Unification of Physics
kenseto
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
A new theory of gravity is included.
Spaceman
>A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
>http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
>A new theory of gravity is included.
>
How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
Adobe Reader?
Got HTML?
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Bob Kolker
Has anyone ever detected a repulsive force between uncharge
bodies which are separated?
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>Has anyone ever detected a repulsive force between uncharge
>bodies which are separated?
>
Uncharged bodies?
What universe are you in?
Snot Natural for this one I'm in!
Bob Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
> >From: Bob Kolker bobk...@mediaone.net
>
> >Has anyone ever detected a repulsive force between uncharge
> >bodies which are separated?
> >
>
> Uncharged bodies?
As in 0 net electrical charge.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
Eric Prebys
Spaceman wrote:
>
> >From: "kenseto" ken...@erinet.com
>
> >A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> >http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> >
> >A new theory of gravity is included.
> >
>
> How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
> Adobe Reader?
They will be spared Seto's drivel.
> Got HTML?
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys
Spaceman wrote:
>
> >From: Bob Kolker bobk...@mediaone.net
>
> >As in 0 net electrical charge.
>
> 0 static charge too?
>
Has anyone told Spaceman yet today what a moron he is? I think
he needs frequent reminding.
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
--
Spaceman
>Has anyone told Spaceman yet today what a moron he is? I think
>he needs frequent reminding.
Do you really get paid to state such crap?
Are you mad that you can't prove my statements wrong either?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
>Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
>WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
<LOL>
One big hole for money to go in,
hopefully we are filling up that hole
so nobody else falls into it and pays you the escape fees.
Stupid smash up man!
You will never leanr how an electron works by smashing them up!
What a bunch of mechanically challenged morons!
<LOL>
Spaceman
>They will be spared Seto's drivel.
One things drivel is another things feast..
thought has no such physical form as drivel.
so,
you should allow all to eat of the drivel if you want all to
grow.
Of course you would not care about realities and helping others
your just into sucking money off the people for smashing things up
at high speeds and big costs ..
I wish I had your job!
<LOL>
kenseto
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020212102103...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >From: "kenseto" ken...@erinet.com
>
> >A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> >http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> >
> >A new theory of gravity is included.
> >
>
> How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
> Adobe Reader?
> Got HTML?
Go to Adobe's site and download the software for free. Download the version
5.0
Address: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3C694FB6...@fnal.gov...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > >From: "kenseto" ken...@erinet.com
> >
> > >A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > >http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> > >
> > >A new theory of gravity is included.
> > >
> >
> > How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
> > Adobe Reader?
>
> They will be spared Seto's drivel.
Except that my drivel will unite gravity with the other forces. Do you have
a theory that can do that jerk-face?? I didn't think so.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:3C693458...@mediaone.net...
According to kenseto it can't be detected because it only happens
in the unobservable part of the universe, or like he puts it so
eloquently: "... outside the diameter of the observable universe"
Read more about this universe and its diameter on:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DiameterUniverse
Dirk Vdm
franz heymann
> >
> > >From: "kenseto" ken...@erinet.com
> >
> > >A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > >http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> > >
> > >A new theory of gravity is included.
> > >
> >
> > How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
> > Adobe Reader?
>
> They will be spared Seto's drivel.
I could not withstand the curiosity of having a peep at it.
I am sorry that I wasted the time doing so.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c697aef$0$1601$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
But you don't have a theory that can do that jerk-face either.
Actually, you don't have any theory at all. Where are the predictions
*unique to it* which could serve as tests for its validity?
Franz Heymann
Etherman
> A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
> A new theory of gravity is included.
You spelled "crappy" wrong.
HTH
HAND
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
codeZ
Zero net charge particles have no mass.
Bob Kolker
Zero net charge bodies. Like when the electrons and
protons balance each other out. You have such a body
and so do I, otherwise we would be uprooting
skyscrapers.
Now to repeat the question. has anyone ever discovered
any repulsive force between bodies with 0 net charge.
A simple yes or no will do fine.
Bob Kolker
Eric Prebys
You mean like the neutron, Klong, Z0, etc?
--
codeZ
>
> codeZ wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Spaceman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: Bob Kolker bobk...@mediaone.net
> > > >
> > > > >Has anyone ever detected a repulsive force between uncharge
> > > > >bodies which are separated?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Uncharged bodies?
> > >
> > > As in 0 net electrical charge.
> > >
> >
> > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
>
> Zero net charge bodies. Like when the electrons and
> protons balance each other out. You have such a body
> and so do I, otherwise we would be uprooting
> skyscrapers.
Whenever you have a zero net charge by canceling off +ve and -ve you have a
dipole. The dipole has a net zero electric field only on it's equatorial
plane. Such a plane is infinitesimally thin and can be ignored. Generally
the electric field strength from such dipoles is decreasing as 1/(r^3). For
example, a neutron is a tripole of charges (+1/3, +1/3, -2/3).
codeZ
> > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
>
> You mean like the neutron, Klong, Z0, etc?
>
Al Montestruc
Ummm? Ever heard of a neutron???
codeZ
> > >
> > > As in 0 net electrical charge.
> > >
> >
> > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
>
> Ummm? Ever heard of a neutron???
