IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th October 2011, 07:02 PM   #281
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post

The dispute between the Higgens' wave interpretation of light, versus Newton's corpuscle interpretation of light, is well-known as a big controversial dispute in physics
Not for the last 50 years, it hasn't.

Quote:

Newton was very smart, and he was sure that if light should be a wave it would be impossible to have well defined shadows.
And so it is. No shadow is perfectly defined. Of course, with a sufficiently short wavelength (such as occurs with visible light) you get a shadow which is, oddly enough, just as well defined as we see in the real world.

Quote:
But it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the corpuscular behavior of light by considering it as a propagation of waves.
Right you are. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the diffraction pattern of electrons from a nickel crystal surface as a phenomenon involving corpuscular particles. And it is impossible to explain the double slit diffraction pattern at extremely low intensities as a phenomenon involving corpuscular particles.

Quote:
That's why Newton was sure that light is made by corpuscular particles
And that's why Newton was wrong, and that's why QM is right.

yourself.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2011, 11:48 PM   #282
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
RC is in no way an idiot and is smart and insightful.
I don't think pedrone is an idiot either but there are few people here I disagree with more.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2011, 12:24 AM   #283
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Rules are made to be broken, they say.

I reject this latest violation of the "laws"` because I'm holding out for a violation that has some balls.

"Just barely" violations should be rejected as the error in measurements that they most likely are.

Massive violations escape our scrutiny because we are dis-inclined to look for them.

This neutrino thing is the gay-est physics crap to emerge in a long time.
It reminds me of cops verifying that you, indeed, exceeded the speed-limit by 8mph.


C to the Cth power is a violation that i can get excited about.
Too bad we have no means nor inclination to detect such radical departures from the cozy walls of our righteous, hard earned knowledge.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2011, 02:21 AM   #284
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,786
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Let's wait the experiments in the LHC.

Good idea. That's thread closed for now, then.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2011, 06:39 AM   #285
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,595
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Not up to now.

But as neutrinos faster than light were detected last month emitted by other superacelerator, of course the researchers of LHC will be interested to repeat the experiment, with the LHC working with its full capacity
No they won't.
The neutrinos are produced for this experiment by colliding a beam of protons into a static target. Conservation of momentum means that the collision products, including neutrinos, mostly continue travelling in the same direction as the proton beam.

In the LHC, however, protons (or other hadrons) of with equal and opposite momentum are collided head on. This means the net momentum of the products is zero, and so the resulting particles fly out in all directions. This obviously means that a detector hundreds of kilometres away will see far less neutrinos, since you're effectively seeing the same number of particles spread over the surface of a large sphere rather than in a directed beam. So a collider like the LHC is pretty much useless for this kind of experiment, regardless of how high energy the collisions are.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2011, 07:18 AM   #286
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,511
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
The neutrinos in the experiment in question didn't come from the LHC at all.
Ah, yes. That would be another problem with pedrone's post.
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:21 PM   #287
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank IX and X

Addtions to Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank

IX: W. Guglinski is ignorant about a fundamental part of quantum mechanics: spin.
It is not a classical spin ('gyrating' as he calls it).
Quote:
Spin is a type of angular momentum, where angular momentum is defined in the modern way as the "generator of rotations" (see Noether's theorem).[1][2] This modern definition of angular momentum is not the same as the historical classical mechanics definition, L = r × p. (The historical definition, which does not include spin, is more specifically called "orbital angular momentum".)

X: Also Maxwell’s theory states that a accelerating charge radiates energy. A rotating point particle like a proton does not have a surface to have charge on it which accelerates. The measured size of the fundamental particles means that if they have a surface then that surface must be rotating at many times the speed of light to explain their magnetic moments.

Acknowledgment: Thanks goes to pedrone for constantly writing posts highlighting the ignorance and incompetence of Wladimir Guglinski.
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
by W. Guglinski in Rossi's blog:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516&cpage=8#comments


However, there is another mystery that current theories cannot explain. Because beyond the quantum spin of elementary particles, they also have an intrinsic spin: they gyrate about their axis (as the Earth gyrates about its axis in 24 hours). Such rotation of the particles create their magnetic fields. For instance, within a nucleus the protons gyrate, and their rotation is responsible for the nuclear magnetic field of the nucleus (the nucleus also has a rotation, which increases the magnetic field created by the protons).


