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

Groups > sci.physics > #642120 > unrolled thread

The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:04 -0700
    The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:17 -0700
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:42 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 04:57 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:19 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:37 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:44 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:57 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 11:37 -0500
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:12 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:05 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:21 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:30 -0700
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:16 -0400
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:46 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 21:05 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:03 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 06:09 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 06:23 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 15:57 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 16:08 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 18:28 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:47 -0400
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:36 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:33 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:26 -0700
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:46 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 07:16 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-25 17:21 -0400
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 17:49 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 06:15 -0700
                      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 08:49 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 11:35 -0500
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 16:13 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-24 20:50 -0500
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:38 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-25 17:01 -0400
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:46 -0400
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:02 -0700
    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-24 15:19 +0000
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 16:21 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:36 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:13 -0400
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:44 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 17:45 +0000
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 18:20 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:14 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:41 -0700
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 21:32 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:41 -0700
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:13 -0700
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:38 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:45 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 08:24 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 08:16 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-25 17:09 -0400
        Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-25 20:47 -0700
          Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 17:46 -0700
            Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 18:05 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-26 21:28 -0400
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 19:47 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 04:20 +0000
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 21:39 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:01 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:57 -0700
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:26 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 17:56 -0400
                      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:01 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 17:47 -0400
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:08 -0700
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-29 01:37 -0700
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 04:17 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 10:05 -0700
              Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 14:55 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 18:27 -0500
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-29 21:24 -0400
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 10:12 -0700
                      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-30 21:15 -0700
                      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 02:38 -0700
                Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:54 -0700
                  Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 22:23 -0700
                    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:57 -0700
                      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:30 -0700
    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 19:01 -0700
    Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:06 -0500
      Re: The universe is likely to be made up only of protons and electrons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 08:28 -0700

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#642238

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> > > Bango says
> > >> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force" 
> > >> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out. 
> > > 
> > >> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
> > >> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron. 
> > > -----------
> 
> To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.

That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.

It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.

But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published 
on these lines.

I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.

I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.

All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of 
Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and 
electrons form the atom without a nucleus.


> Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments

Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
ever.
Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of 
Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.


> > > I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.
> 
> Hey Devil's Advocate HVAC#666, where did you lookup/study Banerjee's knowledge?
> Speaking of... Hey dumbestOfAllFucks HVAC, where and when did you attend any college?
> Why do I repeatedly ask? Can you change your past Past PAST? Well, can you PUNK==HVAC?!
> 
> > Once one realises that the modern physicists are absurd dumbfucks and frauds 
> > there is a great sense of release, from the bondage to which they have 
> > subjected minds. 
> 
> I like that sentence. It could also work as:
> 
> Once one realises that the modern, and this is just a short list,
> physicists/politicians/scientists/doctors/laywers/accountants/... are
> absurd dumbfucks and frauds there is a great sense of release, from
> the bondage to which they have subjected minds. FAKE NEWS! Me so sad.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am cynical to me m(y) sole soul. I've lived a life!
> 
> What?! You dumbfuck stupids don't understand: I==TrumpET WANT TO PARDON ME?!
> 
> Pardon Me, I never promised you|me a rose garden... expect I know might've.
> It's Dolly Parton with her big boobs never promising us all a Rose Garden.
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=dolly+parton+rose+garden The Phool's Paradox.
> 
> The Weird(y) Part? It's not that I write so, it's strange that I have to.
> 
> > Then, there is formed the overwhelming desire to find out the workings of
> > the Universe, from the undisputed facts. 
> 
> In USA, all science books are edited by twelve select clean-shaved editors,
> nine supreme court judges, ..., and a Partridge in a Pear Tree. Why Pear?!
> 
> Undisputed facts or unverifiable assertions? I just want to know what to where.
> 
> > And this attitude is what will lead to the great engineering of the future.
> 
> O btw, add to that list engineers/actors/singers/writers/... the whole future over.
> KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) seems to be the disposition of 99.999% of all time's humans.
> 
> > So, it is necessary to work out the geometry of the atom, and how that 
> > explains radioactivity, nuclear explosions, attraction between atoms, 
> > evaporation, and so on.
> 
> Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.

Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did 
show that the atom could have a nucleus.
> 
> > The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> > made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> > of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> > on the ground creating global warming type.
> 
> What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
> 
> > The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> > as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done! 
> 
> Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.

I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very 
cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...

> 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
> Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

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

#642271

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> > > > Bango says
> > > >> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force" 
> > > >> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out. 
> > > > 
> > > >> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
> > > >> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron. 
> > > > -----------
> > 
> > To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.
> 
> That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
> 1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
> 2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.

I will now take you one depth deeper. Who even cares if a strong force or no?

> It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.

I'm kind of a MathGu(y). I got some stupid useless college degree and all. 
Means nothing. What drawings are you or anyone going to show me? Show me.

> But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published 
> on these lines.

Publishing has not changed since the beginning of human time, it's all still Vanity.

> I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.

I think you either search/(re)grep WWW or walk into a physical library near you.
I often wonder what became of them genius guys that developed (re)grep. Too good!

> I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.

The answer to your quest, is not already written down. Go with your gut feeling.

> All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of 
> Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and 
> electrons form the atom without a nucleus.

Stanford? He'd be wrong then. And he still remains wrong. Want to rephrase?
How the Universe actually works, is independent of those who claim how it works.

> 
> > Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
> > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments
> 
> Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
> ever.

Yes, electrons are real! RutherfordJi is a God==Genius of Physics.

> Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of 
> Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.

Didn't Avogadro's Number exist before RutherfordJi's experiments? Yes.

<trim>

> > Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.
> 
> Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
> the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did 
> show that the atom could have a nucleus.

Could? You're very funny BanerjeeJi! Never change.

By now, I forget the one book where that PEN Principle made a lasting impression
upon me, But believe you me, it was a great fantastic book on atomic strutures.

> > > The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> > > made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> > > of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> > > on the ground creating global warming type.
> > 
> > What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
> > 
> > > The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> > > as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done! 
> > 
> > Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.
> 
> I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
> a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
> his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very 
> cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...

Good luck if you think that admission gets you anymore credibility.

Distinguished Professor? Let me tell you a lesson I learned from my favorite
professor taught. I wrote a paper with words like: Authorities state...

Me m(y) professor/advisor said to me, don't use the word Authorities.
Sure, they are authors, but don't accept a word they write. I so love him!

> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

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

#642274

On 7/24/2017 9:28 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
>>>>> Bango says
>>>>>> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
>>>>>> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
>>>>>> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
>>>>> -----------
>>>
>>> To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.
>>
>> That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
>> 1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
>> 2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.
> 
> I will now take you one depth deeper. Who even cares if a strong force or no?
> 
>> It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.
> 
> I'm kind of a MathGu(y). I got some stupid useless college degree and all.
> Means nothing. What drawings are you or anyone going to show me? Show me.
> 
>> But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published
>> on these lines.
> 
> Publishing has not changed since the beginning of human time, it's all still Vanity.
> 
>> I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.
> 
> I think you either search/(re)grep WWW or walk into a physical library near you.
> I often wonder what became of them genius guys that developed (re)grep. Too good!
> 
>> I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.
> 
> The answer to your quest, is not already written down. Go with your gut feeling.
> 
>> All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of
>> Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and
>> electrons form the atom without a nucleus.
> 
> Stanford? He'd be wrong then. And he still remains wrong. Want to rephrase?
> How the Universe actually works, is independent of those who claim how it works.
> 
>>
>>> Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
>>> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments
>>
>> Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
>> ever.
> 
> Yes, electrons are real! RutherfordJi is a God==Genius of Physics.
> 
>> Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of
>> Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.
> 
> Didn't Avogadro's Number exist before RutherfordJi's experiments? Yes.
> 
> <trim>
> 
>>> Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.
>>
>> Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
>> the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did
>> show that the atom could have a nucleus.
> 
> Could? You're very funny BanerjeeJi! Never change.
> 
> By now, I forget the one book where that PEN Principle made a lasting impression
> upon me, But believe you me, it was a great fantastic book on atomic strutures.
> 
>>>> The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
>>>> made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
>>>> of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
>>>> on the ground creating global warming type.
>>>
>>> What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
>>>
>>>> The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
>>>> as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done!
>>>
>>> Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.
>>
>> I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
>> a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
>> his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very
>> cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...
> 
> Good luck if you think that admission gets you anymore credibility.
> 
> Distinguished Professor? Let me tell you a lesson I learned from my favorite
> professor taught. I wrote a paper with words like: Authorities state...
> 
> Me m(y) professor/advisor said to me, don't use the word Authorities.
> Sure, they are authors, but don't accept a word they write. I so love him!

Sorry to interrupt your Third World party, but the joke's on you 
Banjoji. MyPalji actually sold out to us Western 
crooks-liars-scoundrels-devils long ago. He thought it would get him a 
job but it only worked for a short while. Now he's wishing he had gone 
with the arranged marriage thing. Looperji is right, Banjoji. Never 
trust anyone.

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

#642287

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:47:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 7/24/2017 9:28 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> >>>>> Bango says
> >>>>>> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
> >>>>>> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
> >>>>>> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
> >>>>> -----------
> >>>
> >>> To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.
> >>
> >> That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
> >> 1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
> >> 2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.
> > 
> > I will now take you one depth deeper. Who even cares if a strong force or no?
> > 
> >> It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.
> > 
> > I'm kind of a MathGu(y). I got some stupid useless college degree and all.
> > Means nothing. What drawings are you or anyone going to show me? Show me.
> > 
> >> But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published
> >> on these lines.
> > 
> > Publishing has not changed since the beginning of human time, it's all still Vanity.
> > 
> >> I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.
> > 
> > I think you either search/(re)grep WWW or walk into a physical library near you.
> > I often wonder what became of them genius guys that developed (re)grep. Too good!
> > 
> >> I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.
> > 
> > The answer to your quest, is not already written down. Go with your gut feeling.
> > 
> >> All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of
> >> Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and
> >> electrons form the atom without a nucleus.
> > 
> > Stanford? He'd be wrong then. And he still remains wrong. Want to rephrase?
> > How the Universe actually works, is independent of those who claim how it works.
> > 
> >>
> >>> Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
> >>> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments
> >>
> >> Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
> >> ever.
> > 
> > Yes, electrons are real! RutherfordJi is a God==Genius of Physics.
> > 
> >> Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of
> >> Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.
> > 
> > Didn't Avogadro's Number exist before RutherfordJi's experiments? Yes.
> > 
> > <trim>
> > 
> >>> Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.
> >>
> >> Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
> >> the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did
> >> show that the atom could have a nucleus.
> > 
> > Could? You're very funny BanerjeeJi! Never change.
> > 
> > By now, I forget the one book where that PEN Principle made a lasting impression
> > upon me, But believe you me, it was a great fantastic book on atomic strutures.
> > 
> >>>> The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> >>>> made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> >>>> of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> >>>> on the ground creating global warming type.
> >>>
> >>> What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
> >>>
> >>>> The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> >>>> as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done!
> >>>
> >>> Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.
> >>
> >> I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
> >> a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
> >> his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very
> >> cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...
> > 
> > Good luck if you think that admission gets you anymore credibility.
> > 
> > Distinguished Professor? Let me tell you a lesson I learned from my favorite
> > professor taught. I wrote a paper with words like: Authorities state...
> > 
> > Me m(y) professor/advisor said to me, don't use the word Authorities.
> > Sure, they are authors, but don't accept a word they write. I so love him!
> 
> Sorry to interrupt your Third World party, but the joke's on you 
> Banjoji. MyPalji actually sold out to us Western 
> crooks-liars-scoundrels-devils long ago. He thought it would get him a 
> job but it only worked for a short while. Now he's wishing he had gone 
> with the arranged marriage thing. Looperji is right, Banjoji. Never 
> trust anyone.

Certainly I do not trust you, benj. Keep well, anyway. How can I appear a god 
without devils like you around? Prajapatirhishirnyushtupacchanday...

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

#642285

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:28:42 AM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> > > > > Bango says
> > > > >> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force" 
> > > > >> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out. 
> > > > > 
> > > > >> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
> > > > >> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron. 
> > > > > -----------
> > > 
> > > To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.
> > 
> > That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
> > 1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
> > 2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.
> 
> I will now take you one depth deeper. Who even cares if a strong force or no?

Whoever cares for Truth for its own sake.

Just as e=mcc a wrong formula was used to explain energy from radiation, a 
patch, the strong force is also a patch to explain the protons in the nucleus.

Patches are by definition temporary.

They have to give way to some new ideas more satisfying and permanent.
> 
> > It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.
> 
> I'm kind of a MathGu(y). I got some stupid useless college degree and all. 
> Means nothing. What drawings are you or anyone going to show me? Show me.

If you are a maths guy then fine, check out my derivation for the formula for
replacing e=mcc.

Problem is that I have drawn them up yet, as they are in my brain. Another 
issue is that I have to post it somewhere in Internet, for usenet does not
support drawings. No doubt these issues will be sorted out in due course.

> 
> > But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published 
> > on these lines.
> 
> Publishing has not changed since the beginning of human time, it's all still Vanity.

Not just vanity. Authenticity, dating, who did what, level of peer approval,
and so on.
Usenet and Internet are fine, but we have to go in for what was done in the
past and was duly recorded with authority.
> 
> > I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.
> 
> I think you either search/(re)grep WWW or walk into a physical library near you.
> I often wonder what became of them genius guys that developed (re)grep. Too good!
> 
> > I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.
> 
> The answer to your quest, is not already written down. Go with your gut feeling.

Thanks. So far I have not seen anything remotely resembling what I have in 
mind. Well, till I finish I must keep all those interested in a new structure
for the nucleus sans strong force, in suspense. 

Of course, the benj class devils will immediately claim that my new ideas are
not new at all, someone else did them. They will make false records. Hmm.

So one way out is to have quite a few people here say what the state of the 
art is, and has been considered in the past, about the structure of the nucleus.

> > All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of 
> > Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and 
> > electrons form the atom without a nucleus.
> 
> Stanford? He'd be wrong then. And he still remains wrong. Want to rephrase?
> How the Universe actually works, is independent of those who claim how it works.

