Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents

[RayDog 682]

You mean the ones who believe they have mindless brains and brainless minds that are non-physical and can somehow occupy a non-physical space yet still communicate with physical reality?

[cactusflinthead 27627]

Guessing 'Building a Bridge' isn't on the OP's book shelf.

We don't buy and sell people any more either unless they are covered by a CBA. We supported Jim Crow from the pulpit. Burned down temples of the Jesus Killers. And a long sordid list of very shitty things in the name of religion. Every one has its shame. I don't give a shit what you believe. I do care about how you treat your fellow human beings. If your religion compels you to deny the civil rights of another person I have no use for you or what you represent. 

This is why people in the religious groups polled don't hate on the gay community as much as we used to. Some of us have found it to be archaic and more than a little counterproductive to the overall goal.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Where does God fit in?

I'm not sure what you mean.  You'll have to be a bit more specific.  

 

2 hours ago, RayDog said:

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.

Again, your mathematical model is far too simplistic to account for the sum forces on higher nucleon atoms.  Let's table U-238 and consider a relatively simple nucleus such as Oxygen-16.  Can you calculate the total sum forces (both Casimir and Coulomb forces from all other nucleons) on a given nucleon in Oxygen-16?

As for your calculated Coulomb forces, are you not using your equation 5 to calculate these?  If so, what number are you using for r to get your values at 3.0 fm, 1.0 fm, and 0.2 fm?  Also, why did you put both the attracting force of your proposed Casimir effect and the repulsive Coulomb force between protons as positive values on your graph?  

For why your model shows Helium-2 as stable even though it is not, you say it's "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."  So using calculations from your hypothesis and not solely words, can you demonstrate why Helium-3 is stable but Helium-2 is not?  Presumably they would both have the same issue of protons making quantum jumps an uncountable number of times each second.

 

2 hours ago, RayDog said:

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.

You can't just dismiss all professional physicists as liars and disregard their work if you want to improve your own level of knowledge and have your own ideas taken seriously.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Guest

[RayDog 682]

23 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Again, your mathematical model is far too simplistic to account for the sum forces on higher nucleon atoms.  Let's table U-238 and consider a relatively simple nucleus such as Oxygen-16.  Can you calculate the total sum forces (both Casimir and Coulomb forces from all other nucleons) on a given nucleon in Oxygen-16?

As for your calculated Coulomb forces, are you not using your equation 5 to calculate these?  If so, what number are you using for r to get your values at 3.0 fm, 1.0 fm, and 0.2 fm?  Also, why did you put both the attracting force of your proposed Casimir effect and the repulsive Coulomb force between protons as positive values on your graph?  

For why your model shows Helium-2 as stable even though it is not, you say it's "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."  So using calculations from your hypothesis and not solely words, can you demonstrate why Helium-3 is stable but Helium-2 is not?  Presumably they would both have the same issue of protons making quantum jumps an uncountable number of times each second.

You can't just dismiss all professional physicists as liars and disregard their work if you want to improve your own level of knowledge and have your own ideas taken seriously.

The PFA equation for the Casimir effect is admittedly over-simplistic, but that does not mean it goes away. The Casimir force is always present. Just because you are considering a bigger nucleus does not make the force disappear as you suggest. I leave mathematical grunt work like what you suggest to others. 

To get the distance between charges add 2 times the charge radius to the distance between the outer surfaces. Coulomb attraction of a sphere assumes that the charge is at the center. I graphed it that way to illustrate the crossing point between the Coulomb and Casimir force. I am sorry if you find that confusing.

Helium 3 is stable because the protons tend to align on opposite sides of the neutron. So even when the protons jump around they are still attracted to the neutron by the Casimir forces.

I can, for example, call any physicists that agree with special relativity a liar, because special relativity assumes that the quantum field and quantum field theory does not exist, therefor special relativity is a lie. (That does not mean that all relativity theory is a lie.) Most physicists know that the two theories are incompatible and yet they lie about special relativity anyway. Now some deny the existence of the quantum field, the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift, the correction to the g factor, diamagnetism, and quantum van der Waals forces, which are all necessarily part of quantum field theory, so they are a different sort of liar.

 

[JBJ 3825]

For a di-proton to be stable to strong force would have to be increased.

