To Roberts and JanPB: Explain the mess with 7 TeV protons, rest mass and quarks.

[Richard Hertz]

Tom, you and your sidekick JanPB agree that I'm some kind of ignorant idiot
who deserve this comment, in another thread:

"You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about
it. Essentially everything you write is either flat-out wrong, or is
complete nonsense that is not even wrong."

Of course, I disagree, and think that you both have a similar problem when
dealing with fundamental questions about relativity, particle physics and
the SMEP (Standard Model of Elementary Particles). And your problem is
that you BOTH DON'T THINK. You both just recite what was taught to you
or learned by yourselves, but within the rigid box of indoctrinated people.

As you both pretend to be genius parrots because what you learned, and
you both think that anyone who differs with your "knowledge" is some kind
of drooling ignorant, maybe any of you can explain the following HOLE in
the concepts that involve SMEP, LHC, KE, mass and relativity:

According to the standard narrative, a proton has a rest mass of
938.3 MeV/c², which has been verified many, many times (Tom).

Here is a neat chart of the SMEP:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/boson2.jpg

It's accepted that a proton is formed by three quarks (uud) and gluon.

Mass of three quarks: 9.1 MeV/c²
Mass of three gluons: 0.0 MeV/c²
----------------------------------
Missing rest mass of proton: 929.2 MeV/c²

WHERE IS IT? Is it disguised in gluon's rest energy using E = mc²?

Now, accelerate the proton, so it has 7 TeV of KE at 0.999999995 c.

This KE is 7,463 times higher than the rest energy of the proton OR, if
you prefer, a pure KE 7,462 times higher than the rest energy of a proton
has been conferred to it by electromagnetic acceleration.

But protons are not solid spheres with +e charges, as was conceived
60 years ago. SMEP SAYS that the three quarks are fermionic MATTER,
while gluons are force carriers (elementary bosons), like short lived
photons. No matter, no charge, just PURE ENERGY.

But, when a proton is accelerated, the FORCE that accelerates them is
only absorbed by fermionic matter (three quarks). A proton is like is
strongly self-contained blob (due to gluons) that moves almost at c,
and that has three particles (two with +4/3e charge and one with -1/3e
charge). So, zooming in to perceive closely the proton, it happens that
THREE DIFFERENT FERMIONIC PARTICLES WITH CHARGE are the ONLY
RESPONSIBLE to absorb the electric drive, while gluons DO NOTHING.

But, the MOST ELEMENTARY LOGIC dictates that the acceleration can't
be distributed evenly over the three quarks, as they are PHYSICALLY
SEPARATED. So, there HAVE TO BE AN ELECTRIC TORQUE, which HAVE
TO CAUSE the proton to gain ANGULAR MOMENTUM.

You both, self-entitled cretins, didn't address this elementary aspect.
You both just ignored it and kept parroting.

Now, regarding 7 TeV protons and the 1905 formula

KE = [1/√(1−v²/c²) - 1] m₀c²

It is widely accepted by most physicist TODAY, that this formula implies
a mass increase with motion v beyond m₀.

m = m₀/√(1−v²/c²)

I ask you, geniuses wannabe, where is that mass increase stored?

A) In fermionic matter only? It can't be, because it would imply
that the three quarks increased their rest mass by 102,941 times
and that Lorentz transforms are a pile of crap.

B) Shared EVENLY between quarks and gluon? But how can it be?
Energy being accelerated from rest and increasing its rest value
proportionally to [1/√(1−v²/c²) - 1]?

But HOW POSSIBLY ANY PERSON KNOW THIS? That quarks and gluon
were balanced in the absorption of energy during its acceleration?

Now, I know that you'll jump and cry foul, telling how ignorant am I,
and that KE energy is a mystic energy which is stored in the fucking
expression of γ = 1/√(1−v²/c²)?

Are you going to repeat that KE = (γ - 1) m₀c² has no physical origin
but that JUST EXIST?

Going back to classic physics, KE = 1/2 mv², even a kid in high school
knows that MASS is responsible for the magnitude of KE, and that the
KE is stored IN THE MASS MOVING AT v speed!

Because mass is matter, and has PHYSICAL EXISTENCE, while speed
is a convenient ABSTRACTION to express the amount of motion that
the MASS has. That the product creates KE is irrelevant in terms of
where the KE is stored. It's stored in the mass, which increased its
"destructive" power by a rule ADOPTED by multiplying it by a
largely discussed and finally adopted by consensus FACTOR 1/2 v².

