Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents

[Brian Fantana 6668]

I'm of the opinion that the belief in an afterlife (which is really the basis for any religion, save for perhaps the animistic types) is purely rooted in an innate inability to cope with our own mortality, which is a consequence of the higher level of self-awareness our intelligence gives us.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[RayDog 682]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm of the opinion that the belief in an afterlife (which is really the basis for any religion, save for perhaps the animistic types) is purely rooted in an innate inability to cope with our own mortality, which is a consequence of the higher level of self-awareness our intelligence gives us.

It is also rooted in mind brain duality which is nonsense. The mind is the brain and when the brain dies the mind dies.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, RayDog said:

That is a mischaracterization. My work is based on quantum field theory and I (and others) have shown that all physics can be accounted for with electromagnetic theory. So, I agree with the bulk of electromagnetic theory.

If all physics can be accounted for with only em theory, then how is it that atomic nuclei are held together?  Wouldn't they fly apart if there were only em forces since there are only positive and neutral charges within the nucleus?  Whatever force is holding nuclei together (of course we know that what holds them together is the strong force but I'm assuming that you reject the strong force since you say that only em theory is necessary and the rejection of well-proven physics is a fundamental element of all your posts on science), it must be roughly 100 times stronger than the em force.  So how do you account for the em force holding together the nuclei of all atoms beyond hydrogen considering that the em force would drive away the positively charged protons and also considering that the binding force would need to be 100x stronger than the em force?  

[Brian Fantana 6668]

10 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

If all physics can be accounted for with only em theory, then how is it that atomic nuclei are held together?  Wouldn't they fly apart if there were only em forces since there are only positive and neutral charges within the nucleus?  Whatever force is holding nuclei together (of course we know that what holds them together is the strong force but I'm assuming that you reject the strong force since you say that only em theory is necessary and the rejection of well-proven physics is a fundamental element of all your posts on science), it must be roughly 100 times stronger than the em force.  So how do you account for the em force holding together the nuclei of all atoms beyond hydrogen considering that the em force would drive away the positively charged protons and also considering that the binding force would need to be 100x stronger than the em force?  

Dude, if you don't even have a basic understanding of what the known fundamental forces are, you should probably bow out of this conversation.

Edit: Nevermind, I misread your post. Carry on.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[RayDog 682]

46 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

If all physics can be accounted for with only em theory, then how is it that atomic nuclei are held together?  Wouldn't they fly apart if there were only em forces since there are only positive and neutral charges within the nucleus?  Whatever force is holding nuclei together (of course we know that what holds them together is the strong force but I'm assuming that you reject the strong force since you say that only em theory is necessary and the rejection of well-proven physics is a fundamental element of all your posts on science), it must be roughly 100 times stronger than the em force.  So how do you account for the em force holding together the nuclei of all atoms beyond hydrogen considering that the em force would drive away the positively charged protons and also considering that the binding force would need to be 100x stronger than the em force?  

The Casimir effect between two proton and/or neutron sized spheres is strong enough to account for the nuclear force. The Casimir effect is physically real as it has been experimentally proven. A physicist I know was able to accurately compute the binding energy of a deuteron using this approach, after I shared my research with him. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283795494_The_Nuclear_Force_Computed_as_the_Casimir_Effect_Between_Spheres

Note that I would like to streamline this paper a bit as I go into some speculative territory when trying to explain how there is a repulsive force that overcomes the Casimir effect at distance less than 0.7 fm. That can be more simply explained by the force responsible for the Pauli Exclusion Principle and neutron degeneracy pressure.

Edited July 9, 2018 by RayDog
typo

[David Dennison 18658]

Dis gon' be good.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

It's interesting because while physics isn't my area of expertise, I do work in RF so a fundamental understanding is nice to have.

[El Diablo 4232]

3 hours ago, Dark Horse said:

Faith didn’t help those women at Baylor. Where was your God then?