Ray isn't arguing that the magnitude of the strong force is changed.  Just trying to find a lower-order derivation of an equal magnitude force.

[JBJ 3825]

18 minutes ago, RayDog said:

I can, for example, call any physicists that agree with special relativity a liar, because special relativity assumes that the quantum field and quantum field theory does not exist, therefor special relativity is a lie. (That does not mean that all relativity theory is a lie.) Most physicists know that the two theories are incompatible and yet they lie about special relativity anyway. Now some deny the existence of the quantum field, the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift, the correction to the g factor, diamagnetism, and quantum van der Waals forces, which are all necessarily part of quantum field theory, so they are a different sort of liar.

And one can call anyone who agrees with QFT a liar by that same token.  They are competing theories, neither are probably wholy true, both produce good approximations for what we know.

But you do understand the irony of someone preaching the scientific method, then disagreeing with many of the axioms it has produced in favor of less scientifically-robust theories?

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

5 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

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

You find a good enough bottom and he can make a top fall over. #truefacts. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

Joke so good tried to post it twice

Edited July 10, 2018 by NameAlreadyInUse

[NameAlreadyInUse 5169]

Triple post

Edited July 10, 2018 by NameAlreadyInUse

[Buzzrock 15136]

This is the weirdest thread on Surly rn

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

When you click "Submit Reply" and nothing apparently happens, open a new tab and load the thread to make sure your reply didn't post before clicking the submit button again. Chances are it did get posted and the page just failed to refresh.

[cactusflinthead 27627]

On 7/6/2018 at 12:32 PM, Brian Fantana said:

Why do American Christians pretend that marriage is a concept specific to Christianity (or any religion for that matter) that should adhere to specific and possibly made up Christian values? 

Because just like the thread about the concept of God it's strictly the Armed and Ready Jesus version of religion around here. 

Jains, Sikhs, Hindi, Buddhists need not apply. Zarathustra is dead. The only one that counts is the right wing version of lily white Jesus. Mormons and Catholics only count on election day. The rest of the time they are at best misinformed but usually followers of the fallen, idolators. But, vote for the whoremonger because he is the instrument of the Almighty.

[RayDog 682]

57 minutes ago, JBJ said:

And one can call anyone who agrees with QFT a liar by that same token.  They are competing theories, neither are probably wholy true, both produce good approximations for what we know.

But you do understand the irony of someone preaching the scientific method, then disagreeing with many of the axioms it has produced in favor of less scientifically-robust theories?

I base scientific robustness on observations and experiments not popularity contests.

[El Diablo 4232]

9 minutes ago, RayDog said:

I base scientific robustness on observations and experiments not popularity contests.

So, things that are repeatable?

[RayDog 682]

7 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

So, things that are repeatable?

Reproducible, yes. I also should have added logical to my list. Many popular physics theories, or theories in general, fail simple tests of logic.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

8 hours 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.

I would take issue with one aspect of this, faith v. humanity.  It isn't faith that requires anyone to hold certain beliefs about gays or anyone else or any particular form of morality.  It is the social, human aspects of partaking in faith that lead to these things. There are many faithful that do not have repugnant social beliefs and a whole lot of faithless that do.  It's humanity v. humanity and the affinity group that surrounds their faith, i.e. their "religion" or their "sect" or just the buttheads that they hang with at church, just happens to have repugnant beliefs.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, RayDog said:

The PFA equation for the Casimir effect is admittedly over-simplistic, but that does not mean it goes away. The Casimir force is always present. Just because you are considering a bigger nucleus does not make the force disappear as you suggest. I leave mathematical grunt work like what you suggest to others. 

To get the distance between charges add 2 times the charge radius to the distance between the outer surfaces. Coulomb attraction of a sphere assumes that the charge is at the center. I graphed it that way to illustrate the crossing point between the Coulomb and Casimir force. I am sorry if you find that confusing.

Helium 3 is stable because the protons tend to align on opposite sides of the neutron. So even when the protons jump around they are still attracted to the neutron by the Casimir forces.

