypothesis requires that two nucleus be added to this universe devoid of all matter , I say only one is needed to create charge. You cant have a nucleus made up of down quarks and up quarks, then pretend that those require another nucleus to interact with. Those up and down quarks are interacting with each other. To an outside observer it may appear overall neutral, but THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY TO THE QUARKS THAT MAKE UP THE NUCLEUS. I say no outside source is needed at all, others say there is, but the fact remains this outside source would be the same thing that we say requires an outside source. Double talk and sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors. I agree with him totally that gravity is nothing more than charge forces between particles. But I disagree with anyone that says charge must come from outside, charge is internal to all atomic structures. Any theory must take into account the interaction of one nucleus and one nucleus only since this nucleus is composed of multiple particles theory must apply to their interaction as well, without the addition of other nuclei. Only once theory fits one lone nuclei can it then be adapted to multiple nuclei.

[Bengt Nyman]

Exciting news about making photons out of Sii.
Experiments at the Chalmers Institute of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden have managed to make photons out of "nothing". The results of the experiments support the speculation that under the right circumstances free floating energy strings can be stimulated into forming stable, cooperative balls of energy, in this case photons.

Here is a link to the Swedish article in a Swedish technical journal:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/innovati ... 345178.ece

Here are my journal comment to the article, in English:

From string to particle.
Theoretically it appears that the smallest energy constituent in the universe is a tiny energy string. A thin, invisible atmosphere of tiny energy strings is what we call a cloud of dark energy. When enough energy strings get together to form a ball of intertwined closed loops you may have a particle. Due to the nature and natural frequency of the primary energy strings there are only specific cooperations and formations of strings that create stable particles. This is also how particles by adding or loosing energy strings or clusters of energy strings convert from one type of particle to another.
Being able to observe this integration of primary energy strings into one of the smallest of string cooperatives; the photon, is a great achievement.