I've met one of those women and I'd say her faith is just fine. Can I put you in the category of vitriolic denier with a side helping of ignorance?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

I've met one of those women and I'd say her faith is just fine. Can I put you in the category of vitriolic denier with a side helping of ignorance?

I feel so bad for her that her "infallible, all-loving, all-powerful God" would allow her to suffer so a group of men involved in an arbitrary game get to pleasure themselves at her expense. If such a being does exist and they allow actions like that to happen then said entity can't be all-loving; if such an entity exists and they wanted to stop it but couldn't, they not all-powerful. Either way, such an entity is a moral thug and I would not worship them even if scientific proof were to come forward that met the burden of proof for the existence of such an entity. As a human who cares about the well-being of other humans, I condemn anyone or anything that condones things such as rape, murder, slavery, and child molestation.

[EuroHorn 3204]

4 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I feel so bad for her that her "infallible, all-loving, all-powerful God" would allow her to suffer so a group of men involved in an arbitrary game get to pleasure themselves at her expense. If such a being does exist and they allow actions like that to happen then said entity can't be all-loving; if such an entity exists and they wanted to stop it but couldn't, they not all-powerful. Either way, such an entity is a moral thug and I would not worship them even if scientific proof were to come forward that met the burden of proof for the existence of such an entity. As a human who cares about the well-being of other humans, I condemn anyone or anything that condones things such as rape, murder, slavery, and child molestation.

Looks like God has had a positive influence on your life...

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

4 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I feel so bad for her that her "infallible, all-loving, all-powerful God" would allow her to suffer so a group of men involved in an arbitrary game get to pleasure themselves at her expense. If such a being does exist and they allow actions like that to happen then said entity can't be all-loving; if such an entity exists and they wanted to stop it but couldn't, they not all-powerful. Either way, such an entity is a moral thug and I would not worship them even if scientific proof were to come forward that met the burden of proof for the existence of such an entity. As a human who cares about the well-being of other humans, I condemn anyone or anything that condones things such as rape, murder, slavery, and child molestation.

Good Christian girls don't go out drinking alcohol with boys, staying out late, going back to their rooms, dressing provocatively. She's the real sinner here. She was asking for it. Boys will be boys. There's no reason to punish them.

[formermav43 4599]

Oh good, the problem of evil. That’s some fresh ground, should be really productive in swaying people on both sides of the issue.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

1 hour ago, EuroHorn said:

Looks like God has had a positive influence on your life...

I used to be a devout Christian. Then I realized I had no good reason to believe and began questioning my own beliefs. When I recognized that belief for the sole purpose of belief wasn't enough, I stopped believing and started to examine why I was doing it in the first place. The idea that God has had any influence on my life is nonsensical because the burden of proof has never been met to suggest that an entity exists to have any influence on anyone's life.

[Goredho 17348]

On 7/5/2018 at 2:41 PM, Lucid said:

This report (https://archive.fo/nOJxc) on US public opinion concerning gay marriage is a couple months old now but I found it fascinating, particularly this:

I'm not surprised that the 10,000 protestant denominations are all over the place about gay marriage. But the widespread support among catholics/orthodox, muslims, and jews is shocking to me. What is happening here? Wtf does it even mean when someone says they are a catholic or a muslim and also that they support same-sex marriage or have no opinion on the issue? Are people becoming more ignorant about their own religions? Or are they just picking out and ignoring the parts that contradict the actual one true faith in America today, namely liberalism?

 

Should have visited this thread sooner.  I think this is a common pattern with most classes of people that simply are who they are or living a victimless choice.  Once they start to achieve some mainstream acceptance, it doesn’t take long to see that the world isn’t really going to crash and burn as a result of the end of their shame and shunning.

[El Diablo 4232]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Good Christian girls don't go out drinking alcohol with boys, staying out late, going back to their rooms, dressing provocatively. She's the real sinner here. She was asking for it. Boys will be boys. There's no reason to punish them.