I can, for example, call any physicists that agree with special relativity a liar, because special relativity assumes that the quantum field and quantum field theory does not exist, therefor special relativity is a lie. (That does not mean that all relativity theory is a lie.) Most physicists know that the two theories are incompatible and yet they lie about special relativity anyway. Now some deny the existence of the quantum field, the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift, the correction to the g factor, diamagnetism, and quantum van der Waals forces, which are all necessarily part of quantum field theory, so they are a different sort of liar.

 

I'm not claiming that your proposed subatomic Casimir effect goes away.  Of course it doesn't actually exist as you describe it but I'm assuming that it is real in the evaluation of your hypothesis.  So let's assume it is real and that it does not disappear in larger nuclei.  Is it sufficient to hold together larger nuclei?  The answer is that you don't know.  The reason you do not know is because you cannot calculate the summed forces in larger nuclei.  Maybe your proposed subatomic Casimir effect is not strong enough across large nucleui to keep them together.  Maybe it is stronger than what is expected and shows lower neutron isotopes to be stable even though they are not actually stable (in fact we already know that this is the case for some examples in your hypothetical model because it shows helium-2 to be stable).  So you really have no idea if your hypotheses can explain why all atomic nuclei are held together.  In modern mathematical physics you either have a physical model that gives explanations for phenomena and which yields quantifiable outcomes & predictions that can be verified with the empirical method (i.e. the basis for modern physics) or you do not.  In your case you do not.  The only configuration that you give any calcs for is helium-2; you show it to be stable but this prediction is falsified via the empirical method.

Developing a mathematical model for your physical theory is not grunt work.  It is a fundamental part of physics; it is necessary to quantify your concepts to see if they accurately model physical reality.  Furthermore, it is senseless to refer to any academic exercise that you cannot do yourself as grunt work.

You have calculated and presented the Coulomb forces in a very strange (i.e. incorrect) manner.  Even when I give the superfluous radius correction to the distances that you used, your charge calcs are still not accurate to more than 1 significant digit.  And as mentioned it makes no sense to graph negative forces as positive.  It's not that it is confusing; the bigger issue is that it is incorrect.  If you want to show the "crossing point" then the way to do this is to graph the sum of the two curves and show where the sum is 0. 

Again, you are merely speculating why some isotopes are stable while other are not.  Your hypothesis needs to provide verifiable quantification.  Merely saying that this isotope is stable because is seems plausible while this one is not (even though the math model says it should be) because of some reason does not suffice.  

[cactusflinthead 27627]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I would take issue with one aspect of this, faith v. humanity.  It isn't faith that requires anyone to hold certain beliefs about gays or anyone else or any particular form of morality.  It is the social, human aspects of partaking in faith that lead to these things. There are many faithful that do not have repugnant social beliefs and a whole lot of faithless that do.  It's humanity v. humanity and the affinity group that surrounds their faith, i.e. their "religion" or their "sect" or just the buttheads that they hang with at church, just happens to have repugnant beliefs.

And I'll say back that in it's better representations religion should address humanity v. humanity and not contribute to the strife. Yes, there are those without any religious beliefs that do wrong. An atheist can be a mean sumbitch too. 

Gay marriage exists now legally. Like interracial marriage and the publication of Tropic of Cancer it took a collection of judges to overrule some parts of the collective church. There's a growing number of members that now are willing to accept this.

Nobody's mentioned it, but there was movement in a variety of groups in the survey. 

 

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not claiming that your proposed subatomic Casimir effect goes away.  Of course it doesn't actually exist as you describe it but I'm assuming that it is real in the evaluation of your hypothesis.  So let's assume it is real and that it does not disappear in larger nuclei.  Is it sufficient to hold together larger nuclei?  The answer is that you don't know.  The reason you do not know is because you cannot calculate the summed forces in larger nuclei.  Maybe your proposed subatomic Casimir effect is not strong enough across large nucleui to keep them together.  Maybe it is stronger than what is expected and shows lower neutron isotopes to be stable even though they are not actually stable (in fact we already know that this is the case for some examples in your hypothetical model because it shows helium-2 to be stable).  So you really have no idea if your hypotheses can explain why all atomic nuclei are held together.  In modern mathematical physics you either have a physical model that gives explanations for phenomena and which yields quantifiable outcomes & predictions that can be verified with the empirical method (i.e. the basis for modern physics) or you do not.  In your case you do not.  The only configuration that you give any calcs for is helium-2; you show it to be stable but this prediction is falsified via the empirical method.