A neutron is an ensemble of particles. It has an electric field decreasing
as 1/(r^3), or similar.
Laurence Godfrey
And what then is the Z0 boson?
Laurence
>
Spaceman
>Zero net charge particles have no mass.
and that would mean they also don't exist at all.
no mass = nothing .
QED!
George Jones
What about the almost, but not quite, massless neutrinos.
Regards,
George
kenseto
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:3c6993ff$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c697aef$0$1601$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> > "Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> > news:3C694FB6...@fnal.gov...
> > >
> > >
> > > Spaceman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: "kenseto" ken...@erinet.com
> > > >
> > > > >A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > > > >http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > >A new theory of gravity is included.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
> > > > Adobe Reader?
> > >
> > > They will be spared Seto's drivel.
> >
> > Except that my drivel will unite gravity with the other forces. Do
> you have
> > a theory that can do that jerk-face?? I didn't think so.
>
> But you don't have a theory that can do that jerk-face either.
Yes I have.
> Actually, you don't have any theory at all.
This shows me that you don't know shit.
>Where are the predictions
> *unique to it* which could serve as tests for its validity?
1. The accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe.
This was predicted by my theory (in 1993)---before they were discovered by
astronomers in 1998.
2. The electric charge of a particle is not residing within the particle.
That means that there is no infinite self repulsion of a charged particle as
perceived by the physicists in the early formation of QED. That's why the
re-normalization procedure to get rid of the infinities works in QED---the
infinities were never there in the first place..
3. A new theory of gravity shows why that gravity is so weak compared to the
nuclear forces.
4. Stacked interactions that gives rise to the nuclear strong force
eliminated the need for the strong force messengers-the gluons of different
colors.
5. Uniting the force of gravity with the other forces of nature.
6. My theory led to the discovery of the CRE force. The CRE force is
important to all the processes in the universe
Ken Seto
Eric Prebys
And the Z0 boson? That's pretty much just like a photon, except it
has mass.
Not to mention the growing evidence that the neutrino have mass.
The point is that there is nothing inheriently linking mass to
charge.
Eric Prebys
Yes, incorrectly.
Laurence Godfrey
wrote:
>
>
>codeZ wrote:
>>
>> > > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
>> >
>> > You mean like the neutron, Klong, Z0, etc?
>> >
>> I have just answered this above.
>
>Yes, incorrectly.
As usual
Laurence
Michael Mcneil
can't read anything from the link as it keeps sending error on page
messages. Naturally one is loath to download anything from the net, esp.
tech stuff. Why not open a page here or in another community to let us
read it directly?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Michael Mcneil
Got any Weatherlawyerisms?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Michael Mcneil" <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e51859120cfdb69062e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> Got any Weatherlawyerisms?
I guess not, but please enlighten me, I don't know what
you're referring to...
Dirk Vdm
Al Montestruc
It is considered a partical as well, and in any case has a "net"
charge of zero. IIRC neutrons not bound up in a nucleus will decay
shortly (with half life on the order of seconds to minutes) into an
electron and proton and maybe something else.
kenseto
> How does it apply to the aerodynamics of a boomerang? Any theories? I
> can't read anything from the link as it keeps sending error on page
> messages. Naturally one is loath to download anything from the net, esp.
> tech stuff. Why not open a page here or in another community to let us
> read it directly?
I'll sending you a copy of the paper via e-mail attachment
Anybody else interested in receiving a copy please let me know.
Ken Seto
franz heymann
The neutron has zero net charge.
The hydrogen atom has zero net charge.
The standard Kilogram has zero net charge (on a suitable day)
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
And two dipoles next to each other might make a quadrupole with a
field decreasing as 1/(r^4)
Now what do you think the typical multipolarity of your body might be
and what might the physical extension of the field of such a multipole
be?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> > > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> >
> > You mean like the neutron, Klong, Z0, etc?
> >
> I have just answered this above.
Like hell you have. You handwaved in concepts like electric dipole
moments. Well, here is a surprise for you :-
The neutron has no electric dipole moment. Zilch. Zero. Null.
Nothing. Buggerall. None.
Next time think before committing yourself to public utterances.
Franz Heymann
codeZ
What I meant was fundamental particles, like a quark or a neutrino.
codeZ
Good point.
codeZ
Good point.
codeZ
>
> codeZ <de...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a4cn52$krk$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > > > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> > >
> > > You mean like the neutron, Klong, Z0, etc?
> > >
> > I have just answered this above.
>
> Like hell you have. You handwaved in concepts like electric dipole
> moments. Well, here is a surprise for you :-
>
> The neutron has no electric dipole moment. Zilch. Zero. Null.
> Nothing. Buggerall. None.
>
The neutron is composed of 3 charged quarks. You statement that is has no
dipole moment is only an approximation and a bad one.
codeZ
Neutrinos are completely massles. Would they travel at the speed of light if
they had mass? Take the ralativistic mechanics kinetic energy formula and
plug in a little mass and the speed of light and you end up with infinite
answer. No particle traveling at c has mass.
codeZ
>
> >
> >> > >
> >> > > As in 0 net electrical charge.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> >>
> >> Ummm? Ever heard of a neutron???
> >
> >A neutron is an ensemble of particles. It has an electric field
decreasing
> >as 1/(r^3), or similar.