She, unfortunately, did question her own part in what had happened. She felt guilt and shame and was working thru those feelings. The event didn't so much shake her faith in God as it did her faith in humanity. It was a harsh dose of reality to swallow, that the world is full of evil.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Good Christian girls don't go out drinking alcohol with boys, staying out late, going back to their rooms, dressing provocatively. She's the real sinner here. She was asking for it. Boys will be boys. There's no reason to punish them.

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this post was in jest... However, rape isn't something that should be joked about. This is something we as a society have to stop normalizing because normalizing jokes about it seeks to normalize the action. This is simply unacceptable. The same goes for joking about suicide.

The bullshit notion that women rape upon themselves is absurd. The perpetuation of this idea has to stop.

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

1 minute ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this post was in jest... However, rape isn't something that should be joked about. This is something we as a society have to stop normalizing because normalizing jokes about it seeks to normalize the action. This is simply unacceptable. The same goes for joking about suicide.

The bullshit notion that women rape upon themselves is absurd. The perpetuation of this idea has to stop.

I hoped it would be obvious. But that is the conservative religious outlook on those kinds of events and that was the thinking all the way up to the highest levels of the administration at Baylor. 

[David Dennison 18658]

4 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Looks like God has had a positive influence on your life...

The idea of God has a positive influence on many lives. The opposite is also true. The idea of God can have a negative influence.

That doesn't mean God exists.

Edited July 9, 2018 by David Dennison

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

14 hours ago, Dark Horse said:

Faith didn’t help those women at Baylor. Where was your God then?

Helping the chosen one, Donald Trump, become president. Duh.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Helping the chosen one, Donald Trump, become president. Duh.

I didn't know God resided in russia...

[Sbbruin 21736]

On 7/5/2018 at 2:00 PM, Lagunamadre said:

What did Jesus say about rich people? 

Quote

I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Sbbruin

[Lagunamadre 1975]

8 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

 

Wealthy Christians: "Jesus was obviously referring to Seattle's Space Needle."

[hayden_horn 11360]

i mean, we could argue the existence of deities all day long, but the question in the OP is "why are there fewer religious adherents?"

i think the answer is simple: because the evangelicals are destroying the christian faith by acting unchristian and uncompromising. and their heavy involvement in politics, and in, say, the gay marriage argument has really affected how young people think about religion. whereas in the old days, people would still go to church, even if they did not believe, now people feel fine not involving themselves in the one-time necessary social sunday circle.

i don't think it is a war of science against faith, which seems to be what most of you are arguing. it's a war of faith vs humanity. people now know gay people, and they are finding out that they are just like us, except they like to put their sexual body parts in different spots. more people know more things, now, about other human beings, and the hyper-conservative, political approach a lot of christianity espouses turns off the youth. 

just my dumb take.

[formermav43 4599]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i mean, we could argue the existence of deities all day long, but the question in the OP is "why are there fewer religious adherents?"

i think the answer is simple: because the evangelicals are destroying the christian faith by acting unchristian and uncompromising. and their heavy involvement in politics, and in, say, the gay marriage argument has really affected how young people think about religion. whereas in the old days, people would still go to church, even if they did not believe, now people feel fine not involving themselves in the one-time necessary social sunday circle.

i don't think it is a war of science against faith, which seems to be what most of you are arguing. it's a war of faith vs humanity. people now know gay people, and they are finding out that they are just like us, except they like to put their sexual body parts in different spots. more people know more things, now, about other human beings, and the hyper-conservative, political approach a lot of christianity espouses turns off the youth. 

just my dumb take.

That’s not really the question in the OP either  (though you’re right that the arguments about God have nothing to do with it).  

The op has to do with church/state, specifically co-opting the government to enforce Christian morality. This is where I think you’re right about many rejecting an overtly American-style political vision of Christianity. To the extent that’s happening, it’s more in line with the early church, not a departure as the op bemoans.

You can believe that something is sinful-whether that’s a hot button issue like gay marriage or something as commonplace as lying-without expecting the state to criminalize it. 

