About energy
Henry Haapalainen
destroy as a bomb. How does it happen? This is a simplified explanation:
Two particles orbit each other at an enormous speed. Normally they behave
as one. But when the bond is broken, these particles go their separate ways
and may cause a chain reaction. The invisible energy becomes visible.
The connection with radioactivity (falling space theory)
H. - RADIOACTIVITY
When the nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei in the temperature and pressure of
stars, the nuclei in fusion must have an enormous velocity. That speed
cannot disappear anywhere, its nature only changes. The former velocity
becomes the orbiting speed inside the new larger nucleus. The speed will be
the larger, the heavier element is involved.
The connection with radioactivity is this: we know that the half-life of
radioactive material cannot be affected by any chemical or physical means.
And the internal speeds in nucleus are exactly what those means cannot
affect. But heavy nuclei are not perfect "perpetuum mobiles". For some
reason they eventually leak their energy and begin decaying.
Nuclei can be ball-shaped, longish or consisting of several ball-shaped
clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce
something about their nuclear structures.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Paul Cardinale
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
[snip]
> When the nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei in the temperature and pressure of
> stars, the nuclei in fusion must have an enormous velocity. That speed
> cannot disappear anywhere, its nature only changes.
Ah, there we go! Conservation of speed!!
Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Remaining sewage snipped.
Paul Cardinale
PD
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
>
> H. - RADIOACTIVITY
> When the nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei in the temperature and pressure of
> stars, the nuclei in fusion must have an enormous velocity. That speed
> cannot disappear anywhere, its nature only changes.
What on earth gave you that idea?
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145301587.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I think he got the idea from kinetic speed being
transformed into potential speed :-)
Dirk Vdm
Henry Haapalainen
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
kirjoitti viestissä news:ruS0g.377701$WM4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
makes sense. Now I have a start, and it sounds promising.
Henry Haapalainen
PD
It's always a good idea that you check whether a proposed physical law
works outside the narrow domain you wish to apply it to. For example,
you wish to explain radioactivity with a law that says that speed is
conserved. However, you haven't checked whether that "law" works with,
say, colliding billiard balls or bullets penetrating targets or any of
a number of pedestrian examples first. If it turns out that it doesn't
work in those cases, even though you think it applies to radioactivity,
then the immediate question becomes, "Why there and only there?"
PD
Henry Haapalainen
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1145309544.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PD
Any ideas and discussion are welcome. (HH)
PD
I've given you an idea. Now it's up to you to do some homework, a
combination of experimentation and library work.
PD
Tom Roberts
> When the nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei in the temperature and
> pressure of
> stars, the nuclei in fusion must have an enormous velocity.
But for muon catalyzed fusion this is not true. The presence of the
negative muon greatly reduces the Coulomb barrier to fusion. Indeed, the
problem is often slowing down the nuclei enough so thay can fuse.
> That speed
> cannot disappear anywhere, its nature only changes.
Nonsense. One can say this about energy, but not speed. We do not
observe any such "rule" anywhere.
> The former velocity
> becomes the orbiting speed inside the new larger nucleus.
You have an extremely naive view of what makes up a nucleus, one that is
soundly refuted by experiments.
> Nuclei can be ball-shaped, longish or consisting of several
> ball-shaped
> clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce
> something about their nuclear structures.
It is _very_much_ better to perform experiments that directly measure
the shape and internal structure of nuclei. There are literally zillions
of such experiments. They completely trump your armchair speculations.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Cardinale
Isn't "kinetic speed" also known as "dynamic speed", and "potential
speed" known as "static speed"? :-)
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:1145337430.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
High up North, in some (small) circles, no doubt :-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
This illustrates two things:
1. How just "thinking" about things can produce remarkably little
progress.
2. How much time can be spent on fruitless ventures.
But it is symptomatic of what I'll call the "Henry Hill" approach to
doing physics. There is a world of difference between doing physics and
thinking about doing physics. Like music, really doing physics involves
endless practice of basic skills as well as frustrating exercise of
very difficult skills, group work and collaboration, continual training
at the hands of someone better than you, and performance recitals in
front of a judgmental audience. Those who read gee-whiz biographies of
Einstein and Feynman and come away with the impression "Hey, I've got
the time, I can do that," have no real idea how Einstein and Feynman
really worked.
PD
Henry Haapalainen
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1145337430.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Those sound better to me. (HH)
zzbu...@netscape.net
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
He do to get it from Maxwell, since kinetic energy
does not exist anywhere in the universe,
except in the flatulent brains of lawyers.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Henry Haapalainen
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> kirjoitti viestissä
news:gsZ0g.48224$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> > When the nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei in the temperature and
> > pressure of
> > stars, the nuclei in fusion must have an enormous velocity.
>
> But for muon catalyzed fusion this is not true. The presence of the
> negative muon greatly reduces the Coulomb barrier to fusion. Indeed, the
> problem is often slowing down the nuclei enough so thay can fuse.
>
> > That speed
> > cannot disappear anywhere, its nature only changes.