>
> And what then is the Z0 boson?
>
I am not terribly familiar with the Z0 boson but I am confident that it is
an ensemble of charged particles.
franz heymann
Discussed by Einstein circa 1915?
> 2. The electric charge of a particle is not residing within the
particle.
Experiments show that the charge on an electron is confined to a point
to the highest resolution obtainable. What is the radial distribution
function predicted by your theory?
> That means that there is no infinite self repulsion of a charged
particle as
> perceived by the physicists in the early formation of QED. That's
why the
> re-normalization procedure to get rid of the infinities works in
QED---the
> infinities were never there in the first place..
> 3. A new theory of gravity shows why that gravity is so weak
compared to the
> nuclear forces.
> 4. Stacked interactions that gives rise to the nuclear strong force
> eliminated the need for the strong force messengers-the gluons of
different
> colors.
I presume that your theory obeys the same symmetries as are involved
in the Standars Model, because if it does not, you hava a problem to
contend with.
> 5. Uniting the force of gravity with the other forces of nature.
> 6. My theory led to the discovery of the CRE force. The CRE force is
> important to all the processes in the universe
I don't wish to waste more time looking up your rather disappointing
website and neither do I wish to recommend other readers to do so, so
perhaps you could give a brief explanation of the CRE force, including
an expansion of the letters CRE?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
I fear you have it wrong. The electric dipole moment of the neutron
is zero.
I think you are not aware that you have a deep problem with parity
considerations if you postulate the existence of a neutron which has
both magnetic and electric dipole moments. The problem lies in the
fact that an electric dipole field is a vector field, but a magnetic
dipole field is a pseudovector field Unfortunately for you, the
neutron has a well measured magnetic dipole moment and therefore
cannot have an electric dipole moment as well.
Franz Heymann
Eric Prebys
codeZ wrote:
>
> > codeZ wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spaceman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: Bob Kolker bobk...@mediaone.net
> > > > >
> > > > > >Has anyone ever detected a repulsive force between uncharge
> > > > > >bodies which are separated?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Uncharged bodies?
> > > >
> > > > As in 0 net electrical charge.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> >
> > What about the almost, but not quite, massless neutrinos.
> >
>
> Neutrinos are completely massles. Would they travel at the speed of light if
> they had mass?
No, of course not, but what is your evidence that they travel at the
speed of light?
The best measurements of neutrino velocity are the time of arrival
distributions from Supernova 1987A and they provide one of
the upper bounds on neutrino mass, see e.g.
Kernan and Krauss, Nuclear Physics B437, 243 (1995), or
http://www.nupecc.org/nupecc/report97/report97_neutrino/node5.html
for a lay explanation.
These put an upper limit on the mass of about 20 eV/c^2 using *exactly*
the argument you suggest.
> Take the ralativistic mechanics kinetic energy formula and
> plug in a little mass and the speed of light and you end up with infinite
> answer. No particle traveling at c has mass.
Your statement that neutrinos travel at the speed of light is
based in the *assumption* that they are massless, so it's circular
to turn this around and use it as *evidence* of massless neutrinos.
There is mounting experimental evidence that the neutrinos *do* have
mass, but much smaller than the upper limits set be the measurement
of their velocities.
-Eric
Eric Prebys
Oh, well if you're "confident", then that's different...
Look, it's one thing to make an incorrect statement, but it's
another to cling to it, against all evidence, when arguing with
people who actually know what they're talking about.
The Z0 is as fundamental as the photon. It has almost
100 times the proton mass - an NO charge. Deal with it.
Michael Mcneil
assume that I do!
George Jones
Are you absolutely certain that neutrinos travel at the speed of light?
What about the evidence from Japan and Sudbury for neutrino
oscillations? Neutrino oscillations only can occur if the masses for the
different neutrino generations are not all degenerate. In particular,
the masses cannot all be zero.
Regards,
George
Dirk Van de moortel
"Michael Mcneil" <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:77df7341cd47169df61...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> Just because you don't know what I'm talking about is no reason to
> assume that I do!
In that case I do have a bunch of them ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Laurence Godfrey
Z0 is a fundamental particle. It is neutral. It is no massless.
Laurence
Laurence Godfrey
Your confidence is misplaced. It is not.
Laurence
Steve Harris
[Somebody else who knows some physics wrote]
> > Like hell you have. You handwaved in concepts like electric dipole
> > moments. Well, here is a surprise for you :-
> >
> > The neutron has no electric dipole moment. Zilch. Zero. Null.
> > Nothing. Buggerall. None.
Comment: That is correct to the limit of present experimental ability to
measure, which is less than 10^-25 e-cm (e is the fundamental electric
charge, and cm is centimeter-- ie, that's an extremely small limit to the
possible dipole moment.). There is no reason to suppose that any electric
neutron dipole exists at all.
To which codeZ replies:
> The neutron is composed of 3 charged quarks. You statement that is has no
> dipole moment is only an approximation and a bad one.
Comment:
No, it's a damn good one, and the figure is given above. There is no, repeat
no experimental evidence that the neutron electric dipole isn't exactly
zero. If the standard model is correct, it is zero.
CodeZ, both experiment and theory disagree with you. Try again.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Steve Harris
> A neutron is an ensemble of particles. It has an electric field decreasing
> as 1/(r^3), or similar.