Developing a mathematical model for your physical theory is not grunt work.  It is a fundamental part of physics; it is necessary to quantify your concepts to see if they accurately model physical reality.  Furthermore, it is senseless to refer to any academic exercise that you cannot do yourself as grunt work.

You have calculated and presented the Coulomb forces in a very strange (i.e. incorrect) manner.  Even when I give the superfluous radius correction to the distances that you used, your charge calcs are still not accurate to more than 1 significant digit.  And as mentioned it makes no sense to graph negative forces as positive.  It's not that it is confusing; the bigger issue is that it is incorrect.  If you want to show the "crossing point" then the way to do this is to graph the sum of the two curves and show where the sum is 0. 

Again, you are merely speculating why some isotopes are stable while other are not.  Your hypothesis needs to provide verifiable quantification.  Merely saying that this isotope is stable because is seems plausible while this one is not (even though the math model says it should be) because of some reason does not suffice.  

 

First I will say that it took 100s of physicists to mathematically compute the nuclei using the present fictional forces of the standard model. I will not waste my life trying to replicate that work, so I will leave it to others. Gluons are fictional as opposed to the electrons in quantum field theory being well known experimentally. No force physically arises due to particle exchange so the strong force is magic, rather than physically real. Quantum van der Waals forces are physically real and there is a physical mechanism for how those quantum vibrations push on particles and other objects due to degeneracy pressure. We have a physically real model to explain the Casimir effect. At least we do up to the point of describing the force responsible for degeneracy pressure and the Pauli exclusion principle, but I have a working hypothesis that I hope to develop.

You do not have a good grasp of quantum field theory and particle decay, so note that the highest energy quantum fluctuations are the shortest wavelengths. Thus the highest energy Casimir effect is at the closest distances. The distance between nucleons within a nucleus are consistent across all nuclei, so the Casimir effect between any two particles is the same. Adding more nucleons does not reduce the force between any two nucleons. With larger nuclei the force is slightly greater because more longer wavelengths are excluded from the nucleus. However, those are longer less energetic wavelengths, so the effect is a bit smaller. As the protons quantum jump they usually get pulled back in by the Casimir effect because they are so massive that they do not jump far enough to escape. And then a neutron pulls it back in due to the Casimir effect

As for decay, those are due to weak interactions that are due to quantum jumps of electrons and positrons. Electrons jump into protons and turn them into neutrons and electrons jump out of neutrons turning them into protons. Mostly electrons just jump around within a stable nucleus, but sometimes one gets captured or escapes. Longer wavelength electron-positron quantum fluctuations cannot exist within a large nucleus since the space is occupied, so the range of the electron jumps is limited except at the outer edges of large nuclei.

It is not strange to compute the Coulomb force between two spheres based on the distance between the center of the spheres. As with gravity the effects of a spherical body make it appear that the force is emanating from a point at the center. Review any freshman physics text if you forgot that.

[Mole 4339]

12 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

vote for the whoremonger because he is the instrument of the Almighty.

Not sure if that will fit on a hat in 2020.

[El Diablo 4232]

46 minutes ago, Mole said:

Not sure if that will fit on a hat in 2020.

WITIOTA. They'll make it work.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, RayDog said:

First I will say that it took 100s of physicists to mathematically compute the nuclei using the present fictional forces of the standard model. I will not waste my life trying to replicate that work, so I will leave it to others. Gluons are fictional as opposed to the electrons in quantum field theory being well known experimentally. No force physically arises due to particle exchange so the strong force is magic, rather than physically real. Quantum van der Waals forces are physically real and there is a physical mechanism for how those quantum vibrations push on particles and other objects due to degeneracy pressure. We have a physically real model to explain the Casimir effect. At least we do up to the point of describing the force responsible for degeneracy pressure and the Pauli exclusion principle, but I have a working hypothesis that I hope to develop.

