Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #835390 > unrolled thread

How many basic forces in nature are there?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How many basic forces in nature are there?  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-09 14:53 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-09 16:55 -0600
      There's only "eXergy". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-11-09 16:35 -0800
      There's only "eXergy". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2021-11-09 16:36 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Dhruv <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 08:23 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-09 15:22 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-09 21:36 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 07:19 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 08:23 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 09:09 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 10:18 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 12:59 -0600
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 14:00 -0800
              Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 15:07 -0800
                Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 17:11 -0800
                  Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 21:32 -0800
                    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 06:45 -0800
                      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-11 10:19 -0600
                        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 08:57 -0800
                  Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 21:36 -0800
                    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 06:49 -0800
                      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-11 10:17 -0800
                        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 10:48 -0800
                        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-12 11:21 -0600
                          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 14:43 -0800
                            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-12 16:23 -0800
                      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-11 15:27 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 10:35 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 14:01 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2021-11-10 08:50 +0100
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Dhruv <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 08:25 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 10:54 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-11-10 13:07 -0600
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 12:17 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 14:05 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-10 15:32 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-10 17:13 -0800
      Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-11 10:28 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-11 10:50 -0800
        Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 15:18 -0800
          Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 22:46 -0800
            Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-11-12 23:02 -0800
              Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-13 07:41 -0800
    Re: How many basic forces in nature are there? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2021-11-12 15:12 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#835580

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+whittled+down+to+three

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+and+is+there+something+magical+about+four+%28really+three%29
> 
> or
> goto
> 
> Google Books
> 
> https://books.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wp
> 
> and insert this in the search bar:
> 
> paul davies what's eating the universe and is there something magical about four (really three)
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> > > >
> > > > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> > > >
> > > > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> > > >
> > > > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> > >
> > > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> > >
> > > it comes from a Regents Professor.
> > >
> > > a Regents Professor
> > > The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
> > > faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
> > > accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.
> > >
> > > also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
> > >
> > > And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
> > >
> > > Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...
> > >
> > > I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.
> > >
> > > Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!
> > >
> > > How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????
> > >
> > > A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?
> > >
> >
> > Now imagine if you will, that if Stephen Hawking were alive today and he said..."In actual fact, there are only three forces." Would you believe him (regardless what Google claims)????
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> > >  the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> >  the unchallengeable.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#835581

"As a result, the four fundamental forces have now convincingly been whittled down to three." -Paul Davies

"..is there something magical about four (really three) basic forces.." -Paul Davies



So, How many basic forces in nature are there?


My information sez there are only 3..

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+whittled+down+to+three

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+and+is+there+something+magical+about+four+%28really+three%29



Now, a little Englisg lesson for our international friends: "(really three)"

The word "really" means: 


1.
in actual fact, as opposed to what is said or imagined to be true or possible.


"(really three)" means... in actual fact, three.


or,

The fact is, there are three basic forces in nature.


Now, those of yous that don't know what the word "fact" means...a thing that is known or proved to be true.



So, the correct answer to the question:  How many basic forces in nature are there? is three. 3.


To what is said or imagined to be 4 is actually..in fact 3.







The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+whittled+down+to+three
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=paul+davies+what%27s+eating+the+universe+and+is+there+something+magical+about+four+%28really+three%29

> >
> > or
> > goto
> >
> > Google Books
> >
> > https://books.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wp
> >
> > and insert this in the search bar:
> >
> > paul davies what's eating the universe and is there something magical about four (really three)
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How many basic forces in nature are there? 3 or 4??
> > > > >
> > > > > It has to be one or the other, but which one, 3 or 4?
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless of course you people don't know, then nevermind.
> > > > >
> > > > > My information sez there are only 3..and 4 is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Now, let me elaborate on 'my sources'..
> > > >
> > > > it comes from a Regents Professor.
> > > >
> > > > a Regents Professor
> > > > The title Regents Professor serves as recognition of the highest academic merit and is awarded to
> > > > faculty members who have made a unique contribution to the quality of the University through distinguished
> > > > accomplishments in teaching scholarship, research or creative work.
> > > >
> > > > also, he is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist.
> > > >
> > > > And he sez, "In actual fact, there are only three forces."
> > > >
> > > > Now, I don't give a fuck what Google says or what 727,000,000 others think...
> > > >
> > > > I'm only interested in facts...not lemming science.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I repeat...those of yous who believe that there are only four  basic forces in nature are WRONG!
> > > >
> > > > How many basic forces in nature are there? Do I hear a 3 from any of yous????
> > > >
> > > > A factual 3? In actual fact, 3?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now imagine if you will, that if Stephen Hawking were alive today and he said..."In actual fact, there are only three forces." Would you believe him (regardless what Google claims)????
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> > > >  the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> > >  the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> >  the unchallengeable.
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#835587

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "As a result, the four fundamental forces have now convincingly been whittled down to three." -Paul Davies
> 
> "..is there something magical about four (really three) basic forces.." -Paul Davies

Paul Davies is well known for saying some "questionable" things, such as
his infamous claim to have discovered bacteria based on arsnic instead
of phosphorus.

> So, How many basic forces in nature are there?

The general concensus among the non-brain dead subject matter experts is
there are four, and possibly 5. 