Now, mental children, go to your room and study what is around this
post. No matter how many masters and PhD you both have, you are
still a pair of fucking retarded that depend on Resnick&Halliday.

Fucking amateurs.

[JanPB]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:24:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Tom, you and your sidekick JanPB agree that I'm some kind of ignorant idiot
> who deserve this comment, in another thread:
>
> "You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about
> it. Essentially everything you write is either flat-out wrong, or is
> complete nonsense that is not even wrong."
>
> Of course, I disagree, and think that you both have a similar problem when
> dealing with fundamental questions about relativity, particle physics and
> the SMEP (Standard Model of Elementary Particles). And your problem is
> that you BOTH DON'T THINK.

No. It only appears that way to you because you have no knowledge basis.

> You both just recite what was taught to you
> or learned by yourselves, but within the rigid box of indoctrinated people.

Again, this is THE standard delusion of people who think they can
cheat their way to knowledge and understanding. One more time:
knowing and understanding something is not indoctrination. I know
that you find it unbelievable but that's how it is nevertheless.

If you want to be where Tom and I are, you have to do the work. How
else do you think I got where I am? By daydreaming about stuff?

> As you both pretend to be genius parrots

We don't pretend anything. Speaking for myself, I only post what I
know is true. I don't fantasise, I don't post that X is wrong merely because
I don't understand X.

> because what you learned, and
> you both think that anyone who differs with your "knowledge" is some kind
> of drooling ignorant,

Yes, that's correct. Be cause by definition facts are what they are, and
they cannot be (by definition) anything else. So if you differ in certain
facts (which I point out, or Tom points out) it simply means that
you are wrong. Why is this so revelatory?

> Fucking amateurs.

Pick a different hobby. Physics is simply not for you. You post nonsense 24/7.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:24:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> According to the standard narrative, a proton has a rest mass of
> 938.3 MeV/c², which has been verified many, many times (Tom).
>
> Here is a neat chart of the SMEP:
> https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/boson2.jpg
>
> It's accepted that a proton is formed by three quarks (uud) and gluon.
>
> Mass of three quarks: 9.1 MeV/c²
> Mass of three gluons: 0.0 MeV/c²
> ----------------------------------
> Missing rest mass of proton: 929.2 MeV/c²
>
> WHERE IS IT? Is it disguised in gluon's rest energy using E = mc²?
>

Dumbestfuck,

Google "binding energy".

[Richard Hertz]

Imbecile, do you need 929.2 MeV pure gluonic energy to hold together three fucking fermions that barely have 9.1 MeV/c²?

Admit that nobody knows SHIT about what a proton is.

And more interesting, I like your silence about the acceleration acting over three quarks, two with +4/3e and one with -1/3e,
pretending that the proton takes the acceleration as a fucking solid sphere.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 8:27:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 12:06:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:24:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > According to the standard narrative, a proton has a rest mass of
> > > 938.3 MeV/c², which has been verified many, many times (Tom).
> > >
> > > Here is a neat chart of the SMEP:
> > > https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/boson2.jpg
> > >
> > > It's accepted that a proton is formed by three quarks (uud) and gluon.
> > >
> > > Mass of three quarks: 9.1 MeV/c²
> > > Mass of three gluons: 0.0 MeV/c²
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > Missing rest mass of proton: 929.2 MeV/c²
> > >
> > > WHERE IS IT? Is it disguised in gluon's rest energy using E = mc²?
> > >
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > Google "binding energy".

> do you need 929.2 MeV pure gluonic energy to hold together three fucking fermions that barely have 9.1 MeV/c²?
>

Yep, dumbestfuck!

[JanPB]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 8:40:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Dear cretin: I wonder why a mathematician like you (if this is true, and you have a diploma) PRETENDS to be a physicist
> AND KNOW MORE THAN ME!
>
> Just because you can play with tensors, like a kid with a fancy toy,

Oh stop it. Just listen to people who know answers to your questions.
Stop yelling nonsense.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:50:25 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Oh stop it. Just listen to people who know answers to your questions.
> Stop yelling nonsense.

Listen to yourself: "People who know".

You know nothing about physics in general and about particle physics in particular, mathematician.