But from Maxwell’s theory an electric charge with rotation must irradiate eleoctromagnetic energy (photons). And so, a proton gyrating would have to emit electromagnetic energy, and it would have to stop to gyrate after its kinetic energy of rotation is over.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 03:12 PM   #288
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Nuclear Physcis debunked by John Arrington's experiment

In March 2012 John Arrington released the results of his experiments made in the Argonne National Laboratory:
Link 1:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.b...d=010115120324

Arrington’s experiment showed that it is correct the hypothesis of the existence of a central 2He4 within the structure of all nuclei, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory[ 1 ] .

Here we analyse the meaning of his experiment concerning what it represents for the prevailing current Nuclear Physics, and we show that his results corroborate the new Hexagonal Floors Model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.


Mod WarningSnipped massive copy & paste as per Rule 4. Do not copy lengthy tracts of material available elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and post a link to the source.
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:LashL

Last edited by LashL; 3rd May 2012 at 03:54 PM.
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 03:18 PM   #289
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
tlwr;
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 03:37 PM   #290
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Which particular paper by John Arrington are you referring to, to support your interpretation? (I note that you managed to cite several references, *except* for the one that justifies your post).
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 3rd May 2012 at 03:39 PM.
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 03:47 PM   #291
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Which particular paper by John Arrington are you referring to, to support your interpretation? (I note that you managed to cite several references, *except* for the one that justifies your post).
What a big honking surprise that is!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:05 PM   #292
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Which particular paper by John Arrington are you referring to, to support your interpretation? (I note that you managed to cite several references, *except* for the one that justifies your post).

Why dont you ask to him?


John Arrington
e-mail: johna@anl.gov

Research interests

Nucleon structure: Involved in a series of measurements of nucleon structure via elastic and inelastic electron scattering to measure the nucleon structure functions and study quark-hadron duality. Performed detailed analysis of the discrepancy between Rosenbluth and Polarization transfer measurements of the proton form factor, as well as the effects of higher-order radiative corrections (two-photon exchange and Coulomb distortion). Performed "Super-Rosenbluth" measurement to more precisely understand the discrepancy. Have follow-up measurements approved at Jefferson Lab and Novosibirsk to study the effect of two-photon exchange corrections to the form factors.

Nuclear structure functions: Measured high-x scattering from nuclei, aimed at isolating the short-range structure of the nucleus and understanding modification to nucleon structure within the nuclear medium. Performed duality studies with high-precision nucleon and nuclear structure function measurements. Recently completed experiment to measure the EMC effect at large x, especially for light nuclei.

Color Transparency: Involved in SLAC and JLab studies of color transparency in A(e,e'p) reactions, the recent JLab Hall B measurement of color transparency in rho electroproduction, and JLab Hall C measurement of transparency in pion electroproduction.

The majority of my work is performed in Hall C and Hall A at Jefferson lab, though I am (or have been) involved in Hall B experiments as well as experiments at MIT-Bates, SLAC, HERMES at DESY, Fermilab, and Novosibirsk.

http://www.phy.anl.gov/mep/staff/Arrington_J.html
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:10 PM   #293
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Which particular paper by John Arrington are you referring to, to support your interpretation? (I note that you managed to cite several references, *except* for the one that justifies your post).

This is not MY interpretation:

http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.b...d=010115120324




And the image bellow of the beryllium nucleus is not MINE:


pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:15 PM   #294
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Mod WarningSnipped massive copy & paste as per Rule 4. Do not copy lengthy tracts of material available elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and post a link to the source.
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:LashL


Nuclear Physcis debunked by John Arrington's experiment:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article...99s_experiment
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:25 PM   #295
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Exclamation pedrone debunks Quantum Ring Theory yet again

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
In March 2012 John Arrington released the results of his experiments made in the Argonne National Laboratory:
Link 1:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.b...d=010115120324

Arrington’s experiment showed that it is correct the hypothesis of the existence of a central 2He4 within the structure of all nuclei, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory[ 1 ] .
You are wrong.
There is nothing in the news article that states that all nuclei have a central 2He4.
The article states that of deuterium, helium, beryllium and carbon:
  • only beryllium.
  • has two clusters of nucleons (not central)
  • "each resembling a nucleus of an atom of helium-4." (not an actual 2He4)
The results are another debunking of Quantum Ring Theory since the "central 2He4" was not found in carbon. Thanks goes to pedrone for one more time highlighting the errors, ignorance and incompetence within Wladimir Guglinski's QRT.

The evidence that this is the fantasy of a crank is listed in Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank IX and X

Perhaps this should be merged into the Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence for photon and neutron models thread?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:41 PM   #296
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
And the image bellow of the beryllium nucleus is not MINE:
And we know that the image of the beryllium nucleus is not YOURS
because the author is in the caption: Dirk Tiedemann / Uni-Mainz

So what? It illustrates that beryllium's nucleus has a "halo" about 7 fm in radius, i.e. if you measure the position of a nucleon you can find it up to 7 fm away from the center of mass.