In your dreams, maybe. There is no evidence for it in the real world.
Uncle Al
>
> codeZ wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > As in 0 net electrical charge.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ummm? Ever heard of a neutron???
> > > >
> > > >A neutron is an ensemble of particles. It has an electric field
> > decreasing
> > > >as 1/(r^3), or similar.
> > >
> > > And what then is the Z0 boson?
> > >
> >
> > I am not terribly familiar with the Z0 boson but I am confident that it is
> > an ensemble of charged particles.
>
> Oh, well if you're "confident", then that's different...
>
> Look, it's one thing to make an incorrect statement, but it's
> another to cling to it, against all evidence, when arguing with
> people who actually know what they're talking about.
>
> The Z0 is as fundamental as the photon. It has almost
> 100 times the proton mass - an NO charge. Deal with it.
It's even worse than that. Z(zero) exchange, neutral current
exchange, between the heaviest atomic nuclei and their atomic
electrons is measurable as induced optical chirality through party
non-conservation of the electroweak force,
http://phylabs.berkeley.edu/budker/papers/pdfs/PVinAtoms.PDF
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(12) 2484 (1999)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(17) 3719 (1998)
Rep. Prog. Phys. 60(11) 1351 (1997)
Phys. Rev. A 52(3) 1895 (1995)
Virtual Z(zeros) infest atoms, and measureably so.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
tj Frazir
1 , the big bang is energy still expanding.
2, condenced energy don't expand.
3 . Gravity is the low that forms around mass as the universe expands.
4 . Gravity is a push to less energy.
5 . The gavity pushes mass together as lows overlap.
6 . the nucleus spins making waves that push out ,,,wile gravity pushes
in.
7. the waves the nucleus makes are electrons.
8 . the rpm of the nucleus is thermal kenetic
9 . the nucleus takes up more space spinning faster = less space =
more gravity.
10. space is the energy presure of the expanding energy of the big
bang.
11. light is a sound conducted in energy.
12. matter is a nucleus of condenced energy particals that physics
can not show one reason it would not spin.
13. thermal energy is a wave or sound that hits an odd shape at C and
spins it faster.
14 . wave interaction causes friction slowing the spin.
15 , wave interaction may increase the spin.
16 . wave interaction raises or lowers energy between objects ( charge
)
17 . wave can be absorbed reflected and colide with another wave all
at the same time.
18. light sound can be reflected ,absorbed conduced , but never colide
19 . the speed or space the nucleus takes up is never constant but
veries with the energy it contains
20 . all of the above fits math allready known
and is identical to the laws of conservation.
21 . my whale 7 gets 2500 mpg @ 500hp
22 . I plucked a 130 ton gold nuget off the mountan under the sea by
sticking 3 rods threw it 5 miles long ,,,then welded the end in ,,let
cool and huled up .
23 . I sit in my big big boat and lauph my ass off at you silly
fuckers
24 . Hay BOB ,,,,Hay Bob ! bob up and kiss my ass
tj Frazir
,, there .
Diving is senceless . 5 miles down.
Put some flux on an insolated rod and stab it with a 1.25 inch cromium
vandelum rod .
5 miles long . Find it is easy under water with a gama gun.
Michael Mcneil
argument about nothing all the way down?
kenseto
Wrong. Einstein's original equation predicted that the universe is
expanding. That is not the same as the discovery that the far reach region
is in a state of accelerated expansion.
>
> > 2. The electric charge of a particle is not residing within the
> particle.
>
> Experiments show that the charge on an electron is confined to a point
> to the highest resolution obtainable. What is the radial distribution
> function predicted by your theory?
The charge of a particle is the distortion in the E-Matrix created by the
orbiting motion of its S-Particle. The distribution of the distortion obeys
the inverse square law.
>
> > That means that there is no infinite self repulsion of a charged
> particle as
> > perceived by the physicists in the early formation of QED. That's
> why the
> > re-normalization procedure to get rid of the infinities works in
> QED---the
> > infinities were never there in the first place..
> > 3. A new theory of gravity shows why that gravity is so weak
> compared to the
> > nuclear forces.
> > 4. Stacked interactions that gives rise to the nuclear strong force
> > eliminated the need for the strong force messengers-the gluons of
> different
> > colors.
>
> I presume that your theory obeys the same symmetries as are involved
> in the Standars Model, because if it does not, you hava a problem to
> contend with.
What symmetries are you talking about?
>
> > 5. Uniting the force of gravity with the other forces of nature.
> > 6. My theory led to the discovery of the CRE force. The CRE force is
> > important to all the processes in the universe
>
> I don't wish to waste more time looking up your rather disappointing
> website and neither do I wish to recommend other readers to do so, so
> perhaps you could give a brief explanation of the CRE force, including
> an expansion of the letters CRE?
I too don't want to waste time on a jerk like you. It is obvious that you
are not interested in my theory.
Ken Seto
tj Frazir
me for the pic))
Its the entire universe in one picture ,,its the big bang still
expanding . Its the ege of the universe passervated with nothingness in
evry direction . The universe is 900 billion light years across .