[Bash Riprock 1695]

My brother was trying to find a new church to go to when he first moved back to Texas. There was a particular church in the metroplex that gave members monthly statements your tithing monthly. He noped the fuck out of that one. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, RayDog said:

The Casimir effect between two proton and/or neutron sized spheres is strong enough to account for the nuclear force. The Casimir effect is physically real as it has been experimentally proven. A physicist I know was able to accurately compute the binding energy of a deuteron using this approach, after I shared my research with him. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283795494_The_Nuclear_Force_Computed_as_the_Casimir_Effect_Between_Spheres

Note that I would like to streamline this paper a bit as I go into some speculative territory when trying to explain how there is a repulsive force that overcomes the Casimir effect at distance less than 0.7 fm. That can be more simply explained by the force responsible for the Pauli Exclusion Principle and neutron degeneracy pressure.

There are so many things wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to begin.  I will narrow it down to just a few objections that might have a chance of resonating with you:

• You evaluate the problem from an overly simplistic two dimensional perspective considering only two nucleons.  What would happen to the summation of forces within the nucleus (considering both the Coulomb forces and your proposed Casimir forces) in e.g. an uranium-238 nucleus?  Since you view nucleons as spheres,  imagine it as a 238 spheres packed together.  The em forces would not degrade significantly (in comparison) across the diameter of the nucleus from one end to the other but the Casimir forces would degrade significantly.  Do you have a method to account for and to calculate the summed forces in such a high nucleon arrangement?  If so, have you determined that it is sufficient to hold together U-238?  With your proposed theory it would not be remotely plausible to derive binding energy.
• Your values and overall Coulomb force curve are wrong.  At 1 fm distance, the Coulomb force between 2 protons will be about 230 N.  You have it at 33 N for some reason.  Even if we modified the curve by a fixed constant, it would still not be correct because the curve derivatives are wrong.  From 0.2 fm to 3.0 fm is a distance change of 15x and by the inverse square law there should be a change in force magnitude of 225x, but you show a change of less than 10x in force from 0.2 to 3.0 fm.  
• But let's use the incorrect Coulomb force values given.  According to your numbers and assuming your proposed version of the short range Casimir force and throwing in your "speculative" repulsive force to keep these nuclei from crushing into mini black holes, a two proton nucleus should be stable.  But they aren't.  Why not?  

The above objections are made while assuming the most favorable possible analysis of your ideas, e.g. allowing for the completely misappropriated use of the Casimir force via applying the calculated force on two plates of a given area and transferring this to subatomic particles.

Edit:  To give credit, you do typically argue your points dispassionately, even when others (myself included) are not always so cordial.  So I commend you for that. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Guest

[El Diablo 4232]

You have opened up the gedes to hell.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

What the subatomic shit is going on here?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Are gedes worse than gates or portals ?

Edited July 9, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

35 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

There are so many things wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to begin.  I will narrow it down to just a few objections that might have a chance of resonating with you:

• You evaluate the problem from an overly simplistic two dimensional perspective considering only two nucleons.  What would happen to the summation of forces within the nucleus (considering both the Coulomb forces and your proposed Casimir forces) in e.g. an uranium-238 nucleus?  Since you view nucleons as spheres,  imagine it as a 238 spheres packed together.  The em forces would not degrade significantly (in comparison) across the diameter of the nucleus from one end to the other but the Casimir forces would degrade significantly.  Do you have a method to account for and to calculate the summed forces in such a high nucleon arrangement?  If so, have you determined that it is sufficient to hold together U-238?  With your proposed theory it would not be remotely plausible to derive binding energy.
• Your values and overall Coulomb force curve are wrong.  At 1 fm distance, the Coulomb force between 2 protons will be about 230 N.  You have it at 33 N for some reason.  Even if we modified the curve by a fixed constant, it would still not be correct because the curve derivatives are wrong.  From 0.2 fm to 3.0 fm is a distance change of 15x and by the inverse square law there should be a change in force magnitude of 225x, but you show a change of less than 10x in force from 0.2 to 3.0 fm.  
• But let's use the incorrect Coulomb force values given.  According to your numbers and assuming your proposed version of the short range Casimir force and throwing in your "speculative" repulsive force to keep these nuclei from crushing into mini black holes, a two proton nucleus should be stable.  But they aren't.  Why not?  