The articel looks like it is bases partially on a press release from the Argonne National Laboratory: New picture of atomic nucleus emerges which includes
Quote:
This hypothesis largely held true, except in the case of beryllium. Unlike the other atoms under investigation, beryllium contains two clusters of nucleons, each resembling a helium-4 nucleus. These nucleons, in turn, are bound to one additional neutron.
(my emphasis added)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 05:05 PM   #297
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This hypothesis largely held true, except in the case of beryllium. Unlike the other atoms under investigation, beryllium contains two clusters of nucleons, each resembling a helium-4 nucleus. These nucleons, in turn, are bound to one additional neutron.

compare with the image of the 4Be8 nucleus in the page 230 of the book Quantum Ring Theory:





pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 05:28 PM   #298
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The results are another debunking of Quantum Ring Theory since the "central 2He4" was not found in carbon. Thanks goes to pedrone for one more time highlighting the errors, ignorance and incompetence within Wladimir Guglinski's QRT.

The evidence that this is the fantasy of a crank is listed in Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank IX and X






Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Einstein
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 05:55 PM   #299
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Einstein
I presume you're the great spirit.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:00 PM   #300
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Compare with the idoicy of comparing images of the 4Be8 nucleus in a news article with the ignorant cartoons of the book Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank IX and X
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:07 PM   #301
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I presume you're the great spirit.


Just what a mediocre mind asked to Einstein a hundred years ago


pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:08 PM   #302
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Why dont you ask to him?


John Arrington
e-mail: johna@anl.gov

Research interests

Nucleon structure: Involved in a series of measurements of nucleon structure via elastic and inelastic electron scattering to measure the nucleon structure functions and study quark-hadron duality. Performed detailed analysis of the discrepancy between Rosenbluth and Polarization transfer measurements of the proton form factor, as well as the effects of higher-order radiative corrections (two-photon exchange and Coulomb distortion). Performed "Super-Rosenbluth" measurement to more precisely understand the discrepancy. Have follow-up measurements approved at Jefferson Lab and Novosibirsk to study the effect of two-photon exchange corrections to the form factors.

Nuclear structure functions: Measured high-x scattering from nuclei, aimed at isolating the short-range structure of the nucleus and understanding modification to nucleon structure within the nuclear medium. Performed duality studies with high-precision nucleon and nuclear structure function measurements. Recently completed experiment to measure the EMC effect at large x, especially for light nuclei.

Color Transparency: Involved in SLAC and JLab studies of color transparency in A(e,e'p) reactions, the recent JLab Hall B measurement of color transparency in rho electroproduction, and JLab Hall C measurement of transparency in pion electroproduction.

The majority of my work is performed in Hall C and Hall A at Jefferson lab, though I am (or have been) involved in Hall B experiments as well as experiments at MIT-Bates, SLAC, HERMES at DESY, Fermilab, and Novosibirsk.

http://www.phy.anl.gov/mep/staff/Arrington_J.html
The reason I asked you the question is because I know who he is and what he does. I have even reviewed his research papers. So, which one of them are you basing your interpretation upon (because the link in your OP is an interpretation).
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:12 PM   #303
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XI

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Einstein
Wladimir Guglinski is a tiny minded crank as shown in the listed posts:

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd May 2012 at 06:16 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:19 PM   #304
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post

and the nucleus 3Li7 in the page 229 of the book Quantum Ring Theory, where we see that the nucleon 1H2 is situated about 6fm from the center of the nucleus.
Such distance 6fm was used for theoretical calculation of the nuclear magnetic moment of the 3Li7, by Guglinski :

pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:30 PM   #305
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
[*]carbon does not have a central 2He4
[/list]
In Rossi's blog:
Mod WarningBreach of rule 4 removed. Again.
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Cuddles

Last edited by Cuddles; 4th May 2012 at 06:38 AM.
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:31 PM   #306
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
and the nucleus 3Li7 in the page 229 of the book Quantum Ring Theory, where we see that the nucleon 1H2 is situated about 6fm from the center of the nucleus.
Such distance 6fm was used for theoretical calculation of the nuclear magnetic moment of the 3Li7, by Guglinski :

and your point is? That a self referential reference is consistent?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:32 PM   #307
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
and the nucleus 3Li7 in the page 229 of the book Quantum Ring Theory, where we see that the nucleon 1H2 is situated about 6fm from the center of the nucleus.
Posting cartoons from a crank book is not smart, pedrone.
It implies that you are very gulible or ignorant about physics because the errors that Guglinski makes are basic:
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XI
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:42 PM   #308
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
and your point is? That a self referential reference is consistent?

the point ?