<snip moron babble>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#835572

UC Irvine of Starmaker, can Vivek Aji, Michael G Anderson, Barry C Barish please help Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else turn the light switch off in Slow Light rather than play ad hominem games? 

Instead of doing Physics where AP proves that Light Waves are pencil ellipse closed loop circuits not straightline arrow rays, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned. 

So, Dr. Hau and Sylvia-- why not learn to do the physics rather than your utter hatred of AP. 

Time for Harvard's Dr. Hau to finish her experiment, or have UC Berkeley Sylvia Else finish the experiment. 

The Internet indicates a Sylvia Else is a physics graduate of Berkeley. 

So then, Berkeley has to stand up to the challenge that AP throws into their court yard. I throw into your court yard that if Harvard's Dr. Hau set up her slow light experiment. And sees a column of slow light in BEC medium with entrance light at normal speed and exit light at normal speed, only the BEC cold region with slow light. Now, now Dr. Hau, now Sylvia Else, turn the source light off. And to your fascination and the fascination of the entire world, watch and see that the slow light vanishes instantly along with the normal fast light. The entire column of light vanishes simultaneously. 

Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Sylvia? Why does it vanish all at once Dr. Hau? Why does it vanish all at once Harvard Univ and Berkeley physics? Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Berkeley UC? 

It vanishes all at once because light waves are closed loop circuits around a source and no matter how fast those closed loop circuits in a region of the circuit, the moment the source is gone -- the entire light is gone. 

Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley Sylvia Else think Light Waves are arrow like single rays with a head and tail on a arrow ray. But that is only because they are ignorant in physics. They cannot turn off the light for it proves AP correct-- that the Light Wave is a closed loop circuit with the source of the light always in the closed loop circuit. So if and when those two incompetents Dr. Hau and Sylvia Else turn off the light source, all the light the fast light the Slow Light, the fast light exiting the BEC medium, all the Light vanishes simultaneously. 

Hau and Else think that the SLOW LIGHT will still be visible, still be crawling slow in the BEC. But no, it vanishes instantly as all the other light from that source. But Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not want to report that truth, no, they want to never report any true science that is connected with Archimedes Plutonium, because Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else are not scientists at all-- but suppression jerks. 

What have we proven here Sylvia? What have we proven here Harvard's Dr. Hau. You have proven that light waves, like electricity are closed loop circuits, like a hoola hoop. And this is the reason you can have light as a constant maximum speed, yet slow light down in a region of the circuit of light. 

So, Harvard's Dr. Hau, get off your lazy ways and complete your experiment, throw the switch off-- and see for yourself that light all vanishes simultaneously. And report your experiment to the world-- that light is a closed loop circuit, not what you believed all along before-- light is a single ray with head and tail. No, light was never a single ray of head of tail, like a arrow. Light is like a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse. 

So get off your lazy ways and finish the experiment. 

Or have Sylia Else in Berkeley California set up the slow light experiment and have Sylvia finish and complete the experiment. 

Times a wasting, with your chit chat Sylvia, time you roll up your sleeves and burn the midnight oil. 

AP, King of Science, especially Physics 

Starmaker streamlined



Vivek Aji, Michael G Anderson, Barry C Barish, UC Irvine, are you as stupid and offtopic as Starmaker to understand that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow Chemistry bonding


On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> In today's big Headline at drudgereport



Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:33:34 -0800
From: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: CORTEZ CRACKS: WORLD ENDING IN 12 YEARS!
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47

About- Starmaker-- just another nauseating robot in sci.physics, cluttering up the place, for every jackarse half wit in the world that builds a tin machine, thinks it is his god given right to park their crappy machine in sci.physics. Park the damn robot in geology or chemistry or psychology, but leave physics alone. 

Too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow Chemistry bonding. And this also explains that the proton and muon inside each and every atom is doing a job, a task, a function of doing the Faraday law and producing Magnetic Monopoles and these monopoles are what make the Sun and stars shine. Not by fusion, no, but by Faraday law in the hydrogen and helium atoms of stars.


   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in sunny Univ California, Irvine. 
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. 

UC Irvine physics & astronomy dept
Vivek Aji, Michael G Anderson, Barry C Barish, Kenneth Barish, Igor Barsukov, John Barton, George Becker, Ward P Beyermann, Simeon Bird, Gabriela Canalizo, Robert Clare, Yanou Cui, Yongtao Cui, Anson D'Aloisio, John Ellison, Nathaniel Gabor, John William Gary, Frederick Hamann, Gail G Hanson, Boerge Hemmerling, Thomas Edward Kuhlman, Owen Long, Chun Hung, Allen P Mills, Bahram Mobasher, Umar Mohideen, Michael Mulligan, Leonid Pryadko, Naveen Reddy, Laura Virginia Sales, Richard Seto, Jing Shi, Kirill Shtengel, Brian Siana, Flip Tanedo, Harry W K Tom, Shan-Wen Tsai, Peng Wei Gillian Wilson, Stephen Wimpenny, Jose Wudka, Jory A. Yarmoff, Hai-bo Yu, Roya Zandi

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. 

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better. 

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 

What answer did they give? 



Can any-one at UC Irvine, not their crappy robotics please help Dr. Hau? Turn the light switch off and prove that the Light wave is a circuit pencil ellipse not a arrow ray of head and tail which everyone except AP believes.


[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web