You do not have a good grasp of quantum field theory and particle decay, so note that the highest energy quantum fluctuations are the shortest wavelengths. Thus the highest energy Casimir effect is at the closest distances. The distance between nucleons within a nucleus are consistent across all nuclei, so the Casimir effect between any two particles is the same. Adding more nucleons does not reduce the force between any two nucleons. With larger nuclei the force is slightly greater because more longer wavelengths are excluded from the nucleus. However, those are longer less energetic wavelengths, so the effect is a bit smaller. As the protons quantum jump they usually get pulled back in by the Casimir effect because they are so massive that they do not jump far enough to escape. And then a neutron pulls it back in due to the Casimir effect

As for decay, those are due to weak interactions that are due to quantum jumps of electrons and positrons. Electrons jump into protons and turn them into neutrons and electrons jump out of neutrons turning them into protons. Mostly electrons just jump around within a stable nucleus, but sometimes one gets captured or escapes. Longer wavelength electron-positron quantum fluctuations cannot exist within a large nucleus since the space is occupied, so the range of the electron jumps is limited except at the outer edges of large nuclei.

It is not strange to compute the Coulomb force between two spheres based on the distance between the center of the spheres. As with gravity the effects of a spherical body make it appear that the force is emanating from a point at the center. Review any freshman physics text if you forgot that.

I struck out the meaningless ranting and will address the only few points that are addressable.  

The reason why I focus on the mathematics is because if you were able to develop the model at all, you would find that your concepts are not able to describe reality.  The mathematics already exists to develop the field equations to model your concepts and if you were proficient in the basic mathematics that physicists learn, then you could develop your own field equations with not much effort.  What you would find if you were able to do this exercise is that your concepts cannot be made to give an accurate model of reality.  Instead of mathematics you give walls of conceptual text and claim that making your ideas actually work is a matter of accounting.  Since you cannot do the math and you regard mathematics as trifling details you are never forced to face the reality that your ideas don't work.

In addition to the above, your paper is loaded with very crude math errors.  For example, you claim to get equation 4 by taking the derivative of energy equation and multiplying by 2.  But d/dL of (—hcπ^3/11520L) multiplied by 2 is not —hcπ^3/5760L^2 as you show.  It is hcπ^3/5760L^2 (the negative drops off).  Since L is in the denominator it is the same as L^-1.  d/dL of -L^-1 is L^-2 (not -L^-2).  

I did not claim that it was strange to compute Coulomb forces by center points.  I said that your method of stating & charting by one distance (distance between charge radius) and then calculating by another distance (center point distance) is very strange, to put it mildly.  For example, you state in the paper and list on your chart that at 1 fm distance the Coulomb force between two protons is 33 N.  Since you mention freshman physics texts, if you were to reference any that gives the calc for the Coulomb force between two protons at 1 fm, it will show 230 N (some examples for you: book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4).  Now refer me to a single physics book that states that the Coulomb force between two protons at 1 fm is 33 N as you did in your paper.  Even if we use your bizarre method of stating 1 fm but really meaning 1 + 1.755  fm, I get 30 N and not 33 N as you show.  

While we are on the topic of freshman physics books, I think it is odd for you to refer to them since you believe they are full of lies.  For example, all introduction to mechanics books are filled with the "lie" (according to you) that angular momentum explains precession.  So why would you refer me to books for validation that you believe are filled with lies?   

[David Dennison 19534]

And Jesus wept.

[Brian Fantana 6863]

Okay you guys can fucking take this to PM at this point.

[JBJ 3825]

I'm still intrigued by this.  I see two walls:

(1) Showing that the casimir forces work similarly on the subatomic level or at least identify a mechanic attributable to EM fields.  Aleph has passingly mentioned this, but it is a huge hurdle.  Gold spheres in a lab have a defined shape, uniformity of character, and predictably interact with EM fields.

What I'm asking is: In a deuteron, What is the interaction with an EM field and how is it similar to that above the atomic scale?

(2) There'd have to be all kinds of accompanying theories showing why certain jet events occur the way they do. (I'm not asking for them here).  But you seem to be in direct conflict with chromodynamics.

Edited July 10, 2018 by JBJ

[52-80 19377]

50 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I struck out the meaningless ranting and will address the only few points that are addressable.  