And Roberts can't go beyond his muons and narrative from the '70s in particle physics. He's A PROGRAMMER,
as DESKTOP PHYSICIST who invested more time learning GR than working "hands-on" on any advanced project
with protons, electrons and neutrons.

None of you are NEARLY QUALIFIED to answer the enigmas that I posted in the OP.

And I'm not questioning. I'M TELLING.

[Richard Hertz]

And, for the record, relativity has made irreparable damage on the brain of you two. Just melted the neurons into a solid block,
which is fossilized after decades of repeating the borrowed knowledge, without THINKING beyond it.

Neither you nor Tom can explain the behavior of a proton moving almost at c, on the basis of the elementary model SMEP.

You're stuck in 1905.

[JanPB]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:54:38 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:30:41 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:50:25 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Oh stop it. Just listen to people who know answers to your questions.
> > > Stop yelling nonsense.
> > Listen to yourself: "People who know".
> >
> > You know nothing about physics in general and about particle physics in particular, mathematician.
> >
> > And Roberts can't go beyond his muons and narrative from the '70s in particle physics. He's A PROGRAMMER,
> > as DESKTOP PHYSICIST who invested more time learning GR than working "hands-on" on any advanced project
> > with protons, electrons and neutrons.
> >
> > None of you are NEARLY QUALIFIED to answer the enigmas that I posted in the OP.
> >
> > And I'm not questioning. I'M TELLING.
> And, for the record, relativity has made irreparable damage on the brain of you two.

Stop daydreaming. There is such a thing in life as someone else being
more knowledgeable about something than you. Just grow up and deal with
it like an adult. Making up fairy tales about your opponents is infantile. If you
cannot fight them on merits, do something else.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

OK. One more chance for you, mathematician wannabe physicist:

Do you accept that mass of elementary particles increase with motion at v speed, as per the formula

m = m₀/√(1−v²/c²)

Yes or no?

If you say YES, then the KE in LHC 7 TeV protons is due EXCLUSIVELY by such mass m increase, while moving nearly at c speed.

If you say NO, then the above KE is stored IN ....... (Please, don't come with the KE formula where there is matter and A NUMBER).


Plus, think a little more beyond this 118 formula (of your NO). The concept of KE has evolved in the last 250 years from the
expression of linear momentum (or "vis viva") since the times of Galileo, which was famously used by Newton for his 2nd. Law.

Increase of the "vis viva" m.v lead to the concept of energy that momentum carried. There was consensus that the destructive
power of "vis viva", understood as energy, was proportional to the product of mass by the square of linear velocity (scalar v).

Only after Newton's Principia and the evolution of calculus, it was accepted that the KE increased, along the path of the object,
as ΔKE = m.v.Δv (dKE = mvdv). Once settled the concept of mass, as derived from Newton's 2nd. Law, by the end of XVIII century
it was settled by european physicists that KE = 1/2 mv². All the actors involved in THIS convention of KE accepted that it was the
mass which carried the KE, being v only an auxiliary expression.

Not only this. It was also widely discussed if THE SHAPE OF THE MASS had to be with the final KE, which was finally dropped
for the sake of simplicity in the discussions about what was ENERGY. It was thought that it was much better to have a simple
expression for kinetic and potential energy in the newtonian mechanics, being many first class actors involved, like Leibnitz, Euler,
Lagrange, Hamilton, Jacobi, and many others. When thermodynamics gained momentum, early in the XIX century, the modern
concepts of newtonian mechanics started to reach completion.

I QUOTE:
"William Thomson, later Lord Kelvin, is given the credit for coining the term "kinetic energy" c. 1849–1851. Rankine, who had introduced the term "potential energy" in 1853, and the phrase "actual energy" to complement it, later cites William Thomson and Peter Tait as substituting the word "kinetic" for "actual".
We NOW associate the concept of an object's kinetic energy with the quantity of one half of its mass multiplied by its velocity squared."

So, don't be fixated with a mere formula for KE. Think beyond it.


And, if you have time or are in a good mood, think about HOW TO conciliate such simple formula applied to a composite object, a proton,
as it is described AND ACCEPTED by most, in the SMEP (Standard Model for Elementary Particles).

It has to be shocking to understand the proton as a complex blob of quarks and gluon, instead of a simple solid sphere.

You CAN'T APPLY the KE formula to that complex object. There are many unexplained phenomena that happens when protons and ions
are accelerated to near c speed.