The above above objections are made while assuming the most favorable possible analysis of your ideas, e.g. allowing for the completely misappropriated use of the Casimir force via applying the calculated force on two plates of a given area and transferring this to subatomic particles.

Yeah, but can you explain why a top doesn't just fall over?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, but can you explain why a top doesn't just fall over?

The Jews did this with their sneaky ladles.....

[Lagunamadre 1975]

37 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

There are so many things wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to begin.  I will narrow it down to just a few objections that might have a chance of resonating with you:

• You evaluate the problem from an overly simplistic two dimensional perspective considering only two nucleons.  What would happen to the summation of forces within the nucleus (considering both the Coulomb forces and your proposed Casimir forces) in e.g. an uranium-238 nucleus?  Since you view nucleons as spheres,  imagine it as a 238 spheres packed together.  The em forces would not degrade significantly (in comparison) across the diameter of the nucleus from one end to the other but the Casimir forces would degrade significantly.  Do you have a method to account for and to calculate the summed forces in such a high nucleon arrangement?  If so, have you determined that it is sufficient to hold together U-238?  With your proposed theory it would not be remotely plausible to derive binding energy.
• Your values and overall Coulomb force curve are wrong.  At 1 fm distance, the Coulomb force between 2 protons will be about 230 N.  You have it at 33 N for some reason.  Even if we modified the curve by a fixed constant, it would still not be correct because the curve derivatives are wrong.  From 0.2 fm to 3.0 fm is a distance change of 15x and by the inverse square law there should be a change in force magnitude of 225x, but you show a change of less than 10x in force from 0.2 to 3.0 fm.  
• But let's use the incorrect Coulomb force values given.  According to your numbers and assuming your proposed version of the short range Casimir force and throwing in your "speculative" repulsive force to keep these nuclei from crushing into mini black holes, a two proton nucleus should be stable.  But they aren't.  Why not?  

The above above objections are made while assuming the most favorable possible analysis of your ideas, e.g. allowing for the completely misappropriated use of the Casimir force via applying the calculated force on two plates of a given area and transferring this to subatomic particles.

This is why I majored in Government. 

[Anastasis 23395]

3 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

This is why I majored in Government. 

No shit.  But I appreciate a good solid nerd fight.  Just hard for me to score this one. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No shit.  But I appreciate a good solid nerd fight.  Just hard for me to score this one. 

Both sides deserve a wedgie. 

[El Diablo 4232]

11 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Both sides deserve a wedgie. 

We're talking atomic of course, right?

[Lagunamadre 1975]

5 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

We're talking atomic of course, right?

Don't half-ass anything in life. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

7 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

We're talking atomic of course, right?

i believe these dudes are discussing subatomic topics. so it would have to be a subatomic wedgie.

[formermav43 4599]

Quantum wedgie

[El Diablo 4232]

What is the half-life of a subatomic wedgie?

European or African?

[David Dennison 18658]

Schrödinger's wedgie.

[Rimbo 25783]

6 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I used to be a devout Christian. Then I realized I had no good reason to believe and began questioning my own beliefs. When I recognized that belief for the sole purpose of belief wasn't enough, I stopped believing and started to examine why I was doing it in the first place. The idea that God has had any influence on my life is nonsensical because the burden of proof has never been met to suggest that an entity exists to have any influence on anyone's life.

I like the fact that you're talking about why you believe what you believe and how you came to believe it. I think that's a much more interesting discussion that what you believe.