I thought Stanford was the best in USA? They support brave new ideas.
> 
> > 
> > > Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
> > > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments
> > 
> > Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
> > ever.
> 
> Yes, electrons are real! RutherfordJi is a God==Genius of Physics.
> 
> > Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of 
> > Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.
> 
> Didn't Avogadro's Number exist before RutherfordJi's experiments? Yes.

> <trim>
> 
> > > Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.
> > 
> > Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
> > the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did 
> > show that the atom could have a nucleus.
> 
> Could? You're very funny BanerjeeJi! Never change.

The deflection could be because of some proton in the gold atom that 
collided with the alpha particle and sent it off track.

So there could be a nucleus, or not a nucleus.

I don't see how it conclusively proves there is a nucleus but it does prove
there are vast open spaces in the atom.
> 
> By now, I forget the one book where that PEN Principle made a lasting impression
> upon me, But believe you me, it was a great fantastic book on atomic strutures.
> 
> > > > The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> > > > made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> > > > of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> > > > on the ground creating global warming type.
> > > 
> > > What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
> > > 
> > > > The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> > > > as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done! 
> > > 
> > > Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.
> > 
> > I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
> > a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
> > his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very 
> > cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...
> 
> Good luck if you think that admission gets you anymore credibility.

The admission I talked of was for getting there not to study but to demonstrate
my experiments. I believe there are honest people there, unlike
benj and hvac here, who will give a fair assessment of my work without fear
or favour. 

> Distinguished Professor? Let me tell you a lesson I learned from my favorite
> professor taught. I wrote a paper with words like: Authorities state...
> 
> Me m(y) professor/advisor said to me, don't use the word Authorities.
> Sure, they are authors, but don't accept a word they write. I so love him!

Good, then you should learn from him and throw out all the e=mcc and quantum
nonsense spouted by all authorities.
> 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
> Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

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

#642381

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 10:33:30 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:28:42 AM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> > > > > > Bango says
> > > > > >> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force" 
> > > > > >> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
> > > > > >> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron. 
> > > > > > -----------
> > > > 
> > > > To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.
> > > 
> > > That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
> > > 1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
> > > 2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.
> > 
> > I will now take you one depth deeper. Who even cares if a strong force or no?
> 
> Whoever cares for Truth for its own sake.

Good point. Also, very wisely stated. In retrospect, I wasn't very deep. Sorry.
To be deep, Nature could care less what any humans care about. Nature==Bitch!

Truth is a complicated matter. Truth in physics? Truth in climate change? And so on...

> Just as e=mcc a wrong formula was used to explain energy from radiation, a 
> patch, the strong force is also a patch to explain the protons in the nucleus.
> 
> Patches are by definition temporary.

My professor/advisor I brag about, also hated artificial multipliers in formulas.

> They have to give way to some new ideas more satisfying and permanent.

Ideas just are, always will be. It's kind of a philosophical truism. Given.
There's a Conservation of Ideas Law (TM, SM, and BMW). Basically, it
means, in English words: Ideas can neither be created nor destroyed.

Akasha |əˈkäSHə| Principle/Field/PiZZa/Whatever/... Dictionary states:
A supposed universal etheric field in which a record of past events is imprinted.

> > > It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.
> > 
> > I'm kind of a MathGu(y). I got some stupid useless college degree and all. 
> > Means nothing. What drawings are you or anyone going to show me? Show me.
> 
> If you are a maths guy then fine, check out my derivation for the formula for
> replacing e=mcc.

Write your derivation right here. Or, provide just one exact specific link.

I took courses in Nuclear Engineering, I've seen derivations/uses of e=mcc.
There's a great TD book, I studied page by page, by Van Wylen and Sonntag...
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=van+wylen+and+sonntag word for word...

> Problem is that I have drawn them up yet, as they are in my brain. Another 
> issue is that I have to post it somewhere in Internet, for usenet does not
> support drawings. No doubt these issues will be sorted out in due course.

Go to wordpress.com and start your own blog, and for free. Forget déjà vu Usenet.
The GMICKs are succeeding at killing Usenet. Die Usenet die! Silently, of course.

> > > But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published 
> > > on these lines.
> > 
> > Publishing has not changed since the beginning of human time, it's all still Vanity.
> 
> Not just vanity. Authenticity, dating, who did what, level of peer approval,
> and so on.

Authenticity: If anyone speaks antiEinstein, then one's ideas are dead on arrival.

> Usenet and Internet are fine, but we have to go in for what was done in the
> past and was duly recorded with authority.

Don't get frustrated, call your Congressman. TrumpET it out loud! Leave voicemails.

> > > I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.
> > 
> > I think you either search/(re)grep WWW or walk into a physical library near you.
> > I often wonder what became of them genius guys that developed (re)grep. Too good!
> > 
> > > I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.
> > 
> > The answer to your quest, is not already written down. Go with your gut feeling.
> 
> Thanks. So far I have not seen anything remotely resembling what I have in 
> mind. Well, till I finish I must keep all those interested in a new structure
> for the nucleus sans strong force, in suspense. 

Not that quantity matters, but nobody is living in that suspense. Just say it.

> Of course, the benj class devils will immediately claim that my new ideas are
> not new at all, someone else did them. They will make false records. Hmm.

BenjJi, The Devil! I'm going to whip him as soon as I can! Swear2God@#... He he...

> So one way out is to have quite a few people here say what the state of the 
> art is, and has been considered in the past, about the structure of the nucleus.

This is just a discussion NG. People here are here just to share a drink. Cheers!
Hell, 90+ percent of the posters here in this NG are the same one guy. Not a joke.

> > > All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of 
> > > Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and 
> > > electrons form the atom without a nucleus.
> > 
> > Stanford? He'd be wrong then. And he still remains wrong. Want to rephrase?
> > How the Universe actually works, is independent of those who claim how it works.
> 
> I thought Stanford was the best in USA? They support brave new ideas.

Stanford is a great university. My apologies if I misspoke/miswrote. Got misunderstood.
Best? In the USA? I thought the best was TrumpET University. Believe me Me ME!
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=I'm+just+a+soul+whose+intentions+are+good
O ShivaJi... Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood... play it loud/proud!

> > > > Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
> > > > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments
> > > 
> > > Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
> > > ever.
> > 
> > Yes, electrons are real! RutherfordJi is a God==Genius of Physics.
> > 
> > > Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of 
> > > Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.
> > 
> > Didn't Avogadro's Number exist before RutherfordJi's experiments? Yes.
> 
> > <trim>
> > 
> > > > Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.
> > > 
> > > Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
> > > the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did 
> > > show that the atom could have a nucleus.
> > 
> > Could? You're very funny BanerjeeJi! Never change.
> 
> The deflection could be because of some proton in the gold atom that 
> collided with the alpha particle and sent it off track.
> 
> So there could be a nucleus, or not a nucleus.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Right? We're all trying to model thisOneUniverse@#.

> I don't see how it conclusively proves there is a nucleus but it does prove
> there are vast open spaces in the atom.

Proof is in the mind of the beholder. Let it be. Let it go... be free, like a bird...