[JanPB]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:11:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> OK. One more chance for you, mathematician wannabe physicist:

No. Stop making up comforting stories about people who are telling
you that you are wrong.

Note the obligatory crank usage:

(1) "mathematician" used a derogatory term on sci.physics.relativity
(NB: on sci.math the derogatory crank term is "physicist" :-) )

(2) "wannabe physicist" - stop confabulating comforting fantasies.
It's asinine.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:17:54 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:11:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > OK. One more chance for you, mathematician wannabe physicist:

> No. Stop making up comforting stories about people who are telling
> you that you are wrong.

JanPB: Please stop making thing so easy for me. About people who are telling me that I'm wrong,
it comprehends a lot of different types: Astrologists, relativists, cosmologists, medical doctors,
biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, economists, sociologists, psychologists, politicians,
financial advisors, military advisors, lawmakers, meteorologists, gender choice experts, etc.

As you can see, the above short list involves activities that are more pseudo-science than anything else.

And pseudo-science has no value for me. Because their foundations are purely speculative and were
developed, mostly, on the basis of belief than basis of logic and mathematics applied to real events.

Take, for instance, an MD specialized in hearing and vision: They merely know the surface of the auditory
and the visual system, which understanding is, today, much less that 10% of what they are and how they
interact with the rest of human systems. If this field of science has registered advances in the last 50 years,
it has been EXCLUSIVELY by the action of engineers involved in R&D, who brought cochlear implants,
color correction lenses and some visual implants to replace very poorly human vision. When you learn that
just the auditory system involves more than 40,000 neurons that retrofit from the brain TO THE EAR, in
opposition to about 4,000 neurons that carry codified sound signals to 7 levels of processing in the brain
AND in the nervous network from the inner ear to the brain, and that you DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE
about the complex feedback system, you REALIZE that your MD knows shit about hearing, and is just playing
with you using old recipes. Not to mention the vision, which has a complexity calculated in 25,000 times
more complex than audition.

Take many other examples: relativists, cosmologists, economists, etc. Then look around the world in which
you live, and tell me: HOW ARE YOU DOING living in this grotesque, ignorant world? Are you happy or satisfied?

Or your comfort about truth only comes from what a retarded plagiarized 118 years ago, and that worshippers
kept feeding that shit all this time?

Is that relativity is the only field that contains the truth, compared with hundred of other activities?

Wake up and stop being so cocky. You know shit, actually. You just made a choice about a scientific FAITH in a pseudo-science.

[JanPB]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:55:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:17:54 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:11:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > OK. One more chance for you, mathematician wannabe physicist:
>
> > No. Stop making up comforting stories about people who are telling
> > you that you are wrong.
> JanPB: Please stop making thing so easy for me. About people who are telling me that I'm wrong,
> it comprehends a lot of different types: Astrologists, relativists, cosmologists, medical doctors,
> biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, economists, sociologists, psychologists, politicians,
> financial advisors, military advisors, lawmakers, meteorologists, gender choice experts, etc.
>
> As you can see, the above short list involves activities that are more pseudo-science than anything else.

This is irrelevant. The point is that practically nothing you post here is correct.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

This is impossible, imbecile!

It's similar to say that EVERYTHING you post here is correct! Do you understand this, cretin?

Never everything is incorrect or correct, nor in this forum or in the real life. BTW, get one.

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:37:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 12:29:56 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > This is irrelevant. The point is that practically nothing you post here is correct.

> This is impossible, imbecile!
>
> It's similar to say that EVERYTHING you post here is correct! Do you understand this, cretin?
>
> Never everything is incorrect or correct, nor in this forum or in the real life. BTW, get one.

Acting superior is the only thing left when you're in a tiny minority.

[JanPB]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:37:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 12:29:56 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:55:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:17:54 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:11:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. One more chance for you, mathematician wannabe physicist:
> > >
> > > > No. Stop making up comforting stories about people who are telling
> > > > you that you are wrong.
> > > JanPB: Please stop making thing so easy for me. About people who are telling me that I'm wrong,
> > > it comprehends a lot of different types: Astrologists, relativists, cosmologists, medical doctors,
> > > biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, economists, sociologists, psychologists, politicians,
> > > financial advisors, military advisors, lawmakers, meteorologists, gender choice experts, etc.
> > >
> > > As you can see, the above short list involves activities that are more pseudo-science than anything else.
> > This is irrelevant. The point is that practically nothing you post here is correct.