When you talk about the burden of proof has never been met to suggest that any entity exists to have any influence on anyone's life, that's a bit of a broad statement; I could interpret that to mean that I cannot influence my son's life, for example, for I am an "entity" in a not terribly broad definition of the term. I think whenever people start discussing God, the first thing that happens is, as Larry Wall once puts, "In theological discussions more than any other kind, it's easy to talk at right angles and never even realize it." So I think you mean some kind of "god" concept here.

So when you say "an entity," what kind of entity do you mean, and how did you develop this concept?

[52-80 19094]

Could God make a politics forum so inane that even he could not participate in it?

[Lagunamadre 1975]

38 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

What is the half-life of a subatomic wedgie?

European or African?

Lot's of variables to consider, namely Hanes or Fruit of the Loom. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

No shit.  But I appreciate a good solid nerd fight.  Just hard for me to score this one. 

Normally I keep the nerd stuff to the nerd forum; I also don't typically engage RayDog on his hypotheses.  The stars just aligned in this case.

RayDog seems like an overall amiable poster and it's not my intent to be derisive, but it's hard not to come across that way when discussing these matters with him.  The disputes are not a form of internet bickering stemming from ideologically differences or subtle details only concerning experts.  He considers most well proven and universally accepted physical theories to be not only wrong, but blatant lies.  He wrote a book called the "The 100 greatest Lies in Physics" that he linked on shaggy some time ago.  So what "lies" made the list?  Special relativity, general relativity, the big bang theory, quarks (he doesn't believe in quarks for some reason), the four fundamental forces, &c.  He also either doesn't believe in angular momentum or at minimum doesn't think it sufficiently explains the precession of a top or gyroscope; so he invented a new force to explain precession, even though the phenomenon is well understood and explained in virtually every basic mechanics textbook.  I'm not making any of this up; he will confirm all of this if you ask him.  

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 18658]

1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

Normally I keep the nerd stuff to the nerd forum; I also don't typically engage RayDog on his hypotheses.  The stars just aligned in this case.

RayDog seems like an overall amiable poster and it's not my intent to be derisive, but it's hard not to come across that way when discussing these matters with him.  The disputes or not a form of internet bickering stemming from ideologically differences or subtle details only concerning experts.  He considers most well proven and universally accepted physical theories to be not only wrong, but blatant lies.  He wrote a book called the "The 100 greatest Lies in Physics" that he linked on shaggy some time ago.  So what "lies" made the list?  Special relativity, general relativity, the big bang theory, quarks (he doesn't believe in quarks for some reason), the four fundamental forces, &c.  He also either doesn't believe in angular momentum or at minimum doesn't think it sufficiently explains the precession of a top or gyroscope; so he invented a new force to explain precession, even though the phenomenon is well understood and explained in virtually every basic mechanics textbook.  I'm not making any of this up; he will confirm all of this if you ask him.  

 

Where does God fit in?

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

There are so many things wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to begin.  I will narrow it down to just a few objections that might have a chance of resonating with you:

• You evaluate the problem from an overly simplistic two dimensional perspective considering only two nucleons.  What would happen to the summation of forces within the nucleus (considering both the Coulomb forces and your proposed Casimir forces) in e.g. an uranium-238 nucleus?  Since you view nucleons as spheres,  imagine it as a 238 spheres packed together.  The em forces would not degrade significantly (in comparison) across the diameter of the nucleus from one end to the other but the Casimir forces would degrade significantly.  Do you have a method to account for and to calculate the summed forces in such a high nucleon arrangement?  If so, have you determined that it is sufficient to hold together U-238?  With your proposed theory it would not be remotely plausible to derive binding energy.
• Your values and overall Coulomb force curve are wrong.  At 1 fm distance, the Coulomb force between 2 protons will be about 230 N.  You have it at 33 N for some reason.  Even if we modified the curve by a fixed constant, it would still not be correct because the curve derivatives are wrong.  From 0.2 fm to 3.0 fm is a distance change of 15x and by the inverse square law there should be a change in force magnitude of 225x, but you show a change of less than 10x in force from 0.2 to 3.0 fm.  
• But let's use the incorrect Coulomb force values given.  According to your numbers and assuming your proposed version of the short range Casimir force and throwing in your "speculative" repulsive force to keep these nuclei from crushing into mini black holes, a two proton nucleus should be stable.  But they aren't.  Why not?  