> > By now, I forget the one book where that PEN Principle made a lasting impression
> > upon me, But believe you me, it was a great fantastic book on atomic strutures.
> > 
> > > > > The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> > > > > made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> > > > > of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> > > > > on the ground creating global warming type.
> > > > 
> > > > What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
> > > > 
> > > > > The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> > > > > as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done! 
> > > > 
> > > > Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.
> > > 
> > > I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
> > > a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
> > > his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very 
> > > cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...
> > 
> > Good luck if you think that admission gets you anymore credibility.
> 
> The admission I talked of was for getting there not to study but to demonstrate
> my experiments. I believe there are honest people there, unlike
> benj and hvac here, who will give a fair assessment of my work without fear
> or favour. 

Honest people?! You just keep getting funnier, BanerjeeJi. Good luck to you!

Both BenjJi and punkHVAC prehaps think they are both always honest people?
The difference between the two? CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC pretends to be honest.

> > Distinguished Professor? Let me tell you a lesson I learned from my favorite
> > professor taught. I wrote a paper with words like: Authorities state...
> > 
> > Me m(y) professor/advisor said to me, don't use the word Authorities.
> > Sure, they are authors, but don't accept a word they write. I so love him!
> 
> Good, then you should learn from him and throw out all the e=mcc and quantum
> nonsense spouted by all authorities.

The equation e=mcc is not wrong. It just did not get originated by
OneStone==Einstien. I've seen derivations of it, back in college days. 

Now I can't recall the e=mcc derivations very well. Regardless. As to QED,
QCD, ... QXD, I love Richard Phillips FeynmanJi! Just too damn clever, RPF!
At Princeton, I was a student/friend of John Archibald WheelerJi, teacher of RPF.
While I had face-to-face discussions with JAW, I never met RPF. History is.

Yes yes YES, I know! I drop JAW way too often. JAW drop! I did it again?!

> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

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

#642383

Loloopy says
Both BenjJi and punkHVAC prehaps think they are both always honest people? 
---------------

Wait, what?
You hate BJ now? When did this happen? And why?


The difference between the two? CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC pretends to be honest. 
-------------

I am 100% truthful here unless I am required to be be less than truthful.

It's not a difficult concept

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

#642388

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 9:46:12 AM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> Loloopy says
>> Both BenjJi and punkHVAC prehaps think they are both always honest people? 
> ---------------
> 
> Wait, what?
> You hate BJ now? When did this happen? And why?

That's top Top TOP secret knowledge, just between BenjJi and I. BenjJi's shy.
I'm sad to say, sorry to report, I've not heard anything of that sort...

>> The difference between the two? CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC pretends to be honest. 
> -------------
> 
> I am 100% truthful here unless I am required to be be less than truthful.

Required? Required by whom? Dr. Seuss? Or his cousin, Dr. SeeUSA? Got retort?

> It's not a difficult concept

I bet you smiled reading/saying/hearing/... CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC. Go fish!
Go ahead HVAC, walk to your nearest mirror and sing: CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace. 

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

#642466

On 7/25/2017 9:46 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Loloopy says
> Both BenjJi and punkHVAC prehaps think they are both always honest people?
> ---------------
> 
> Wait, what?
> You hate BJ now? When did this happen? And why?
> 
> 
> The difference between the two? CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC pretends to be honest.
> -------------
> 
> I am 100% truthful here unless I am required to be be less than truthful.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept
> 
Same here. I don't think MyPal looperji gets it, Hardblow!

And Banjo, doesn't get ANYTHING.

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

#642518

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:26:30 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 10:33:30 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:28:42 AM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 7:42:55 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> > > > > > > Bango says
> > > > > > >> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force" 
> > > > > > >> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
> > > > > > >> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron. 
> > > > > > > -----------
> > > > > 
> > > > > To a certain scale, there are {Protons, Electrons, Neutrons} == PEN Principle, I call it.
> > > > 
> > > > That is enough. I will in due course show how we can explain radioactivity by:
> > > > 1. holding that a neutron is a proton and an electron held together
> > > > 2. there is no such thing as a strong nuclear force.
> > > 
> > > I will now take you one depth deeper. Who even cares if a strong force or no?
> > 
> > Whoever cares for Truth for its own sake.
> 
> Good point. Also, very wisely stated. In retrospect, I wasn't very deep. Sorry.
> To be deep, Nature could care less what any humans care about. Nature==Bitch!
> 
> Truth is a complicated matter. Truth in physics? Truth in climate change? And so on...

As a general rule, when you look after Truth, Truth will look after you.
Taking the Lie is the easy way out. So the Liar will have lots of company.
See, how the Einsteinian dumbfucks pullulate, everywhere?
Looking after Truth is a lonely business but that has its plus points.
One avoids fools, crooks, etc. when one looks after Truth.
> 
> > Just as e=mcc a wrong formula was used to explain energy from radiation, a 
> > patch, the strong force is also a patch to explain the protons in the nucleus.
> > 
> > Patches are by definition temporary.
> 
> My professor/advisor I brag about, also hated artificial multipliers in formulas.
> 
> > They have to give way to some new ideas more satisfying and permanent.
> 
> Ideas just are, always will be. It's kind of a philosophical truism. Given.
> There's a Conservation of Ideas Law (TM, SM, and BMW). Basically, it
> means, in English words: Ideas can neither be created nor destroyed.

No, ideas like energy are always getting created and destroyed. They may come
back in the same form or some related form, and then again they will be
destroyed. Like civilisations. Like all life.
> 
> Akasha |əˈkäSHə| Principle/Field/PiZZa/Whatever/... Dictionary states:
> A supposed universal etheric field in which a record of past events is imprinted.
> 
> > > > It will be necessary to make some drawings for that.
> > > 
> > > I'm kind of a MathGu(y). I got some stupid useless college degree and all. 
> > > Means nothing. What drawings are you or anyone going to show me? Show me.
> > 
> > If you are a maths guy then fine, check out my derivation for the formula for
> > replacing e=mcc.
> 
> Write your derivation right here. Or, provide just one exact specific link.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.indian/SbTl1LUWflI/7iHETeP9FnkJ

The above is a link to a google posting which contains an original 2003
article, along with some comments.

I had first posted it to sci.physics.electromag in early 2000
I think. I will post the appendix from my book "To the Stars" which contains
the derivation below. It contains the original posting of mine on 31 Jan 2000
and the follow ups. All the matter is within the multiple star lines.

*************************************************************************

Arindam Banerjee
31 January 2000, Melbourne
*****
Mathematical derivation for unlimited energy, or showing that the law of conservation of energy is invalid for mass transfers across relativistic systems.

 *****

Energy is force multiplied by the distance over which the force is applied. Thus if force F=Ma is applied over time T, at the end of which the body Mgets velocity V after travelling distance S, then the energy content of thebody increases by MaS which by Newtonian mechanics is Ma0.5aTT, or0.5MaTaT, or 0.5MVV.  This is assuming that the body initially was at restwith respect to some inertial reference frame.

Now consider a system of initial reference frames, at velocities 0, v, 2v, 3v, etc. (This can be visualised as moving walkways, such as exist in airports.) These reference frames are located such that mass M can be moved from the initial reference frame at velocity 0 to one at velocity v, from that at v to another at 2v, from that at 2v to another at 3v, etc.