Galexies move apart as gravity decreases as the energy presure of space
decreases . Matter don't expand as the energy under presure from the
big bang still expands.
franz heymann
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a4ev9q$mf9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "codeZ" <de...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a4enjt$flv$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>
> [Somebody else who knows some physics wrote]
>
> > > Like hell you have. You handwaved in concepts like electric
dipole
> > > moments. Well, here is a surprise for you :-
> > >
> > > The neutron has no electric dipole moment. Zilch. Zero. Null.
> > > Nothing. Buggerall. None.
>
> Comment: That is correct to the limit of present experimental
ability to
> measure, which is less than 10^-25 e-cm (e is the fundamental
electric
> charge, and cm is centimeter-- ie, that's an extremely small limit
to the
> possible dipole moment.). There is no reason to suppose that any
electric
> neutron dipole exists at all.
Sorry about the outburst which caused Steve to correct me in the
statement above. Of course he is right about the experimental
situation. But I think he will agtee that the C, P, T symmetry
arguments make it also theoretically extremely unlikely that the
neutron has an EDM.
> To which codeZ replies:
>
> > The neutron is composed of 3 charged quarks. You statement that is
has no
> > dipole moment is only an approximation and a bad one.
>
> Comment:
>
> No, it's a damn good one, and the figure is given above. There is
no, repeat
> no experimental evidence that the neutron electric dipole isn't
exactly
> zero. If the standard model is correct, it is zero.
>
> CodeZ, both experiment and theory disagree with you. Try again.
>
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Nope. The neutron has a magnetic dipole moment. That makes it
impossible for it to have an electric dipole moment as well without
incurring problems involving both P and T and hence C violation.
Forget it.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
You have forgotten the Z0.
The latest on the neutrino front is that it is probably not massless.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Your confidence has no foundation. You are quite simply wrong. The
Z0 is one of the fundamental "force carriers" of the electroweak
interaction.
Please don't use handwaving statements just as space-fillers.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
>
> > codeZ wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spaceman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: Bob Kolker bobk...@mediaone.net
> > > > >
> > > > > >Has anyone ever detected a repulsive force between uncharge
> > > > > >bodies which are separated?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Uncharged bodies?
> > > >
> > > > As in 0 net electrical charge.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> >
> > What about the almost, but not quite, massless neutrinos.
> >
>
> Neutrinos are completely massles.
You have some catching up to do with developments in the last few
years.
> Would they travel at the speed of light if
> they had mass?
No. Do they? Or do they travel with a speed close enough to that of
light for the difference to be indiscernible?
> Take the ralativistic mechanics kinetic energy formula and
> plug in a little mass and the speed of light and you end up with
infinite
> answer. No particle traveling at c has mass.
Trite and irrelevant.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
I am talking about Einstein's introduction of the cosmological
constant. My understanding is that it is precisely that concept which
is being re-introduced now in discussions of faster expansion in
further regions.
> > > 2. The electric charge of a particle is not residing within the
> > particle.
> >
> > Experiments show that the charge on an electron is confined to a
point
> > to the highest resolution obtainable. What is the radial
distribution
> > function predicted by your theory?
>
> The charge of a particle is the distortion in the E-Matrix created
by the
> orbiting motion of its S-Particle. The distribution of the
distortion obeys
> the inverse square law.
I am afraid you are sidestepping my question. If, as you say, "The
electric charge of a particle is not residing within the particle"
then it must presumably occupy some radial space in the vicinity of
the particle. My question was to ask for a numerical expression for
the radial distribution of the charge density, so that it can be
compared with what is known experimentally about this matter.
Please don't hesitate to say directly that you don't know if in fact
you don't know.
> >
> > > That means that there is no infinite self repulsion of a charged
> > particle as
> > > perceived by the physicists in the early formation of QED.
That's
> > why the
> > > re-normalization procedure to get rid of the infinities works in
> > QED---the
> > > infinities were never there in the first place..
> > > 3. A new theory of gravity shows why that gravity is so weak
> > compared to the
> > > nuclear forces.
> > > 4. Stacked interactions that gives rise to the nuclear strong
force
> > > eliminated the need for the strong force messengers-the gluons
of
> > different
> > > colors.
> >
> > I presume that your theory obeys the same symmetries as are
involved
> > in the Standars Model, because if it does not, you hava a problem
to
> > contend with.
>
> What symmetries are you talking about?
The Standard Model is defined in terms of the symmetries associated
with an ugly group which is a combination of three groups. I have no
easy access to a reliable reference, and if I quoted from memory I
would make a mistake. With a bit of luck there will be a reader who
could help me out of this hole.
>
> >
> > > 5. Uniting the force of gravity with the other forces of nature.
> > > 6. My theory led to the discovery of the CRE force. The CRE
force is
> > > important to all the processes in the universe
> >
> > I don't wish to waste more time looking up your rather
disappointing
> > website and neither do I wish to recommend other readers to do so,
so
> > perhaps you could give a brief explanation of the CRE force,
including
> > an expansion of the letters CRE?
>
> I too don't want to waste time on a jerk like you. It is obvious
that you
> are not interested in my theory.
My interest in it is limited entirely to finding out if it is as much
rubbish as I think it is.
Franz Heymann
kenseto
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3C694FB6...@fnal.gov...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > >From: "kenseto" ken...@erinet.com
> >
> > >A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > >http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> > >
> > >A new theory of gravity is included.
