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

Groups > sci.physics > #576379 > unrolled thread

10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 21:47 -0700
    Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:12 -0500
      Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 15:17 -0700
        Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 23:40 -0700
          Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:35 -0500
            exclusion or repel as forces? Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 15:44 -0700
              Re: exclusion or repel as forces? Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 19:13 -0500
                Re: exclusion or repel as forces? Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 13:52 -0700

#576379 — 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

page 10, Strong Nuclear Force is chemical bonding
Atom-Totality-Universe

The 4 major supporting evidence of the Atom Totality are these: 
1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is blackbody, meaning cavity, meaning a structure 
2) Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom 
3) Solid Body Rotation can exist only in a Universe in which Electromagnetism EM runs the Universe as seen in the Maxwell theory, and so a universe operated by Maxwell theory is a universe of an atom 
4) Strong Nuclear Force is another EM force of Chemical Bonding only scaled higher 

Now I delve into (4) the Strong Nuclear Force is just a chemical bond array of protons, just as the electrons in the exterior of the nucleus is a chemical bond array. Here again, the Universe is governed by Maxwell theory and that means electrons protons with charge and that means the Atom Totality. 

Because the Strong Nuclear Force is just a scaled down or scaled up Chemistry Bond Array, implies that Electricity Magnetism, not the structureless BBEGR rules the Cosmos, and since EM rules means an Atom Cosmos. 

Maxwell theory deriving Strong Nuclear force as a chemical bond.

Just to refresh my memory, I looked up how the Maxwell theory derives the Strong Nuclear force to be a chemical bond and that matches the Coulomb force. In this old post, though, I did not mention the concept that the neutron in a atom nucleus becomes a proton with a nuclear-electron spilling out and running around to hold together several protons (strong-nuclear-force). 

Subject: factor of 10^6 (permeability/permittivity) for Chemical Bond to Strong Nuclear Force as a Coulomb force

If one looks on page 572: PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 572, we see a picture of a typical atom with its electron shells and a nucleus. The electron cloud has a diameter of 2x10^-10 meter and the diameter of the nucleus is 5x10^-15 meters. 
As I have reported of equilibration, that the Chemical bond is typically 5 eV and the nuclear force bond is 5 MeV so that eV to MeV is a difference of 10^6. 
The distance of a Chemical Bond compared to a Strong Nuclear bond of 
proton with neutron is again a difference of 10^6. So in other words, both the Chemical bond is a Coulomb force and the nuclear bond is a Coulomb force, only difference is that the Chemical bond takes place at 10^6 distance so that it is 10^6 weaker of a bond. What holds the proton to neutron is the same force, the same Coulomb force as what holds the hydrogen atom to a hydrogen ion. 
Stated simply, nuclear physics is chemical bonds at a distance of 10^-6. What holds together the proton and neutron in deuteron is the same force that holds together the hydrogen atom with a proton (dihydrogen ion), and only difference is one is 10^6 smaller distance. 
So 10^6 is a special number in physics, and obviously a dimensionless 
number and constant. It is probably more important than the fine 
structure constant, for it tells us not only about electromagnetism 
but the space involved with electromagnetism. 
So if all of Physics is derivable from these 5 axioms: (1) facts of 
chemistry -- what there is axiom and the four Maxwell Laws then this 
special dimensionless constant factor of 10^6 should also appear 
somewhere in the Maxwell Equations. 
If we look at the two constants in the Maxwell Equations: permeability 
constant of 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m and the permittivity constant of 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, that those two constants directly link to one another as being a factor of 10^6 and that starting from 0 to permeability as 10^-6 we reach permittivity as another 10^6 increment. 
So that if we never knew what the distances of the electron shell was 
compared to the nucleus, we just simply look at permeability and 
permittivity and see they are 10^6 apart, would tell us that the 
distances are of a 10^6 magnitude and that the forces of chemical 
bonds versus nuclear bonds are also 10^6 magnitude different. 
Or, if we knew the distances of diameter of electron shell to nuclear 
diameter was that of 10^6 difference, we would be able to tell what 
permeability constant was 10^-6 and permittivity had to be 10^-12. 


https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#576447

On 5/7/16 11:47 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom




               ##                                      #
               ##                                      #
               #########################################
               #########################################
               ##                                 ######
               ##                             ##########
                                            ############
                                         ##############
                                       #############
                                    #############
                                ##############
                              #############
                           ##############
                         #############
                      ##############
                  #############                        #
                #############                          #
               #########################################
               #########################################
                                                       #

                       ########
                    ###############
                  ##################
                 #####################
                ####               ####
                ##                   ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                    ###
                ##                   ##
                ####               ####
                 #####################
                  ##################
                    ###############
                       ########





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#576553

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 8:12:50 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
(snipped the obscenity)

Why must you persist in obscene graphics?