The above objections are made while assuming the most favorable possible analysis of your ideas, e.g. allowing for the completely misappropriated use of the Casimir force via applying the calculated force on two plates of a given area and transferring this to subatomic particles.

Edit:  To give credit, you do typically argue your points dispassionately, even when others (myself included) are not always so cordial.  So I commend you for that. 

In response, the Casimir effect exists and applies in all cases when bodies, including particles, are present and at close distances. I did not misappropriate it. The Casimir effect between two plates is the Casimir effect between electrons on the surface of the plates. (Note that the solidity of matter is due to the electron degeneracy pressure between those electrons as established by Freeman Dyson)  

The equation I used does account for 3 dimensions, but it does not account for all the Casimir forces, which is why I did not get 100x. (Note that I have been trying to work on or find a better equation to use in a follow-up paper.) My friend who successfully computed the binding energy for the deuteron also did so for tritium and and helium, so your argument that the Casimir effect does not apply for more than two bodies at once is nonsense.

You calculated the Coulomb force using the wrong distance. The table uses the distance between the outer radii of the protons, not the distance between the center of the protons, which is how you compute the Coulomb force.

As for the two proton problem, It is unstable because protons make quantum jumps an uncountable number of times each second, so they tend to jump away from each other so fast that we can never see them together in a metastable state under normal conditions. Degeneracy pressure and the force behind Pauli's Exclusion Principle are not speculative forces. Two protons, two neutrons, or a proton and neutron can never occupy the same point in space. As for quantum jumps, you can also consider that the neutrons in the nucleus actually do decay but the temporarily free electron is usually immediately recaptured by another proton converting it to a neutron, so there is continuous electron exchange going on. Contrary to mainstream physics there is no binding energy associated with this particle exchange. The binding energy come from the Casimir effect.

It is amazing to consider that every particle in our body is being replaced trillions of times each second.

[RayDog 682]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Where does God fit in?

It doesn't.

Not only that, a hypothetical god violates the principles of physics, because if it couldn't violate the principles of physics it wouldn't be a god. But if it does violate the principles of physics and more generally science and reason, it cannot exist.

[RayDog 682]

25 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Normally I keep the nerd stuff to the nerd forum; I also don't typically engage RayDog on his hypotheses.  The stars just aligned in this case.

RayDog seems like an overall amiable poster and it's not my intent to be derisive, but it's hard not to come across that way when discussing these matters with him.  The disputes or not a form of internet bickering stemming from ideologically differences or subtle details only concerning experts.  He considers most well proven and universally accepted physical theories to be not only wrong, but blatant lies.  He wrote a book called the "The 100 greatest Lies in Physics" that he linked on shaggy some time ago.  So what "lies" made the list?  Special relativity, general relativity, the big bang theory, quarks (he doesn't believe in quarks for some reason), the four fundamental forces, &c.  He also either doesn't believe in angular momentum or at minimum doesn't think it sufficiently explains the precession of a top or gyroscope; so he invented a new force to explain precession, even though the phenomenon is well understood and explained in virtually every basic mechanics textbook.  I'm not making any of this up; he will confirm all of this if you ask him.  

 

Much of mainstream standard model physics is incompatible with standard model quantum field theory. Since quantum field theory describes the material substance of space itself, all of physics must be compatible with quantum field theory in order to be valid.

[El Diablo 4232]

23 minutes ago, RayDog said:

It doesn't.

Not only that, a hypothetical god violates the principles of physics, because if it couldn't violate the principles of physics it wouldn't be a god. But if it does violate the principles of physics and more generally science and reason, it cannot exist.

This is not good news for the 2 billion or so humans who subscribe to the theory of a plane of existence outside of our physical one. Not. Good.