> > >
> >
> > How about the millions of people who don't or won't load
> > Adobe Reader?
>
> They will be spared Seto's drivel.
BTW why don't you tell everybody that you asserted that there is no such
thing as mutual time dilation in SR?? It appears that you don't know that
the concept was derived from the SR premise that all frames are equivalent
and no frame is preferred.
Ken Seto
kenseto
Einstein introduced the Cosmological Constant (CC) to make the universe
static. His original GR equation shows that the universe is expanding and at
his time physicists thought that the universe was static--so he introduced
the CC in his equation. Later he acknowledged that was the biggest mistake
in his life.
>My understanding is that it is precisely that concept which
> is being re-introduced now in discussions of faster expansion in
> further regions.
Your understanding is wrong. They are trying to re-introduce the CC to
explain the accelerated expansion in the far reached regions. This CC would
not be the same as the CC Einstein introduced into his equation. Furthermore
the idea of introducing a CC into any equation is an ad hoc approach---not
science at all. Also the CC that they are trying to re-introduce must grow
in repulsive stength as the distance is increased. Einstein's CC has a
constant value.
>
> > > > 2. The electric charge of a particle is not residing within the
> > > particle.
> > >
> > > Experiments show that the charge on an electron is confined to a
> point
> > > to the highest resolution obtainable. What is the radial
> distribution
> > > function predicted by your theory?
> >
> > The charge of a particle is the distortion in the E-Matrix created
> by the
> > orbiting motion of its S-Particle. The distribution of the
> distortion obeys
> > the inverse square law.
>
> I am afraid you are sidestepping my question. If, as you say, "The
> electric charge of a particle is not residing within the particle"
> then it must presumably occupy some radial space in the vicinity of
> the particle.
The electric charge of a particle is due to the orbiting motion of its
S-Particle around an E-String. This motion of the S-Particle distorts the
E-Matrix surrounding it. The severity of the distortions (charge density) in
the E-Matrix obeys the inverse square law.
>My question was to ask for a numerical expression for
> the radial distribution of the charge density, so that it can be
> compared with what is known experimentally about this matter.
What we measured as charge density is the severity of the distortions in the
E-Matrix. It obeys the inverse square law.
The gauge symmetries as defined by the SM are not need in my theory. All the
forces of nature are the result of the interacting S-Particles or S-Particle
Systems reacting to the geometry in the E-Strings to which they are
confined.
> >
> > >
> > > > 5. Uniting the force of gravity with the other forces of nature.
> > > > 6. My theory led to the discovery of the CRE force. The CRE
> force is
> > > > important to all the processes in the universe
> > >
> > > I don't wish to waste more time looking up your rather
> disappointing
> > > website and neither do I wish to recommend other readers to do so,
> so
> > > perhaps you could give a brief explanation of the CRE force,
> including
> > > an expansion of the letters CRE?
> >
> > I too don't want to waste time on a jerk like you. It is obvious
> that you
> > are not interested in my theory.
>
> My interest in it is limited entirely to finding out if it is as much
> rubbish as I think it is.
You don't have the smart to make that determination.
Ken Seto
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
> BTW why don't you tell everybody that you asserted that there is no such
> thing as mutual time dilation in SR?? It appears that you don't know that
> the concept was derived from the SR premise that all frames are equivalent
> and no frame is preferred.
What transformation relates on frame to another and what is its
invariant?
If it is a Galilean transformation it is * wrong *.
Bob Kolker
franz heymann
Laurence Godfrey <laur...@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
news:3c70bb68...@news.virgin.net...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:42:48 -0000, "franz heymann"
> <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
>
> >The Standard Model is defined in terms of the symmetries associated
> >with an ugly group which is a combination of three groups. I have
no
> >easy access to a reliable reference, and if I quoted from memory I
> >would make a mistake. With a bit of luck there will be a reader
who
> >could help me out of this hole.
>
> Salam Weinberg model is based on local gauge invariance under the
> group SU(2) x U(1) in which 3 gauge fields form an SU(2) isovector
> which couples gauge-invariantly to all particles carrying weak
isospin
> and one gauge field forms a U(1) singlet which couples
> gauge-invariantly to all particles carrying weak hypercharge. U(1)
is
> abelian.
>
> The gamma and Z0 are mixtures of the neutral triplet field and the
> isoscalar field. The leptons, carrying weak isospin, occur in SU(2)
> left-handed isodoublets and right-handed singlets, as do the quarks.
>
> QCD introduces a non-abelian SU(3)[colour] group and the 8
> self-coupling vector gluons of QCD emerge as the number of gauge
> fields required to ensure local gauge invariance of the Lagrangian
> under SU(3)[colour] transformations. The SU(3) colour singlets are
the
> only quark combinations with observable masses.
Thanks for the help. So I feel a little more confident in saying that
the group which describes the symmetry of the Standard Model is SU(2)
x U(1) x SU(3)
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
[Snip]
> What symmetries are you talking about?
See the later post from Laurence Godfrey and a subsequent response
from me.