Let the body of mass M be moved from the initial reference frame of velocity 0 to the reference frame of velocity v.  (This is equivalent to a person stepping on an escalator.)  As soon as M touches the higher velocity reference frame, it has a velocity -v with respect to a point on the higher velocity frame.  After a time t, mass M will attain the speed of 0 with respect to the new reference frame, and v with respect to the earlier reference frame.  This will be due to the frictional or other forces involved, acting over the time t.  Let this frictional force have the acceleration value a.  The energy gained by the mass M, following the above derivation, is 0.5Mvv, obtained by travelling the distance 0.5att.  That is, the work done by the system to give it this extra energy is 0.5Mvv.

Once the mass M has reached the velocity v, let it be moved to the next reference frame of velocity 2v.  As soon as it touches this reference frame, it will have a speed of -v with respect to a point on the higher velocity frame, exactly as earlier.  Following the earlier derivation, work of 0.5Mvv will be required to bring body M to same speed as any point on this reference frame with velocity 2v.  But the kinetic energy of the body M, travelling at velocity 2v with respect to the initial zero velocity reference, is 0.5M(2v)(2v).

Proceeding similarly, we shall find that to bring the body M to speed 3v in the next reference frame will require work done of 0.5Mvv, but the kinetic energy of the body will be 0.5M(3v)(3v).

Let there be N reference systems, and let the final velocity be V=Nv.  Then the final kinetic energy of the mass M is 0.5MVV or 0.5MNNvv.

But the work done by this system to raise the the kinetic energy to that level is only N*0.5Mvv.

So the extra energy obtained from this setup is 0.5MNvv(N-1).  (If N=1, it is zero, as we find, normally.)

This shows that the law of conservation of energy is invalid for this system involving mass transfers across reference frames with ascending relative velocities.  It also indicates how energy can be obtained from nothing.  It challenges all established engineering concepts, and gives the theoretical basis for perpetual motion engines that will not need any fuel nor create environmental degradation.

Perpetual Motion Engines

The above derivation implicitly indicates the technology for perpetual motion engines, that is, say, a generator that will produce electricity without need for any kind of fuel, or external source of motion.

We have a system of moving "walkways" of velocities v, 2v, 3v,...Nv.  A body of mass M is dropped from zero velocity to the walkway of velocity v.  As soon as it reaches velocity v (by frictional forces involving drag or work done by the motor powering this reference frame)  it is shifted to the higher speed walkway of velocity 2v, and so on, till it reaches the velocity Nv.  From the earlier derivation, it has more kinetic energy than the work required to make it acquire same.

(One may think of walking across such a system of walkways - what a terrific amount of kinetic energy we can have by simply keeping on stepping from one to another!) The kinetic energy should be converted into electrical energy.  Conversion of kinetic to electrical energy is what electrical power generation is all about.  Some kind of turbine may be devised so that blades are turned by the high speed mass, such turning blades then producing electricity using a generator.  We could think of a stream of sand-like high speed particles used for such energy generation.  If extra energy is produced, after taking care of the energy required to run the reference systems, then we indeed have a generator not needing fuel.

Or we could think of a reverse rail gun.  In a rail gun a projectile is accelerated by a heavy current passing down rails and through the projectile in the presence of a strong magnetic field.  In the reverse rail gun, the high speed mass is popped into such a rail gun.   By breaking the magnetic lines of force at high speeds, with proper electrical contacts it generates very heavy current, and also decelerates.  This I speculate should be a highly efficient way of generating electricity.

*****
(Responses from the Usenet newsgroup’s readers follow.)

From: "Arindam Banerjee" <a.banerjee@trl.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
References: <mLfl4.3231$VJ1.6023@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <3895D26D.30C017FA@cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Mathematical derivation and machines for unlimited energy
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:31:48 +1100
Lines: 56
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

(Name of author deleted) wrote in message <3895D26D.30C017FA@cern.ch>...
>Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>> Mathematical Derivation and Machines for Unlimited Energy
>
>You're claiming that accelerating something from speed 0 to v requires the same energy as
>accelerating it from v to 2 v. That's simply wrong!

Yes, you are right, for a single reference frame.  I acknowledged that straight off in my paper.

But (and here is the great conceptual leap which will give us unlimited energy) for multiple reference frames moving at v, 2v, 3v, 4v, etc, mass transfer from one to next, 3v to 4v say, takes the same energy as for 2v to 3v, or 10v to 11v.  This is because exactly as you say, we are accelerating the body of mass m from 0 to v, in all cases.

Imagine a series of conveyer belts, moving at v, 2v, 3v, etc.  You step across them, till you reach the velocity Nv.  (I gave this example in my paper.)  You have a very high kinetic energy, but the energy required to make you acquire that is much lower.  The difference,  minus all losses, should give us sweet energy without external sources such as fuel, water, sun etc.

Of course, only experiment can prove me right or wrong.  I wish I had the means to follow up on my idea.  I would welcome anyone to try.

Successful outcome would mean many trillions of dollars worth of business. All power plants could run without fuel, as could ships, trucks, homes, cars, even appliances.  The pollution problem would be wiped out.  All building industries would get a tremendous boost.  Deserts would be greened, people could live in any corner of the universe they chose to...

Worth a try.  A dogmatic no based upon worship of "conservation laws"  is unworthy of those with scientific background.

In any case, I am very very glad to know that I am the first to have proposed this new idea.  I posted this to sci.energy as well, and there has been no response, which indicates that this idea was original - no one published it before.

Arindam Banerjee

From: "Arindam Banerjee" <a.banerjee@trl.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
References: <mLfl4.3231$VJ1.6023@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <3896F477.F7E0DD23@tripoint.org>
Subject: Re: Mathematical derivation and machines for unlimited energy
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:38:23 +1100
Lines: 26

(Name of author deleted) wrote in message <3896F477.F7E0DD23@tripoint.org>...
>> *****
>> Mathematical derivation for unlimited energy, or showing that the law
>> of conservation of energy is invalid for mass transfers across relativistic
>> systems.
>> *****
>
>You've never heard of "Special Relativity" have you?


Certainly Mr ***,

My paper was based upon appreciation of the correctness of the first postulate of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.  Since you seem to be aware of that, I see no point in posting it.  It is surprising though that you seem unable to appreciate that that postulate may be seen as a key basis for my scientific breakthrough.

Arindam Banerjee


From: "Arindam Banerjee" <a.banerjee@trl.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
References: <mLfl4.3231$VJ1.6023@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <38970EA1.DA9B042@mmm.com>
Subject: Re: Mathematical derivation and machines for unlimited energy
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:45:11 +1100
Lines: 45

(Name of author deleted) wrote in message <38970EA1.DA9B042@mmm.com>...
>Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>> Thus if force F=Ma
>
>that is the small velocity approximation.
>
>Newton wrote it this way:
>
>F = d(Mv)/dt
>
>Newton was a careful scientists and realized
>that he could not assume M was a constant.

Quite true, but I was taking M constant.  And since I wanted laymen to understand my paper for its scientific value, I avoided derivatives.

When M is a function of time, as v, then

F = v*d(M)/d(t) + M*d(V)/d(t)

the formula you use when designing rockets where M is a function of time.