Is it because you missed the idea that like to like charges attract, not repel

We see huge abundant evidence that like charges attract, not repel:
1) electrons congregate outside the nucleus 
2) protons congregate making a nucleus 
3) electrons flow together in a wire in electricity, ditto protons 
4) electrons congregate in a capacitor, ditto protons 
5) Pauli Exclusion Principle
6) Hund's rule in Aufbau principle 
7) Meissner effect 

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

#576650

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 5:17:29 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 8:12:50 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> (snipped the obscenity)
> 
> Why must you persist in obscene graphics?
> 
> Is it because you missed the idea that like to like charges attract, not repel
> 
> We see huge abundant evidence that like charges attract, not repel:
> 1) electrons congregate outside the nucleus 
> 2) protons congregate making a nucleus 
> 3) electrons flow together in a wire in electricity, ditto protons 
> 4) electrons congregate in a capacitor, ditto protons 
> 5) Pauli Exclusion Principle
> 6) Hund's rule in Aufbau principle 
> 7) Meissner effect

So, I am delighted to find the concept of "exclusion" in Pauli Exclusion Principle is the same concept as Denial of Same Space Occupancy. So that two bar magnets show no repelling, only exclusion and attraction.

AP

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

#576692

On 5/9/16 1:40 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> So, I am delighted to find the concept of "exclusion" in Pauli
> Exclusion Principle is the same concept as Denial of Same Space
> Occupancy. So that two bar magnets show no repelling, only exclusion
> and attraction.
>
> AP
>

   One wonders if AP knows to which particles the Pauli Exclusion
   Principle applies.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#576853 — exclusion or repel as forces? Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/9/16 1:37 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 6:35:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 5/8/16 5:23 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>> And so now, I think I found the term, science term for Denial of Same Space Occupancy. It comes from Pauli Exclusion Principle, the term "exclusion". So, is the concept of exclusion in Pauli Exclusion principle, the same concept that a north to north bar magnets experience of an exclusion, not a repulsion?
> >>
> >>
> >>    Does AP know to which particle the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies?
> >>
> >
> > So, you think it applies only to the electron. Did no-one ever publish literature that PEP applies to the proton? Aage Bohr perhaps?
> >
> > AP
> >
> 
>    One still wonders if you know where the Pauli Exclusion Principle
>    applies.
> 
>    From Wikipedia:
> > In particle physics, a fermion (a name coined by Paul Dirac[1] from
> > the surname of Enrico Fermi) is any particle characterized by
> > Fermi-Dirac statistics. These particles obey the Pauli exclusion
> > principle. Fermions include all quarks and leptons, as well as any
> > composite particle made of an odd number of these, such as all
> > baryons and many atoms and nuclei. Fermions differ from bosons, which
> > obey Bose-Einstein statistics.
> 

Alright, then Sam. So, what is the difference between north to north pole of magnets close together--is it repel as in Coulomb force or is it just exclusion and no force but Pauli Exclusion Principle.

So, what is the difference, Sam, between repel and exclusion?