However, I can rephrase the question somewhat, to make it a little
easier for you. Here it is :-
Does your theory provide *all* those predictions which follow from
applications of the Standard Model which have already been verified
experimentally? You will have to read quite a few hundred published
papers before answering this question. The problem with would-be
introducers of revolutionary theory is that they seem to be blissfully
unaware of the vast amount of experimental data which is consistent
with the predictions of existing theory, and that their new theories
had better produce the same predictions, or else.............
Franz Heymann
kenseto
>
> kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c6bd986$0$93061$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> [Snip]
>
> > What symmetries are you talking about?
>
> See the later post from Laurence Godfrey and a subsequent response
> from me.
>
> However, I can rephrase the question somewhat, to make it a little
> easier for you. Here it is :-
> Does your theory provide *all* those predictions which follow from
> applications of the Standard Model which have already been verified
> experimentally?
You are taking the easy way out. A general statement like this is
meaningless.
> You will have to read quite a few hundred published
> papers before answering this question. The problem with would-be
> introducers of revolutionary theory is that they seem to be blissfully
> unaware of the vast amount of experimental data which is consistent
> with the predictions of existing theory, and that their new theories
> had better produce the same predictions, or else.............
You have not point out one thing wrong with my theory. So am I supposed to
be impressed by your pointless generalization??
Ken Seto
franz heymann
The term "mutual time dilation" does not occur in any of my three
textbooks on Speial Relativity and I have never found the need for
such a term in all my adult life.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3c6e7403$0$8507$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c6bd986$0$93061$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > What symmetries are you talking about?
> >
> > See the later post from Laurence Godfrey and a subsequent response
> > from me.
> >
> > However, I can rephrase the question somewhat, to make it a little
> > easier for you. Here it is :-
> > Does your theory provide *all* those predictions which follow from
> > applications of the Standard Model which have already been
verified
> > experimentally?
>
> You are taking the easy way out. A general statement like this is
> meaningless.
I am being deadly serious. If you wish to peopose a new theory it is
up to you to first make sure that your theory does not predict
*anything whatsoever* which contradicts existing experimental data
>
> > You will have to read quite a few hundred published
> > papers before answering this question. The problem with would-be
> > introducers of revolutionary theory is that they seem to be
blissfully
> > unaware of the vast amount of experimental data which is
consistent
> > with the predictions of existing theory, and that their new
theories
> > had better produce the same predictions, or else.............
>
> You have not point out one thing wrong with my theory. So am I
supposed to
> be impressed by your pointless generalization??
I don't care whether I can or cannot find errors in your theory. I do
care about the fact that you, as the father of the theory, should make
sure that its predictions are all in agreement with all of the very
considerable body of existing observations. THat is a tough one, but
you cannot avoid getting to grips with it if you wish anybody to take
you seriously. Who else do you think is going to do your donkey work
for you?
Franz Heymann
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
franz heymann
On the contrary, my understanding is quite correct on this matter.
The cosmological constant being bandied about at present is the same
one, give or take a possible algebraic sign, as the one discarded by
Einstein.
It behooves you to familiarise yourself with those aspects of physics
you intend to pontificate about.
Franz Heymann
kenseto
It was a term invented by the SR experts in the NG sci.physics.relativity.
It has the following meaning:: Two observers (A and B) in relative motion
from A's point of view it is valid to say A sees B's clock runs slow and
from B's point of view it is equally valid to say that B sees A's clock runs
slow.
This is derived directly from the SR assertion that all frames are
equivalent and that no frame is preferred. So are you still going to deny
that you never see the above in any SR text book??
Ken Seto
kenseto
I don't need you to lecture me. What I do is my business.
Ken Seto
kenseto
NO.
> The cosmological constant being bandied about at present is the same
> one, give or take a possible algebraic sign, as the one discarded by
> Einstein.
The same symbol is used. The value is different and the repulsive strength
grows with distance. If not why do we only see accelerated expansion in the
far reach regions of the universe??
> It behooves you to familiarise yourself with those aspects of physics
> you intend to pontificate about.
It behooves you to learn some physics before you give me any shit.
Ken Seto
franz heymann
The same symbol is used in the same postion in the equations and thus
carries the same meaning. I said nothing about either its magnitude
or its sign
>
> > It behooves you to familiarise yourself with those aspects of
physics
> > you intend to pontificate about.
>
> It behooves you to learn some physics before you give me any shit.
I did not.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
That is fine by me. Carry on doing it.
How is your business of getting anybody to accept your ideas going?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Aha! I see! But I thought that was just common or garden time
dilatation.
> This is derived directly from the SR assertion that all frames are
> equivalent and that no frame is preferred.
Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
> So are you still going to deny
> that you never see the above in any SR text book??
Yes. I certainly deny it. It is that funny word "mutual" which
stumps me. It does not occur anywhere in any of my texts where time
dilatation is discussed.
Franz Heymann
kenseto
Hey jerk what part of the expression "my business" that you don't
understand??
Ken Seto
kenseto
Then why did you disagreed with me when I said that Einstein's CC has a
constant value and the current CC varies in repulsive strngth with
distance??
Ken Seto
franz heymann
Oh dear.
Franz Heymann
codeZ
> > > > > > Zero net charge particles have no mass.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean like the neutron, Klong, Z0, etc?
> > > > >
> > > > I have just answered this above.
> > >
> > > Like hell you have. You handwaved in concepts like electric
> dipole
> > > moments. Well, here is a surprise for you :-
> > >
> > > The neutron has no electric dipole moment. Zilch. Zero. Null.