As M remains constant in my paper,

d(M)/d(t) = 0

So F = M*d(V)/d(t)
or F=Ma

If I wanted to confuse people with mathematics, believe me, I could do so.  I choose to be as clear as possible, instead.  Heightening the poetic aspects, that is.

Arindam Banerjee

*******************************************************************
> 
> I took courses in Nuclear Engineering, I've seen derivations/uses of e=mcc.
> There's a great TD book, I studied page by page, by Van Wylen and Sonntag...
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=van+wylen+and+sonntag word for word...

I too know the derivation of e=mcc. It is pretty clear that unless we use
the Lorenz transform you cannot get it. The Lorenz transform relates to 
spacetime, the philosophy here is that space gets distorted all the time. This
must be in order to keep c the speed of light invariant with the speed of the
emitter. To make c constant, everything else in the universe must be distorted.

But when c is not constant, then the whole thing falls apart.

> > Problem is that I have drawn them up yet, as they are in my brain. Another 
> > issue is that I have to post it somewhere in Internet, for usenet does not
> > support drawings. No doubt these issues will be sorted out in due course.
> 
> Go to wordpress.com and start your own blog, and for free. Forget déjà vu Usenet.
> The GMICKs are succeeding at killing Usenet. Die Usenet die! Silently, of course.

Still, usenet is useful as a single source available to the whole world.
The intelligent people must realise this.
Usenet is the ONLY place to publish new ideas and new work that can be accessed
by anyone at high speed.
It is thus an alternative to the conference papers, journals, etc. which are
commandeered by the rich and powerful. They do not like revolutionary ideas.
They will do their best to maintain the status quo.

I am trying to make Usenet work with Internet, like facebook.  
It is a question of creating public awareness.
People may not claim to be influenced by usenet, but then who is to be believed
these days!
One can never know how many views one gets - it is all manipulated I think.
Well, so long as they do not arbitrarily delete posts, Usenet is useful and in
my opinion essential for free speech.
> 
> > > > But first I would like to check if someone has already thought and published 
> > > > on these lines.
> > > 
> > > Publishing has not changed since the beginning of human time, it's all still Vanity.
> > 
> > Not just vanity. Authenticity, dating, who did what, level of peer approval,
> > and so on.
> 
> Authenticity: If anyone speaks antiEinstein, then one's ideas are dead on arrival.

Don't I know that!
Well, calling them extraordinary dumbfucks, cowards, thugs, anti-scientific 
frauds, excruciating pseudo-intellectual shits, etc. gives some relief.
Surely not all are like that bad lot, only those who are nicely corrupted.
Those not corrupted may well join with that chorus of satisfying truths about
them.

btw when I write thug I mean not the violent type but the suave type known in 
India, the sort who cheats.

> > Usenet and Internet are fine, but we have to go in for what was done in the
> > past and was duly recorded with authority.
> 
> Don't get frustrated, call your Congressman. TrumpET it out loud! Leave voicemails.
> 
> > > > I would be grateful for assistance here, beyond the scope of wiki.
> > > 
> > > I think you either search/(re)grep WWW or walk into a physical library near you.
> > > I often wonder what became of them genius guys that developed (re)grep. Too good!
> > > 
> > > > I have a book "Nuclear Physics" by Kaplan, and that has not been very helpful.
> > > 
> > > The answer to your quest, is not already written down. Go with your gut feeling.
> > 
> > Thanks. So far I have not seen anything remotely resembling what I have in 
> > mind. Well, till I finish I must keep all those interested in a new structure
> > for the nucleus sans strong force, in suspense. 
> 
> Not that quantity matters, but nobody is living in that suspense. Just say it.

In due course, yes. In the meantime I will try to perform my experiments to some
worthy group somewhere. As you say, I should avoid Einsteinian establishments.

> > Of course, the benj class devils will immediately claim that my new ideas are
> > not new at all, someone else did them. They will make false records. Hmm.
> 
> BenjJi, The Devil! I'm going to whip him as soon as I can! Swear2God@#... He he...

Do so. You will be doing the thirdworld a favour. 
 
> > So one way out is to have quite a few people here say what the state of the 
> > art is, and has been considered in the past, about the structure of the nucleus.
> 
> This is just a discussion NG. People here are here just to share a drink. Cheers!
> Hell, 90+ percent of the posters here in this NG are the same one guy. Not a joke.

Well that may be true, but still this is the only place where a chap can 
publish his thoughts to the world. All other media are blocked unless you 
conform. Yes this is a discussion Ng, and discuss we will. 

Interestingly, chaps are persecuted for writing in fb and twitter some things
unpopular, but anyone can write anything in usenet without fear. There seems to
be some understanding with the large media. Usenet is left alone!
> 
> > > > All I got to that effect is a usenet note from Prof Francis Muir formerly of 
> > > > Stanford, who said that there is an atomic model where only protons and 
> > > > electrons form the atom without a nucleus.
> > > 
> > > Stanford? He'd be wrong then. And he still remains wrong. Want to rephrase?
> > > How the Universe actually works, is independent of those who claim how it works.

Now this is true. Still, without our feeble minds we do try to understand how
it works. To the extent we follow Truth for its own sake, we have a chance.
> > 
> > I thought Stanford was the best in USA? They support brave new ideas.
> 
> Stanford is a great university. My apologies if I misspoke/miswrote. Got misunderstood.
> Best? In the USA? I thought the best was TrumpET University. Believe me Me ME!
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=I'm+just+a+soul+whose+intentions+are+good
> O ShivaJi... Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood... play it loud/proud!
> 
> > > > > Revisit the Rutherford experiments to determine the mass and charge of any electron.
> > > > > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Rutherford+experiments
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, I have read that before. A great experiment, surely one of the greatest
> > > > ever.
> > > 
> > > Yes, electrons are real! RutherfordJi is a God==Genius of Physics.
> > > 
> > > > Actually from that experiment and Avogadro's hypothesis we get to know of 
> > > > Avogadro's Number and various details of the atomic world.
> > > 
> > > Didn't Avogadro's Number exist before RutherfordJi's experiments? Yes.
> > 
> > > <trim>
> > > 
> > > > > Most of the atom is empty space. I read many books that describe that.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes here again there is Rutherford's gold leaf foil experiment to show that
> > > > the atom is mostly empty space. With the scattering of alpha rays he did 
> > > > show that the atom could have a nucleus.
> > > 
> > > Could? You're very funny BanerjeeJi! Never change.
> > 
> > The deflection could be because of some proton in the gold atom that 
> > collided with the alpha particle and sent it off track.
> > 
> > So there could be a nucleus, or not a nucleus.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't matter. Right? We're all trying to model thisOneUniverse@#.

Oh but it does matter. With my model of the nucleus we can explain radioactivity and attraction between atoms, evaporation and maybe more. Who 
knows, one day we may be able to make new elements with much greater atomic
numbers. These days work in nanotechnology is progressing. Difficult to do a
PhD without nano-something. I guess the trend can only continue. Maybe in another 30 years we will have nano-nano-tech! 