>
> Nonsense. One can say this about energy, but not speed. We do not
> observe any such "rule" anywhere.
>
>
> > The former velocity
> > becomes the orbiting speed inside the new larger nucleus.
>
> You have an extremely naive view of what makes up a nucleus, one that is
> soundly refuted by experiments.
>
>
> > Nuclei can be ball-shaped, longish or consisting of several
> > ball-shaped
> > clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce
> > something about their nuclear structures.
>
> It is _very_much_ better to perform experiments that directly measure
> the shape and internal structure of nuclei. There are literally zillions
> of such experiments. They completely trump your armchair speculations.
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
How about twin paradox, maybe it's better for you to concentrate upon it.
(HH)
Henry Haapalainen
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1145321732.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PD
Thank you for your comments. But I remember that answering to you will very
soon be a fruitless quarreling.
Henry Haapalainen
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:e23l8e$far$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
Welcome to the White Zone:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DynStatSpeed.html
Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
PD
Ooh, dude, you've been had.
The fact that it was so easy should give you a clue about the value of
your method here.
PD
PD
Gee, I don't recall that.
However, you may not get what you want from the interaction. As I've
already indicated to you, ruminating about things is not a productive
way to either learn or do physics, even though it might sound like a
fun hobby to you.
PD
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145402756....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Yes, and we weren't even after him. Just fooling around a bit.
At first it didn't even occur to me to take it on the list because
I assumed that he was joking along. But then, after he wrote
his arrogant responses to you and Tom, I realized he was
dead serious here.
Wow :-)
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>destroy as a bomb. How does it happen?
I'm not sure about the bomb, but it usually happens in an
engine when I turn the key located on the steering column.
>This is a simplified explanation: Two particles orbit each other
>at an enormous speed.
You mean like the cams in a suzuki hayabusa at redline?
>Normally they behave
>as one. But when the bond is broken, these particles go their separate ways
>and may cause a chain reaction. The invisible energy becomes visible.
Also known as throwing a rod through the crankcase when the timimg
chain breaks.
[...]
>Nuclei can be ball-shaped, longish or consisting of several ball-shaped
>clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce
>something about their nuclear structures.
Surprisingly, your last statement has been confirmed by doing
just that for the last 75 years. This vast repository of information
has been widely disseminated in the form of journal articles, textbooks
and physics courses during this time. Much of this has been collected
in references like, ``Theoretical Nuclear Physics Volume I: Nuclear
Structure,'' by deShalit and Feshbach and the two volume set, Nuclear
Structure, by Bohr and Mottleson. There even exists a compilation of
nuclear structure data, ``Nuclear Level Schemes,'' containing some
2500 level structures with more than 100,000 levels. Since your so-
called theory of falling space doesn't resemble anything in these
references or any others, you might want to consider rejecting your
idea about studying nuclear decays.
Henry Haapalainen
> >clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce
> >something about their nuclear structures.
>
> Surprisingly, your last statement has been confirmed by doing
> just that for the last 75 years. This vast repository of information
> has been widely disseminated in the form of journal articles, textbooks
> and physics courses during this time. Much of this has been collected
> in references like, ``Theoretical Nuclear Physics Volume I: Nuclear
> Structure,'' by deShalit and Feshbach and the two volume set, Nuclear
> Structure, by Bohr and Mottleson. There even exists a compilation of
> nuclear structure data, ``Nuclear Level Schemes,'' containing some
> 2500 level structures with more than 100,000 levels. Since your so-
> called theory of falling space doesn't resemble anything in these
> references or any others, you might want to consider rejecting your
>
Yes, but 'falling space' can give new tools. I don't explain it better,
because you have not understood a word about what I said. And you are on my
list, remember?
Henry Haapalainen
Eric Gisse
"Denial of evidence that contradicts my theory" is not a new tool. One
could argue that you are a tool, but I will save that for another day.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Bilge
>> >clusters. From the decay schemes of radioactive elements we can deduce
>> >something about their nuclear structures.
>>
>> Surprisingly, your last statement has been confirmed by doing
>> just that for the last 75 years. This vast repository of information
>> has been widely disseminated in the form of journal articles, textbooks
>> and physics courses during this time. Much of this has been collected
>> in references like, ``Theoretical Nuclear Physics Volume I: Nuclear
>> Structure,'' by deShalit and Feshbach and the two volume set, Nuclear
>> Structure, by Bohr and Mottleson. There even exists a compilation of
>> nuclear structure data, ``Nuclear Level Schemes,'' containing some
>> 2500 level structures with more than 100,000 levels. Since your so-
>> called theory of falling space doesn't resemble anything in these
>> references or any others, you might want to consider rejecting your
>> idea about studying nuclear decays. (BIlge)
>>
>Yes, but 'falling space' can give new tools.
Fantasy, mental masturbation and ignorance are tools you may keep.
Get back to use when you can calculate something useful and isn't
well known.
>I don't explain it better,
>because you have not understood a word about what I said.
Grow up and come to grips with the concept of studying a subject
before offering your opinion to experts.
>And you are on my list, remember?
Am I supposed to care about that for some reason?