> > > Nothing. Buggerall. None.
> > >
> >
> > The neutron is composed of 3 charged quarks. You statement that is
> has no
> > dipole moment is only an approximation and a bad one.
>
> Nope. The neutron has a magnetic dipole moment. That makes it
> impossible for it to have an electric dipole moment as well without
> incurring problems involving both P and T and hence C violation.
> Forget it.
>
You are wrong. A neutron does not have a magnetic dipole moment unless the
quarks spin is opposite directions, which they do not.
Randy Poe
(Franz wrote this part, I think)
> > Nope. The neutron has a magnetic dipole moment. That makes it
> > impossible for it to have an electric dipole moment as well without
> > incurring problems involving both P and T and hence C violation.
> > Forget it.
> >
>
> You are wrong. A neutron does not have a magnetic dipole moment unless the
> quarks spin is opposite directions, which they do not.
So you are predicting that measurements of the neutron
magnetic dipole moment will show...?
- Randy
franz heymann
A neutron has 3 quarks, each of spin 1/2, so your statement is
meaningless.
The predicted magnetic dipole moment of the neutron, using the quark
model,
is -1.86 n.m.
The experimentally observed magnetic moment of the neutron
is -1.913 n.m. ( Sorry I don't have the std deviation associated with
this measurement to hand.)
Franz Heymann
codeZ
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3C73BEE6...@atl.lmco.com...
...that it is zero. Consider the quarks, +1/3, +1/3, -2/3, spinning in the
same direction. The magnetic field from -2/3 quark will cancel the magnetic
field from two -1/3 quarks exactly. No magnetic field.
codeZ
Since when does the dipole moment have units of meters. You must mean
coulomb meters.
franz heymann
Why don't you muck about with the quark spins instead of with their
charges?
Moron
Do you ever get anything whatsoever right?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Moron. No I did not mean coulomb meters at all. I meant n.m. I am
correct. I used the units customarily in use in the field. Don't dig
yourself any deeper into this hole, as is your wont. You will just
make it that much more difficult to climb out.
Franz Heymann
Richard Herring
writes
--
Richard Herring
Randy Poe
> > > You are wrong. A neutron does not have a magnetic dipole moment unless
> the
> > > quarks spin is opposite directions, which they do not.
> >
> > So you are predicting that measurements of the neutron
> > magnetic dipole moment will show...?
> >
>
> ...that it is zero.
And the fact that the experiment (as cited by Franz) in fact shows a
nonzero
magnetic dipole moment is explained by...?
- Randy
George Jones
codeZ needs to muck about with quark charges and quark spin orientations
*and* quark masses *and* the Pauli exclusion principle. It's mainly his
lack of mucking about with the Pauli exclusion principle that does him
in. Denote: up and down quarks by u and d; and spin up and spin down by
+ and -. Then codeZ is saying that the neutron "wave function" is
something like
|n> = |u+>|d+>|d+> ,
which, if up and down quarks had equal masses, would indeed give a
magnetic moment of zero for the neutron because the quark charges sum to
zero.
However, up and down quarks don't have equal masses, and the Pauli
exclusion principle does not allow the above |n>.
In order for the total (space x colour x flavour x spin) wave function
to be completely antisymmetric, the (flavour x spin) part must be
completely symmetric. This makes the true |n> wave function somewhat
more complicated than the |n> above, which affects the value of the
magnetic moment.
Regards,
George
codeZ
--
codeZ
Postulate of Universal Quantization:
http://www.geocities.com/wwwwqi//uniquanta.htm
"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:FtytejRE...@baesystems.com...
That is precisely what I wrote above. No need to reinterpret me incorrectly.
codeZ
Refer to posting by George Jones. It is clear to me that you did not know
the answer, or if you did you preferred to keep it to yourself because ... ?
Old Man
Is ignorance bliss for codez? How does one couple three
spin 1/2 quarks to obtain a spin 1/2 neutron? One can obtain
the magnetic moment of the neutron at:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?munsmun|search_for=atomnuc!
wherein the magnetic moment is given as a ratio to unit n.m.,
and wherein codez will be able to find the definition of n.m..
Contrary to codez's blunder, the electric dipole moment of
the neutron, the proton, and all stable nuclei is zero. Please
cease pontificating in ignorance. [Old Man]
Richard Herring
writes
>"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
>news:FtytejRE...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <a51mgf$o69$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, codeZ <de...@hotmail.com>
>> writes
>> >
>the
>> >same direction. The magnetic field from -2/3 quark will cancel the
>magnetic
>> >field from two -1/3 quarks exactly. No magnetic field.
>> >
>> Bzzzt. Their *charges* are +1/3, +1/3, -2/3. Not their spins.
>>
>That is precisely what I wrote above. No need to reinterpret me incorrectly.
>
But it's not "precisely" what you wrote. You mention "+1/3, +1/3, -2/3"
in the same sentence as "spinning", with no mention of charge. But even
if we grant that you really meant "charges +1/3, +1/3, -2/3, each with
spin +1/2" the rest doesn't follow.
Magnetic moment doesn't only depend on charge and spin, as you would
know if you discovered what "n.m." stands for.
--
Richard Herring