The reason why I focus on the mathematics is because if you were able to develop the model at all, you would find that your concepts are not able to describe reality.  The mathematics already exists to develop the field equations to model your concepts and if you were proficient in the basic mathematics that physicists learn, then you could develop your own field equations with not much effort.  What you would find if you were able to do this exercise is that your concepts cannot be made to give an accurate model of reality.  Instead of mathematics you give walls of conceptual text and claim that making your ideas actually work is a matter of accounting.  Since you cannot do the math and you regard mathematics as trifling details you are never forced to face the reality that your ideas don't work.

In addition to the above, your paper is loaded with very crude math errors.  For example, you claim to get equation 4 by taking the derivative of energy equation and multiplying by 2.  But d/dL of (—hcπ^3/11520L) multiplied by 2 is not —hcπ^3/5760L^2 as you show.  It is hcπ^3/5760L^2 (the negative drops off).  Since L is in the denominator it is the same as L^-1.  d/dL of -L^-1 is L^-2 (not -L^-2).  

I did not claim that it was strange to compute Coulomb forces by center points.  I said that your method of stating & charting by one distance (distance between charge radius) and then calculating by another distance (center point distance) is very strange, to put it mildly.  For example, you state in the paper and list on your chart that at 1 fm distance the Coulomb force between two protons is 33 N.  Since you mention freshman physics texts, if you were to reference any that gives the calc for the Coulomb force between two protons at 1 fm, it will show 230 N (some examples for you: book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4).  Now refer me to a single physics book that states that the Coulomb force between two protons at 1 fm is 33 N as you did in your paper.  Even if we use your bizarre method of stating 1 fm but really meaning 1 + 1.755  fm, I get 30 N and not 33 N as you show.  

While we are on the topic of freshman physics books, I think it is odd for you to refer to them since you believe they are full of lies.  For example, all introduction to mechanics books are filled with the "lie" (according to you) that angular momentum explains precession.  So why would you refer me to books for validation that you believe are filled with lies?   

You sound like a shit and your fags all retarded

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Okay you guys can fucking take this to PM at this point.

 

9 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You sound like a shit and your fags all retarded

[Brian Fantana 6863]

Look dude. You're not impressing anyone. 

I realize that sucking your own dick in public might be fun for you, but the rest of us just want you to put some pants on.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Look dude. You're not impressing anyone. 

I realize that sucking your own dick in public might be fun for you, but the rest of us just want you to put some pants on.

This is a message board.  The vast majority of all posts on this and every other message board is nothing more than discussion and bickering over minutia as a distraction & escape from the monotony of the day.  If you don't find some content interesting, which the vast majority of it is not, then you skip it.  I have no idea what you post about nor do I care because I'm sure that it is no more or less trivial than whatever topic I prefer to waste my time on and it is almost certainly not interesting to me.  Getting aggravated over one man's preferred topic of online  bickering on a message board full of pedantic bickering is like getting upset of a man's preferred style of porn.  So you stick to your preferred form of trivial debate porn and I'll stick to mine and lets' agree to not give a damn about whatever those happen to be.

[Brian Fantana 6863]

22 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

This is a message board.  The vast majority of all posts on this and every other message board is nothing more than discussion and bickering over minutia as a distraction & escape from the monotony of the day.  If you don't find some content interesting, which the vast majority of it is not, then you skip it.  I have no idea what you post about nor do I care because I'm sure that it is no more or less trivial than whatever topic I prefer to waste my time on and it is almost certainly not interesting to me.  Getting aggravated over one man's preferred topic of online  bickering on a message board full of pedantic bickering is like getting upset of a man's preferred style of porn.  So you stick to your preferred form of trivial debate porn and I'll stick to mine and lets' agree to not give a damn about whatever those happen to be.

I actually do find it interesting, but at this point it is a complete and utter derail of the topic of this thread.

[JBJ 3825]

The topic of the thread sucked.  This is more interesting, in fact, we need a separate philosophy/science/math board for this shit.

[Anastasis 23717]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Okay you guys can fucking take this to PM at this point.

'Fuck no.   This shit is great. 

[F250 29199]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The topic of the thread sucked.  This is more interesting, in fact, we need a separate philosophy/science/math board for this shit.

Yeah, this thread got really interesting over the past 24 hours.

 

[formermav43 4628]

41 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I actually do find it interesting, but at this point it is a complete and utter derail of the topic of this thread.

Most of this thread has been an utter derailment. This is just one of them.