The beryllium distance of 7fm proves that Nuclear Physics cannot be correct.

The range of strong force is 2fm.
Therefore that structure detected by Arrington experiment debunks Nuclear Physics, because such structure cannot have aggregation with a distance of 7fm, since the strong force cannot actuate with such distance.

And the point is:

Arrington experiment proves that nuclei aggregation does not occur thanks to the strong force, as considered in Nuclear Physics.

There is need OTHER cause of nuclei aggregation, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:42 PM   #309
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,606
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post

<snip>

6C
The next nucleus is 6C. In the detail of page 231 shown in link 2 we see the structure of 6C12. The four deuterons 1H2 form a cube (with diagonal of about 14fm) having the central 2He4 in the center of the cube.. So, in spite the 6C12 has no trepidation, however due to the nuclear spin the four deuterons 1H2 appear in the images of the experiment as a cloud about the central 2He4.
trepidation?

Someone please clue me in on the use of this word in physics? Is 6C12 scared or just shaking?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:44 PM   #310
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Einstein
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:45 PM   #311
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Posting cartoons from a crank book is not smart, pedrone.


a cranck book which predicted the correct structure of nuclei, as Arrington experiment shows now.

While Nuclear Physics (which is not cranck) is now debunked by his experiments

pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 06:56 PM   #312
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
the point ?


The beryllium distance of 7fm proves that Nuclear Physics cannot be correct.

The range of strong force is 2fm.
Therefore that structure detected by Arrington experiment debunks Nuclear Physics, because such structure cannot have aggregation with a distance of 7fm, since the strong force cannot actuate with such distance.

And the point is:

Arrington experiment proves that nuclei aggregation does not occur thanks to the strong force, as considered in Nuclear Physics.

There is need OTHER cause of nuclei aggregation, as proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

What Arrington experiment are you referring to?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 07:22 PM   #313
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
[b]Looking at the structure of 4Be8, we realize that it has no trepidation, because the two nucleons 1H2 are distributed symmetrically about the central 2He4, and so their masses are distributed symmetrically regarding to the z-axis, about which the nucleus gyrates (that’swhy the 4Be8 has null electric quadrupole moment, because it has also null nuclear magnetic moment, as shown in the book QRT).
Amd from the original article which you quote but do not seem to have actually read:

Quote:
Unlike the other atoms, it has two clusters of nucleons, each resembling a nucleus of an atom of helium-4.
So your quoted article does not agree with the Ring Thing. Arrington describes beryllium as having 2 "pseudo-nuclei", rather than the 3 required by yout own posted reference (and diagram) from page 230.

Really, Pedrone. This sort of internal inconsistency is embarrassing to read. Surely you can do better.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 02:01 AM   #314
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
trepidation?

Someone please clue me in on the use of this word in physics? Is 6C12 scared or just shaking?
It's about Pedrone not wanting to accept even just a correction with respect to incorrect use of a word.
http://67.228.115.45/showthread.php?t=205339&page=13
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 04:40 AM   #315
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Einstein
Ah, the Gallileo syndrome.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 06:03 AM   #316
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ah, the Gallileo syndrome.

yes, einstein suffered much of this disease

pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 06:19 AM   #317
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wladimir Guglinski is a tiny minded crank as shown in the listed posts:
Oh, that. He meant all that figuratively.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 06:19 AM   #318
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wladimir Guglinski is a tiny minded crank as shown in the listed posts:

All these arguments exhibited by Reality Check are based on a fundamental hypothesis:

that all foundations of current prevailing theories are correct


However, Arrington's experiments are showing that such fundamental hypothesis ( considered by Reality Check ) is wrong, because the structure of 4Be8 detected in his experiment proves that the strong force is not able to aggregate the nuclei.


So, we realize why Reality Check considers Guglinski a cranck

It is because Reality Check considers untouchable the dogmas of current prevailing theories, which he uses as a point of departure for his conclusions.


As Guglinski's Quantum Ring Theory proposes new ideas that defy the prevailiing current theories. so from Reality Check criterium the conclusion is: Guglinski is a cranck


Now Arrington's experiment is showing that Guglinski is not a cranck

pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2012, 06:38 AM   #320
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wladimir Guglinski is a tiny minded crank as shown in the listed post
  • Ignorance of the masses of SUSY particles



LHC experiments showed that SUSY is wrong.





Actually those particles proposed in SUSY DO NOT EXIST !!!!!


Then why a hell Guglinski have to know the masses of particles which DO NOT EXIST ?????????



pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.