> This is impossible, imbecile!

It is not only possible, it's a fact.

--
Jan

[Cortland Vandroogenbroeck]

JanPB wrote:

> Stop daydreaming. There is such a thing in life as someone else being
> more knowledgeable about something than you. Just grow up and deal with
> it like an adult. Making up fairy tales about your opponents is
> infantile. If you cannot fight them on merits, do something else.

this imbecile is again talking about the gay actor zelenskshit and
polakia. You fool. You suck dicks both in nazi nato, EU and everywhere.

btw, you catholic perverts are worshipping satan, lucifer and bad deeds.

Many cannot see Lucifer's deception that is right in front of them.
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/SZNcroHHWAiU

[Ross Finlayson]

Linear accelerator or cyclotron?

(This suggests there's a difference between straight-track linear accelerator
and rotational ring cyclotron, besides also the orientation in the Earth's
rotating terrestrial frame.)

[Richard Hertz]

It doesn't matter. What has to be explained is HOW a proton, as described by the SMEP model, is accelerated.

The old history of accelerating a solid charged particle with spherical shape lasted until it was accepted that such particle (proton)
doesn't exist in that way. It's formed by three quarks and gluon, contained in a finite and small volume.

Under which model such complex structure is accelerated and gained KE because a 1905 formula says so?

Nobody here (nor out there) has the understanding of the effects of electric and magnetic field on a proton under SMEP composition.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 9:53:43 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter. What has to be explained is HOW a proton, as described by the SMEP model,
> is accelerated.
>
> The old history of accelerating a solid charged particle with spherical shape lasted until it was
> accepted that such particle (proton) doesn't exist in that way. It's formed by three quarks and
> gluon, contained in a finite and small volume.
>
> Under which model such complex structure is accelerated and gained KE because a 1905 formula
> says so?
>
> Nobody here (nor out there) has the understanding of the effects of electric and magnetic field on
> a proton under SMEP composition.

Well, Richard, do YOU understand? Why are you calling out people for something YOU don't
understand? How do you know THEY don't understand?

You seem to believe that because the proton has structure, it should just fall apart when it's
accelerated? Or what? Have YOU performed any calculations (just rough ones using classical
em) of what strength the electrical forces are inside a proton?

If not, then you're status is exactly what Jan stated. And if you had done so, then you'd have
an inkling of why the proton acts like "a solid charged particle with spherical shape" under most
conditions. Of course, when they're DEcelerated cataclysmically, they DO "fall apart."

[Richard Hertz]

Stick with your laser diodes only. You're too zombified to think and write about elementary particles.

You think that neutrinos exist, and that come in different flavors to save any problem with energy conservation law. What
credits do you have accumulated to talk about the SMEP?

Get these facts deep into your head:

1) SMEP assert that protons and neutrons are based on three fermionic particles (quarks) with different charges and masses,
that ARE CONFINED into a blob due to the strong action of three gluons, which possesses 99% of the rest energy of protons and neutrons.

2) SMEP model assert that gluons are like short-lived "virtual photons", with no mass and charge, but act in an UNEXPLAINABLE WAY
as force carriers that, incredibly, INCREASES ITS STRENGTH EXPONENTIALLY WITH DISTANCE. This is the opposite to any other force.
And THERE IS NO MODEL ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF GLUONS INTERACTING WITH QUARKS. There is an entire field (QCD and DQCD)
that try to figure it out, without success, using supercomputers.

3) As per SMEP model, a proton IS NOT an object with regular spatial distribution of charges, masses and energies. So, the model of
a spherical elementary particle with equally distributed charge and mass (their density in the occupied volume) IS OBSOLETE.

4) Even a drooling imbecile knows that IF you have a traveling blob of mass and energy that has UNEVEN, DISCRETE distribution of
charges and binding energy HAS TO SUFFER different effects that a solid sphere. To start, the acceleration caused by electric fields
is SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT on the volume of the proton, which MUST CAUSE IT TO ROTATE WHILE MOVING. It creates angular momentum
which IS NOT CONSIDERED in any literature so far.

You can't apply the known equation of electric acceleration to a SMEP proton, because it's not a solid charged sphere.

Do you understand this, moron?