[David Dennison 19534]

39 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The topic of the thread sucked.  This is more interesting, in fact, we need a separate philosophy/science/math board for this shit.

Man's need for God invloves all three of those things.

[Jatrain 288]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Yeah, this thread got really interesting over the past 24 hours.

 

+1. Raydog vs people who know physics and math = win. 

[Pods 7637]

58 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

+1. Raydog vs people who know physics and math = win. 

+2. This isn't difficult to score at home at all.

Brian, you need to back of criticizing Aphelion on this one, he's doing his job as a scientist to expose pseudoscientific bullshit. Every time I see Aphelion have to do one of these takedowns on RayDog, it makes me glad none of the extreme quacks in my own field post on here. 

The ones I know in real life are super nice guys. RayDog probably is too. That doesn't make these ideas any less insane.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Pods

[Anastasis 23717]

Just now, Pods said:

+2. This isn't difficult to score at home at all.

 Brian, you need to back of criticizing Aphelion on this one, he's doing his job as a scientist to expose pseudoscientific bullshit. Every time I see Aphelion have to do one of these takedowns on RayDog, it makes me glad none of the extreme quacks in my own field post on here. 

Well, how many publications do you have on vixra.org mr. big peer reviewed science guy?

[Pods 7637]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Well, how many publications do you have on vixra.org mr. big peer reviewed science guy?

touche

[Anastasis 23717]

Just now, Pods said:

touche

I honestly wasnt familiar with the platform. Had to google it. Apparently it is a hotbed of quackdipshittery. 

[Pods 7637]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I honestly wasnt familiar with the platform. Had to google it. Apparently it is a hotbed of quackdipshittery. 

I had just googled it too. These are the topics under Biology. 

Biology

• Biochemistry (316) - and the origins of life
• Physics of Biology (463) - including quantum biology and bio-physics
• Mind Science (237) - covering psychology, neuroscience and consciousness
• Quantitative Biology (95) - such as computational methods

 

Under Biochemistry, there are a bunch of topics about bio energy fields. 

This might be my favorite though. This is the entire article. 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0301v1.pdf

A Simple Suggestion Against the Cancer

June 21, 2018
José Francisco García Juliá jfgj1@hotmail.es

Insertion of a marker into the cells to be used by the lymphocytes against the cancer.Key words: cancer, marker, lymphocyte.

In an adult individual, the normal cell is divided into two cells, that is, it is transformed from 1 into 2, and afterward from 2 into 1 (1 → 1 + 1 → 1), since of the two daughter cells only one will be divided (the other will die without being divided). However, the cancerous cell is transformed from 1 into 2, and afterward from 2 into 4 (1 → 1 + 1 → (1 + 1) + (1 + 1)), 8, 16, 32, ... (that is, 2n, with n = 0, 1, 2, 3, ...).

But, inserting a marker, which does not divide, into the cells, only one of the daughter cells would have a marker, independently of whether the mother cell was normal or cancerous:1x →1x +1→1x ...(normalcell,xbeingthemarker)and1x →1x +1→(1x+ 1) + (1 + 1) ... (cancerous cell).

Now, modified lymphocytes are injected to destroy all the cells without a marker. This would impede that any cancer can grow, allowing a greater, easier and cheaper healing.

The key questions are: 1) Is it possible to create a marker that does not divide?. That is, that the marker goes from a mother cell to only one of the two daughter cells (1x → 1x + 1). And, in addition, the marker must activate the division of the cell before its death (whichimpliesthat1x →1x +1→1x insteadof1x →1x +1→1).2)Canthismarkerbe inserted into the cells?. If the marker is inserted using a virus as a carrier, this must be removed before the injection of the lymphocytes. 3) Can a lymphocyte be modified to destroy all the cells without a marker?. If these questions are solved affirmatively, then the method could function.

In summary, insertion of a marker into the cells to be used by the lymphocytes against the cancer. This is a simple suggestion from a layman.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Pods

[Anastasis 23717]

Just now, Pods said:

I had just googled it too. These are the topics under Biology. 

 Biology

• Biochemistry (316) - and the origins of life
• Physics of Biology (463) - including quantum biology and bio-physics
• Mind Science (237) - covering psychology, neuroscience and consciousness
• Quantitative Biology (95) - such as computational methods

 

Under Biochemistry, there are a bunch of topics about bio energy fields

[RayDog 682]

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I actually do find it interesting, but at this point it is a complete and utter derail of the topic of this thread.