> > I don't see how it conclusively proves there is a nucleus but it does prove
> > there are vast open spaces in the atom.
> 
> Proof is in the mind of the beholder. Let it be. Let it go... be free, like a bird...
> 
> > > By now, I forget the one book where that PEN Principle made a lasting impression
> > > upon me, But believe you me, it was a great fantastic book on atomic strutures.
> > > 
> > > > > > The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> > > > > > made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> > > > > > of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> > > > > > on the ground creating global warming type.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What work? Easy, that work which provides individuals job security. Until age 55ish.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> > > > > > as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tħanck God! You said firstworld! For a real nanosecond I thought you meant USA.
> > > > 
> > > > I was glad to find that the person I met in 1987 is still around and indeed is
> > > > a Distinguished Professor these days. I will write to him with a view to seeking
> > > > his help to continue with my research. He lives in Fargo, North Dakota. Very 
> > > > cold, brrr but sacrifices have to be made for science if I get admission...
> > > 
> > > Good luck if you think that admission gets you anymore credibility.
> > 
> > The admission I talked of was for getting there not to study but to demonstrate
> > my experiments. I believe there are honest people there, unlike
> > benj and hvac here, who will give a fair assessment of my work without fear
> > or favour. 
> 
> Honest people?! You just keep getting funnier, BanerjeeJi. Good luck to you!

I am not that cynical yet. The type I met in 1987 were fundamentalist Christians
and they said that they would not do anything wrong because that would make
Jesus Christ and God unhappy. I think this attitude is helpful for honesty.

Of course, the benj-hvac sorts have no such constraints and so they can be as
happily dishonest as they can get away with.

> Both BenjJi and punkHVAC prehaps think they are both always honest people?
> The difference between the two? CheatingLyingBassTurdHVAC pretends to be honest.

Really? I find he and benj and some others work hard at showing how dishonest
they are. And why not, dishonesty has worked so well for them, just like it
has for politicians et al.
> 
> > > Distinguished Professor? Let me tell you a lesson I learned from my favorite
> > > professor taught. I wrote a paper with words like: Authorities state...
> > > 
> > > Me m(y) professor/advisor said to me, don't use the word Authorities.
> > > Sure, they are authors, but don't accept a word they write. I so love him!
> > 
> > Good, then you should learn from him and throw out all the e=mcc and quantum
> > nonsense spouted by all authorities.
> 
> The equation e=mcc is not wrong. It just did not get originated by
> OneStone==Einstien. I've seen derivations of it, back in college days.

If you make wrong assumptions you can derive anything with the suitable abuse
of mathematics. Mathematically it is correct, but this is not a mathematical
equation - it is about relating physical entities like mass and energy.

Mathematics is abstract. It is used to give help in understanding reality. For
that to work, we must have the correct inputs. Wrong theories and wrong
assumptions such as light speed invariance will lead to abuse of mathematics.
That will lead to wrong ideas about Nature, like spacetime and mass-energy
equivalence. 
> 
> Now I can't recall the e=mcc derivations very well. Regardless. As to QED,
> QCD, ... QXD, I love Richard Phillips FeynmanJi! Just too damn clever, RPF!
> At Princeton, I was a student/friend of John Archibald WheelerJi, teacher of RPF.
> While I had face-to-face discussions with JAW, I never met RPF. History is.
> 
> Yes yes YES, I know! I drop JAW way too often. JAW drop! I did it again?!

Don't bother about them, you are chatting with
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
god among lotsa devils.

> 
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
> Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.

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

#642607

Poor John says
HVAC 
" 

Much as the kids in school ignored you. And then later in life you were ignored not only by women, but by men. Your own DOG ignored you. 

" 

I am starting to realize that what we decry in others is what we ourselves struggle with. 
Poor HVAC 
-------------

John, I was expressing almost humanlike compassion there. Don't you agree?

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

#642626

HVAC
"John, I was expressing almost humanlike compassion there. Don't you agree? "
Empathy and compassion are things you should
try to emulate- bucket list

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

#642166

On 7/24/2017 6:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
>> Bango says
>> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
>> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
>>
>> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
>> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
>> -----------
>>
>> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.
> 
> Once one realises that the modern physicists are absurd dumbfucks 

what is an absurd dumb fuck ?

a retarted prostitute dressed as a clown ?


> and frauds
> there is a great sense of release, from the bondage to which they have
> subjected minds.

free minds, free thought, un-associated thoughts, tripping through the 
dazies, hippies of the 60's on acid, smoking pot now legal in Colorado 
and keep the voters stoned, while we steal them blinded by drugs,

> 
> Then, there is formed the overwhelming desire to find out the workings of
> the Universe, from the undisputed facts.

watch star-trek the TV series, no need to bother with facts.


> 
> And this attitude is what will lead to the great engineering of the future.

for stoners..

> 
> So, it is necessary to work out the geometry of the atom, and how that
> explains radioactivity, nuclear explosions, attraction between atoms,
> evaporation, and so on.

already done dude.

> 
> The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> on the ground creating global warming type.

so fake neutrons cause fake global worming ?

> 
> The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done!

so don't publish.   saves us all the bother.

> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
> 
> 

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

#642240

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:36:00 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/24/2017 6:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> >> Bango says
> >> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
> >> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
> >>
> >> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
> >> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
> >> -----------
> >>
> >> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.
> > 
> > Once one realises that the modern physicists are absurd dumbfucks 
> 
> what is an absurd dumb fuck ?
> 
> a retarted prostitute dressed as a clown ?

Something between Hawking and the TV clown Sheldon Cooper.
> 
> 
> > and frauds
> > there is a great sense of release, from the bondage to which they have
> > subjected minds.
> 
> free minds, free thought, un-associated thoughts, tripping through the 
> dazies, hippies of the 60's on acid, smoking pot now legal in Colorado 
> and keep the voters stoned, while we steal them blinded by drugs,
> 
> > 
> > Then, there is formed the overwhelming desire to find out the workings of
> > the Universe, from the undisputed facts.
> 
> watch star-trek the TV series, no need to bother with facts.
> 
> 
> > 
> > And this attitude is what will lead to the great engineering of the future.
> 
> for stoners..
> 
> > 
> > So, it is necessary to work out the geometry of the atom, and how that
> > explains radioactivity, nuclear explosions, attraction between atoms,
> > evaporation, and so on.
> 
> already done dude.

Really? 
Have they managed to explain the nucleus of the atom without going into the
theory of strong nuclear force?
I would like to take a shot at doing that, but it would be pointless if 
someone has done that.
And how is evaporation explained with electrical forces?

I mean, in a scientific and so convincing style, that is to say, unlike the
efforts of those here who will not be named.

Any references, please!

> 
> > 
> > The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> > made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> > of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> > on the ground creating global warming type.
> 
> so fake neutrons cause fake global worming ?