AP

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

#576889 — Re: exclusion or repel as forces? Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On 5/9/16 5:44 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 10:29:35 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/9/16 1:37 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 6:35:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/16 5:23 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>> And so now, I think I found the term, science term for Denial of Same Space Occupancy. It comes from Pauli Exclusion Principle, the term "exclusion". So, is the concept of exclusion in Pauli Exclusion principle, the same concept that a north to north bar magnets experience of an exclusion, not a repulsion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Does AP know to which particle the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you think it applies only to the electron. Did no-one ever publish literature that PEP applies to the proton? Aage Bohr perhaps?
>>>
>>> AP
>>>
>>
>>    One still wonders if you know where the Pauli Exclusion Principle
>>    applies.
>>
>>    From Wikipedia:
>>> In particle physics, a fermion (a name coined by Paul Dirac[1] from
>>> the surname of Enrico Fermi) is any particle characterized by
>>> Fermi-Dirac statistics. These particles obey the Pauli exclusion
>>> principle. Fermions include all quarks and leptons, as well as any
>>> composite particle made of an odd number of these, such as all
>>> baryons and many atoms and nuclei. Fermions differ from bosons, which
>>> obey Bose-Einstein statistics.
>>
>
> Alright, then Sam. So, what is the difference between north to north pole of magnets close together--is it repel as in Coulomb force or is it just exclusion and no force but Pauli Exclusion Principle.
>
> So, what is the difference, Sam, between repel and exclusion?
>
> AP
>


   Come on, AP, you can't be that dumb. Force between magnets
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets

> Magnets exert forces and torques on each other due to the complex
> rules of electromagnetism. The forces of attraction field of magnets
> are due to microscopic currents of electrically charged electrons
> orbiting nuclei and the intrinsic magnetism of fundamental particles
> (such as electrons) that make up the material. Both of these are
> modeled quite well as tiny loops of current called magnetic dipoles
> that produce their own magnetic field and are affected by external
> magnetic fields. The most elementary force between magnets,
> therefore, is the magnetic dipole–dipole interaction. If all of the
> magnetic dipoles that make up two magnets are known then the net
> force on both magnets can be determined by summing up all these
> interactions between the dipoles of the first magnet and that of the
> second.
>
> It is always more convenient to model the force between two magnets
> as being due to forces between magnetic poles having magnetic charges
> 'smeared' over them. Such a model fails to account for many important
> properties of magnetism such as the relationship between angular
> momentum and magnetic dipoles. Further, magnetic charge does not
> exist. This model works quite well, though, in predicting the forces
> between simple magnets where good models of how the 'magnetic charge'
> is distributed are available.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#577274 — Re: exclusion or repel as forces? Re: 10th page, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 7:13:42 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
(snipped)
> 
> 
>    Come on, AP, you can't be that dumb. Force between magnets
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets
> 
> > Magnets exert forces and torques on each other due to the complex
> > rules of electromagnetism. The forces of attraction field of magnets
> > are due to microscopic currents of electrically charged electrons
> > orbiting nuclei and the intrinsic magnetism of fundamental particles
> > (such as electrons) that make up the material. Both of these are
> > modeled quite well as tiny loops of current called magnetic dipoles
> > that produce their own magnetic field and are affected by external
> > magnetic fields. The most elementary force between magnets,
> > therefore, is the magnetic dipole–dipole interaction. If all of the
> > magnetic dipoles that make up two magnets are known then the net
> > force on both magnets can be determined by summing up all these
> > interactions between the dipoles of the first magnet and that of the
> > second.
> >
> > It is always more convenient to model the force between two magnets
> > as being due to forces between magnetic poles having magnetic charges
> > 'smeared' over them. Such a model fails to account for many important
> > properties of magnetism such as the relationship between angular
> > momentum and magnetic dipoles. Further, magnetic charge does not
> > exist. This model works quite well, though, in predicting the forces
> > between simple magnets where good models of how the 'magnetic charge'
> > is distributed are available.
> 

Being a physicist means more than quoting Wikipedia, Sam. Being a physicist means you have to think physics which you rarely do.

Here is a list of phenomenon that have attraction force only, no repelling force that you believe EM has.

Sam wants a picture of where magnets repel, or, where like to like charge repel for electron to electron 

Sam wants to ignore the fact there is no repel in EM as why electrons congregate. When you think you see repel, you are seeing denial of same space occupancy. 

We see huge abundant evidence that like charges attract, not repel:
1) electrons congregate outside the nucleus 
2) protons congregate making a nucleus 
3) electrons flow together in a wire in electricity, ditto protons 
4) electrons congregate in a capacitor, ditto protons 
5) Pauli Exclusion Principle
6) Hund's rule in Aufbau principle 
7) Meissner effect 

So, when will Sam come around? When will he accept that Nature has no "repel force in EM". In fact, no repel force exists in all of Nature, since it does not exist in EM.

How much more evidence does Sam and physicist need? Are they like mules, that you take them to the waters edge, but they will not drink.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web