And regarding what is known, it only takes to visit different sites dealing with this topic TO REALIZE that there is not, currently,
an understanding about how a SMEP proton behaves, or if it eventually decays. Regarding neutrons, the reasons for its decay in
less than 15 minutes if it's free ARE UNKNOWN, as well as the reasons by which neutrons don't decay while being at the nucleus.


And of course that I can't figure out any explanation about this. Thousand of physicists, for 50 years, are trying to figure it out
without the SLIGHTEST PROGRESS.

Much even worse than your neutrinos, which were born in a middle of a heavy drinking session of Pauli.

[Ross Finlayson]

That's foolish, the idea of supersymmetry basically makes for when
"the particles would be stretched by space contraction the other way"
it's just that "this is a particle theory so the flux the other way is called neutrinos",
in terms of their self-interactions of their virtual partners', interactions,
in the extra-local, in supersymmetry, which is not dead.

[Richard Hertz]

What?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 8:30:03 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:24:28 PM UTC-3, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 9:53:43 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter. What has to be explained is HOW a proton, as described by the SMEP model,
> > > is accelerated.
> > >
> > > The old history of accelerating a solid charged particle with spherical shape lasted until it was
> > > accepted that such particle (proton) doesn't exist in that way. It's formed by three quarks and
> > > gluon, contained in a finite and small volume.
> > >
> > > Under which model such complex structure is accelerated and gained KE because a 1905 formula
> > > says so?
> > >
> > > Nobody here (nor out there) has the understanding of the effects of electric and magnetic field on
> > > a proton under SMEP composition.
> >
> > Well, Richard, do YOU understand? Why are you calling out people for something YOU don't
> > understand? How do you know THEY don't understand?
> >
> > You seem to believe that because the proton has structure, it should just fall apart when it's
> > accelerated? Or what? Have YOU performed any calculations (just rough ones using classical
> > em) of what strength the electrical forces are inside a proton?
> >
> > If not, then you're status is exactly what Jan stated. And if you had done so, then you'd have
> > an inkling of why the proton acts like "a solid charged particle with spherical shape" under most
> > conditions. Of course, when they're DEcelerated cataclysmically, they DO "fall apart."
>
> Stick with your laser diodes only. You're too zombified to think and write about elementary particles.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

Stick with the practice of medicine, although I can't imagine who would want YOU making any
kind of decision for them.

> You think that neutrinos exist, and that come in different flavors to save any problem with energy
> conservation law. What credits do you have accumulated to talk about the SMEP?

Pot, kettle, black

> Get these facts deep into your head:
>
> 1) SMEP assert that protons and neutrons are based on three fermionic particles (quarks) with
> different charges and masses, that ARE CONFINED into a blob due to the strong action of three
> gluons, which possesses 99% of the rest energy of protons and neutrons.
>
> 2) SMEP model assert that gluons are like short-lived "virtual photons", with no mass and charge,
> but act in an UNEXPLAINABLE WAY as force carriers that, incredibly, INCREASES ITS STRENGTH
> EXPONENTIALLY WITH DISTANCE. This is the opposite to any other force.
> And THERE IS NO MODEL ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF GLUONS INTERACTING WITH QUARKS.
> There is an entire field (QCD and DQCD) that try to figure it out, without success, using supercomputers.
>
> 3) As per SMEP model, a proton IS NOT an object with regular spatial distribution of charges, masses
> and energies. So, the model of a spherical elementary particle with equally distributed charge and mass
> (their density in the occupied volume) IS OBSOLETE.

So, you HAVEN'T even tried to do a simplistic calculation of the strength of even the electrical force
between the charges in a proton. Had you done so, you wouldn't be making these drooling rants.

> 4) Even a drooling imbecile knows that IF you have a traveling blob of mass and energy that has UNEVEN,
> DISCRETE distribution of charges and binding energy HAS TO SUFFER different effects that a solid sphere.

Sure, but at what stress level does that happen? THAT'S where your ranting goes awry.

> To start, the acceleration caused by electric fields is SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT on the volume of the proton,
> which MUST CAUSE IT TO ROTATE WHILE MOVING. It creates angular momentum which IS NOT
> CONSIDERED in any literature so far.

Because it's insignificant. You MUST answer these questions: (1) what is the strength of the forces
binding the parts together? (2) What is the strength of the stress due to acceleration? YOU are clueless
about either of those questions, so your rants are just yammerings.

> You can't apply the known equation of electric acceleration to a SMEP proton, because it's not a solid
> charged sphere.