Neutrons are not fake, but I would like to submit they have a net zero charge
as they are composed of a proton and an electron. Nothing new here I think.
> 
> > 
> > The reason for my question is, given the dishonesty of the firstworld devils,
> > as soon as I publish my new ideas they will claim it has already been done!
> 
> so don't publish.   saves us all the bother.
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > 
> >

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

#642276

On 7/24/2017 6:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:36:00 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
>> On 7/24/2017 6:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
>>>> Bango says
>>>> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
>>>> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
>>>>
>>>> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
>>>> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
>>>> -----------
>>>>
>>>> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.
>>>
>>> Once one realises that the modern physicists are absurd dumbfucks
>>
>> what is an absurd dumb fuck ?
>>
>> a retarted prostitute dressed as a clown ?
> 
> Something between Hawking and the TV clown Sheldon Cooper.
>>
>>
>>> and frauds
>>> there is a great sense of release, from the bondage to which they have
>>> subjected minds.
>>
>> free minds, free thought, un-associated thoughts, tripping through the
>> dazies, hippies of the 60's on acid, smoking pot now legal in Colorado
>> and keep the voters stoned, while we steal them blinded by drugs,
>>
>>>
>>> Then, there is formed the overwhelming desire to find out the workings of
>>> the Universe, from the undisputed facts.
>>
>> watch star-trek the TV series, no need to bother with facts.
>>

>>> And this attitude is what will lead to the great engineering of the future.
>>
>> for stoners..
>>
>>>
>>> The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
>>> made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
>>> of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
>>> on the ground creating global warming type.
>>
>> so fake neutrons cause fake global worming ?
> 
> Neutrons are not fake, but I would like to submit they have a net zero charge
> as they are composed of a proton and an electron. Nothing new here I think.

Neutron too heavy to be just a proton + electron

electron mass = 0.0005446623 amu = 9.1093 × 10-31 kg
electron mass = 0.0005446623 amu = 0.000091093 x 10-27 Kg
proton mass  = 1.0072764668  amu = 1.6726 x 10-27 kg
neutron mass = 1.0086649156  amu = 1.6749 x 10-27 kg


>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>>
>>>
> 

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

#642288

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:50:32 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/24/2017 6:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:36:00 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> >> On 7/24/2017 6:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> >>>> Bango says
> >>>> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
> >>>> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
> >>>> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
> >>>> -----------
> >>>>
> >>>> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.
> >>>
> >>> Once one realises that the modern physicists are absurd dumbfucks
> >>
> >> what is an absurd dumb fuck ?
> >>
> >> a retarted prostitute dressed as a clown ?
> > 
> > Something between Hawking and the TV clown Sheldon Cooper.
> >>
> >>
> >>> and frauds
> >>> there is a great sense of release, from the bondage to which they have
> >>> subjected minds.
> >>
> >> free minds, free thought, un-associated thoughts, tripping through the
> >> dazies, hippies of the 60's on acid, smoking pot now legal in Colorado
> >> and keep the voters stoned, while we steal them blinded by drugs,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Then, there is formed the overwhelming desire to find out the workings of
> >>> the Universe, from the undisputed facts.
> >>
> >> watch star-trek the TV series, no need to bother with facts.
> >>
> 
> >>> And this attitude is what will lead to the great engineering of the future.
> >>
> >> for stoners..
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the atom is
> >>> made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means dismissing all
> >>> of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon dioxide created
> >>> on the ground creating global warming type.
> >>
> >> so fake neutrons cause fake global worming ?
> > 
> > Neutrons are not fake, but I would like to submit they have a net zero charge
> > as they are composed of a proton and an electron. Nothing new here I think.
> 
> Neutron too heavy to be just a proton + electron
> 
> electron mass = 0.0005446623 amu = 9.1093 × 10-31 kg
> electron mass = 0.0005446623 amu = 0.000091093 x 10-27 Kg
> proton mass  = 1.0072764668  amu = 1.6726 x 10-27 kg
> neutron mass = 1.0086649156  amu = 1.6749 x 10-27 kg
> 
True and I mentioned this in another post.
Point was then that a proton cannot decay to a neutron as neutron is heavier.
The balance mass as you say could be made up of smaller sized charges, or 
a single electron fixed to some small positive charges.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >>>
> >>>
> >

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

#642463

On 7/24/2017 9:50 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/24/2017 6:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:36:00 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
>>> On 7/24/2017 6:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
>>>>> Bango says
>>>>> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong 
>>>>> nuclear force"
>>>>> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to 
>>>>> keep
>>>>> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton 
>>>>> and electron.
>>>>> -----------
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge 
>>>>> of astrophysics.
>>>>
>>>> Once one realises that the modern physicists are absurd dumbfucks
>>>
>>> what is an absurd dumb fuck ?
>>>
>>> a retarted prostitute dressed as a clown ?
>>
>> Something between Hawking and the TV clown Sheldon Cooper.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and frauds
>>>> there is a great sense of release, from the bondage to which they have
>>>> subjected minds.
>>>
>>> free minds, free thought, un-associated thoughts, tripping through the
>>> dazies, hippies of the 60's on acid, smoking pot now legal in Colorado
>>> and keep the voters stoned, while we steal them blinded by drugs,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, there is formed the overwhelming desire to find out the 
>>>> workings of
>>>> the Universe, from the undisputed facts.
>>>
>>> watch star-trek the TV series, no need to bother with facts.
>>>
> 
>>>> And this attitude is what will lead to the great engineering of the 
>>>> future.
>>>
>>> for stoners..
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question is what work has been done on this, by holding that the 
>>>> atom is
>>>> made up only of electrons and protons. Of course, this means 
>>>> dismissing all
>>>> of various later notions as irrelevant nonsense, of the carbon 
>>>> dioxide created
>>>> on the ground creating global warming type.
>>>
>>> so fake neutrons cause fake global worming ?
>>
>> Neutrons are not fake, but I would like to submit they have a net zero 
>> charge
>> as they are composed of a proton and an electron. Nothing new here I 
>> think.
> 
> Neutron too heavy to be just a proton + electron
> 
> electron mass = 0.0005446623 amu = 9.1093 × 10-31 kg
> electron mass = 0.0005446623 amu = 0.000091093 x 10-27 Kg
> proton mass  = 1.0072764668  amu = 1.6726 x 10-27 kg
> neutron mass = 1.0086649156  amu = 1.6749 x 10-27 kg

Neutron = electron + proton + cold steam.

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

#642223

On 7/24/2017 7:17 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Bango says
> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.
> 
> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep
> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.
> -----------
> 
> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.
> 
Actually less...

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

#642278

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:17:19 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> Bango says
> I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force" 
> in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out. 
> 
> Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
> the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron. 
> -----------
> 
> I see that your knowledge of particle physics rivals your knowledge of astrophysics.

You got nothing!

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

#642149

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes:

>Surely, they must have thought the universe was made up on protons and 
>electrons before the neutron was "found".

>Now, if a neutron is considered to be a union of a proton and an electron,

We know that it is not.
For example, explain how, in the sodium-22 isotope, a proton decays into a
neutron, a positron and a neutrino.

>I don't think it is necessary to have the concept of "strong nuclear force"
>in the nucleus to keep the protons from flying out.

>Geometry suggests the simple electrostatic forces are sufficient to keep 
>the protons together when we consider the neutron to be a proton and electron.

OK, for the simplest case of two free charges, explain how a Helium-3 nucleus
stays together if there is no strong force, and the nucleus consists of three
protons and an electron (two protons and a neutron according to regular science)
and the protons all want to get away from each other.

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web