Some posters like to attack my science or lifestyle rather than respond to my on-topic posts. I will defend myself from personal attacks but would prefer that they stayed on-topic.

As far as vixra goes I know it is mostly garbage but I often put a copy of my papers there because I can get an extra 500 reads.

Edited July 10, 2018 by RayDog

[David Dennison 19534]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

[Anastasis 23717]

7 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Some posters like to attack my science or lifestyle rather than respond to my on-topic posts. I will defend myself from personal attacks but would prefer that they stayed on-topic.

 As far as vixra goes I know it is mostly garbage but I often put a copy of my papers there because I can get an extra 500 reads.

Just curious, was the paper that you linked earlier published in a peer reviewed journal?

[Incredulity 11876]

If Merriam and Webster were still around they would define Irony as the modern liberals denunciation of Christianity and most specifically Jesus.

Wait...., someone call Alanis Morrisette.

[David Dennison 19534]

Just now, Incredulity said:

If Merriam and Webster were still around they would define Irony as the modern liberals denunciation of Christianity and most specifically Jesus.

Wait...., someone call Alanis Morrisette.

I don't think liberals have any problem with Jesus. Jesus was about as liberal as it gets.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I honestly wasnt familiar with the platform. Had to google it. Apparently it is a hotbed of quackdipshittery. 

viXra (arXiv spelled backwards) is basically a public google docs.  Anyone can submit anything to vixra and link to the eprint; there is no quality standard.  It attracts the type of content that you would expect from such a platform.

 

1 hour ago, Pods said:

I had just googled it too. These are the topics under Biology. 

Biology

• Biochemistry (316) - and the origins of life
• Physics of Biology (463) - including quantum biology and bio-physics
• Mind Science (237) - covering psychology, neuroscience and consciousness
• Quantitative Biology (95) - such as computational methods

 

Under Biochemistry, there are a bunch of topics about bio energy fields. 

This might be my favorite though. This is the entire article. 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0301v1.pdf

One day we will all thank Jose for outlining a method to cure the cancer once and for all.

The psychology of crankery is interesting.  One makes one a quack or crank?  It's not simply a matter of being wrong.  Ever person who has ever learned a difficult subject is going to get many things wrong.  Even the world's leading experts get things wrong from time to time; sometimes they are even forced to discard ideas that they believed were true for many years.  It's also not simply a matter of being naive; probably most everyone who enters college is a bit naive (I know I was and still can be after all these years) and believes they will change the world.  I think the hallmark of a crank is the complete confidence and insistence on an idea in spite of the fact that virtually every expert within the entire discipline will be unanimous that the idea is clearly false.  Cranks will take on the entire academy with complete confidence and insist that they are all wrong and even accuse the academy of sinister behavior, lies, and conspiracy.  

So cranks are not to be confused with simply being a novice, amateur, or even someone who is wrong about a given topic in science.  Most people are capable of being shown that they are wrong, admit that they were wrong, and learn from the process. A crank is someone who is wrong and yet clings to the delusion of being right even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The more evidence and proofs you show them that their position is incorrect, the more emphatically they will believe and defend their position.  

Here are a couple of interesting reads on the phenomenon (notice in the first some striking similarities to our own resident):

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Guest

[Huckleberry 34633]

18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If Merriam and Webster were still around they would define Irony as the modern liberals denunciation of Christianity and most specifically Jesus.

Wait...., someone call Alanis Morrisette.

lulz

To paraphrase Gandhi, it's the Christians who suck, not the Christianity.

[RayDog 682]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Just curious, was the paper that you linked earlier published in a peer reviewed journal?

No. I published it in my book The Zero-Point Universe first, so journals would not look at it.

I will also say that I am for open-access, so I would not publish in most journals. Lately of have been publishing to GSJournal, which is not peer reviewed in a strict sense, but the editors are competent at performing a review. I also copy my work on researchgate.net and academia.edu, as I often get good feedback there. I still have not found someone to give me access to arxiv, as non-academic researchers like me often get frozen out by them. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by RayDog