You have NO idea of the strength of the forces holding the proton together. You can get an idea of it ny
using F = k*q1*q2/r^2. The gluon strength must be even greater, or the parts wouldn't stay together, right?
The electrical forces are HUMONGOUS at the miniscule distances inside the proton. They are many
orders of magnitude stronger than the force induced during acceleration, so your conjecture about rotation
is off by ... many orders of magnitude, i.e., insignificant, unmeasurable,

> Do you understand this, moron?

Apparently, YOU are the "moron" :-))

> And regarding what is known, it only takes to visit different sites dealing with this topic TO REALIZE that
> there is not, currently, an understanding about how a SMEP proton behaves, or if it eventually decays.

True, so what? Why do you care that we don't know it all? This will ALWAYS be true.

> Regarding neutrons, the reasons for its decay in less than 15 minutes if it's free ARE UNKNOWN, as well
> as the reasons by which neutrons don't decay while being at the nucleus.

I always figured it had to do with interactions with protons. Seems reasonable.

> And of course that I can't figure out any explanation about this. Thousand of physicists, for 50 years, are
> trying to figure it out without the SLIGHTEST PROGRESS.

Says the doctor who doesn't understand why a terminal patient suddenly recovers. What do you believe
about faith healing? Ever heard of Duncan McDougal?

> Much even worse than your neutrinos, which were born in a middle of a heavy drinking session of Pauli.

I gather you'd like to dispense with neutrinos so you could claim that all of physics is wrong because
conservation of energy is a farce. Talk about hidden agenda! :-))

We're only scratching the surface of understanding the universe, just like the mystery of life itself. There's
no reason to be a ranting yammerhead about either.

"When you stop laughing, that’s when the trouble begins." -- Buddhist Monk

[Richard Hertz]

You have a confusion with my identity. It's Richard Hachel who's an M.D., while I'm Richard Hertz, an EE.

I've calculated the forces within a split U-235 atom, guided by the booklet "Los Alamos Primer", written by Serber
to teach physicists (in 1943) what was nuclear fission due to electrostatic repulsion, not E=mc2.

It gives about 170 MeV. Read the booklet, written in 1992 and available online.

Electrostatic repulsion doesn't apply within protons and neutrons, because gluons take over the binding energy by several
orders of magnitude, and work (as is believed) exactly IN THE OPPOSITE WAY than Coulomb's forces. As you try to separate
quarks, the binding force of gluons INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY with the distance of separation. So, YOU DO the calculations,
IF you get the formulae involved in this quantum interaction.

As per rest energy, gluons are computed as having near 99% of the energy of protons and neutrons. But this 900 MeV are just
calculated as energy at rest, contributing to the total mass of the particles.

By logic, the binding gluonic energy has to be greater than 7,000 MeV or protons traveling in the LHC should disintegrate on the fly.

As any person with two working neurons could asses, the internal binding energy has to be much greater than 7 TeV. Maybe 100 TeV.

If you want to do the calculation, use this data: At 5,000,000 °K, protons and neutrons disintegrate. Now, calculate the energy that
such temperature imply and have some speculative data. I wonder how could you verify this, or any other person, except on paper.

[Gary Harnagel]

Oops, sorry about that.

> while I'm Richard Hertz, an EE.

I graduated with BS EE and mathematics, then went on to MS in physics.

So you should be able to do a rough calculation of the forces between the quarks, no?
What do you get?

> I've calculated the forces within a split U-235 atom, guided by the booklet "Los Alamos
> Primer", written by Serber to teach physicists (in 1943) what was nuclear fission due to
> electrostatic repulsion, not E=mc2.
>
> It gives about 170 MeV. Read the booklet, written in 1992 and available online.
>
> Electrostatic repulsion doesn't apply within protons and neutrons, because gluons take over
> the binding energy by several orders of magnitude,

So there you go! It's several orders of magnitude BEYOND the electrical repulsion. But just the
level of the repulsion (or attraction between the +2/3 and -1/3 charges is orders of magnitude
greater that the force impressed by accelerators.

> and work (as is believed) exactly IN THE OPPOSITE WAY than Coulomb's forces. As you try to
> separate quarks, the binding force of gluons INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY with the distance of
> separation. So, YOU DO the calculations, IF you get the formulae involved in this quantum interaction.

Springs work that way, to, no? Up to a point when they break, as do protons when they're crashed together.

> As per rest energy, gluons are computed as having near 99% of the energy of protons and neutrons.
> But this 900 MeV are just calculated as energy at rest, contributing to the total mass of the particles.
>
> By logic, the binding gluonic energy has to be greater than 7,000 MeV or protons traveling in the LHC
> should disintegrate on the fly.
>
> As any person with two working neurons could asses, the internal binding energy has to be much greater
> than 7 TeV. Maybe 100 TeV.

Think of the electrical repulsion between two protons 10^-15 m apart: F = 9e9*(1.6e-19)^2/1e-30 > 100 N.
Of course, the strong force swamps this out at this distance, but electrical repulsion dominates as they
close in. So it looks to me that the "7 TeV" isn't a "binding energy" but an external interaction.

> If you want to do the calculation, use this data: At 5,000,000 °K, protons and neutrons disintegrate. Now,
> calculate the energy that such temperature imply and have some speculative data. I wonder how could
> you verify this, or any other person, except on paper.

Baloney! A nucleus dissociates into protons and neutrons at about 10^12 K, and THAT'S a lot higher that
5,000,000 K.

[Ross Finlayson]

It's called "particle physics" and its most usual model is "quantum mechanics",
but really it's a "continuum mechanics", in what's called a "field theory".

Supersymmetry is a great sort of catch-all in the face of symmetry-breaking.

The invariant theory has a lot going on, but then it's into singularity theory.

Then the idea of flux is that "it's 0" (or it's a quantity) but that's in the
aggregate or about the bulk, when, it could be a supermodel and just
average out, that. I.e., the conservation condition becomes a continuity
condition, and the extents of effects get defined in the field.

The best thing about gluon physics is "asymptotic freedom". That's why
some have a fall gravity unifies the nuclear force, then about the "cube
wall" (the higher-order "wall" about the "well" at the "horizon"), then gets
into Einsteiniana about "Dirac positronic sea, Einstein singular white-holes",
vis-a-vis in the scale the systems in effect. ("Physics is an open system,
locally.")

Point: closed
Local: open
Global: open
Total: closed

It's physics, ....

[Dono.]

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:10:12 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:



> You have a confusion with my identity. It's Richard Hachel who's an M.D., while I'm Richard Hertz, an EE.
>

Both of you are cranks.

> As any person with two working neurons could asses, the internal binding energy has to be much greater than 7 TeV. Maybe 100 TeV.

So, you still have no clue what binding energy means.

[Catherine Plougastel]

"Dono" also.

He is a crank, a troll.

Catherine P.

[Python]

also true...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-05-28 23:24:55 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> Tom, you and your sidekick JanPB agree that I'm some kind of ignorant idiot
> who deserve this comment, in another thread:
>
> "You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about
> it. Essentially everything you write is either flat-out wrong, or is
> complete nonsense that is not even wrong."

It's not just Tom and JanPB who think that. Probably all of the
non-crackpots in this group think that, for example Jan Lodder, Sylvia,
Volney, to mention but three.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[Python]

Le 01/06/2023 à 18:40, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-05-28 23:24:55 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
>> Tom, you and your sidekick JanPB agree that I'm some kind of ignorant
>> idiot
>> who deserve this comment, in another thread:
>>
>> "You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about
>> it. Essentially everything you write is either flat-out wrong, or is
>> complete nonsense that is not even wrong."
>
> It's not just Tom and JanPB who think that. Probably all of the
> non-crackpots in this group think that, for example Jan Lodder, Sylvia,
> Volney, to mention but three.
>

+1

[Ross Finlayson]

"You really need to learn basic physics", ....

If you're interested in foundations, it's a mathematical physics
so there's also all the mathematics.

There's the philosophy of science involved, also.

Also it helps a lot to know the history and time-line of
the developments, especially when revisiting developments,
because most interesting interpretations of extensions and
contrivances of the theories already are widely explored.

[Dustan Smeets]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> while I'm Richard Hertz, an EE.
>
> I graduated with BS EE and mathematics, then went on to MS in physics.
> So you should be able to do a rough calculation of the forces between
> the quarks, no? What do you get?

quite amazing, isn't it. The big nazi of ukraine
*_spring_counteroffensive_* became the *_summer_counteroffensive_*, or
what?? Completely nonsense. It's not a BS, but a BSc, and not a MS, but a
BSc. You don't even know the terminology. You think is something else.