Grand Unified Theory

[Mike C]

You seem to have little to no quantum physics, no quantum field theory, etc. Many of your posts are "referenced" as simply your opinion.

 

Quantum Physics or Plancks math did only ONE thing. It tranformed light to a 'pulse'.

When dealing with the nature of the universe, its application is essential only with the nature of the star light. Bohr's solutions did that.

Those are the only things I need to promote my version of Cosmology.

Your detailed descriptions of other non essentials regarding cosmology are mute.

 

You have to understand much to really understand the theory of the strong nuclear force.

 

I do not need the theory since I know the facts about the SF. These are that it is supposed to be 137 times stronger than the EM force BUT with the ridiculous short range of the width of a nucleon (10^-15 meters).

Does this sound realistic to you?

 

Easy counterexample- Earth. On top of its orbital angular momentum it spins on its axis (which is as obvious as night and day).

 

Your comparing the space between the Sun-Earth distance to these local planetary satellite distances?

This is a ludicrous comparison.

 

the proton is very much larger than the electron orbitting it.

 

I am aware of the experiments that determined the physical size of the proton. But those references you provide for the electron are time consuming and I am not interested since this issue is NOT important regarding cosmology.

 

Also, please note that the latter shows that the electron is a point mass ON THE LENGTH SCALES WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROBE. String theory, for instance, posits that the electron (and all particles) have a string like structure on some small length scale we don't yet have access to.

 

The 'string theory' is just that. An unproven theory that may never be substantiated. Just another attempt to give the religious BBU some credibility.

 

Also, please note that the latter shows that the electron is a point mass ON THE LENGTH SCALES WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROBE. String theory, for instance, posits that the electron (and all particles) have a string like structure on some small length scale we don't yet have access to.

 

Ha ha.

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

Quantum Physics or Plancks math did only ONE thing. It tranformed light to a 'pulse'.

When dealing with the nature of the universe, its application is essential only with the nature of the star light. Bohr's solutions did that.

 

This isn't at all true. Bohr's model of the atom is ad-hoc, it was quantum mechanics that created a first-principles model of the hydrogen atom. Quantum mechanics showed that light had a particle nature, BUT it also showed that electrons (and all matter) had a wavelike structure as well.

 

Those are the only things I need to promote my version of Cosmology.

Your detailed descriptions of other non essentials regarding cosmology are mute.

 

For future reference, the word you mean is most probably moot. Now, I have only brought up anything detailed either by request, or because it reveals problems in the physics you promote. You are quite willing to throw out any physics you disagree with- which isn't how the game of science is played.

 

I do not need the theory since I know the facts about the SF.

 

This is silly. The theory encompasses the facts about the strong force.

 

Your comparing the space between the Sun-Earth distance to these local planetary satellite distances?

This is a ludicrous comparison.

 

Fine, yet another counterexample- our moon. For every one rotation around the Earth, the Moon revolves once on its axis. i.e. it both rotates around its axis AND orbits the Earth. (This is why the Moon always shows the Earth the same side).

 

I am aware of the experiments that determined the physical size of the proton. But those references you provide for the electron are time consuming and I am not interested since this issue is NOT important regarding cosmology.

 

It is indeed important to your theory of fusion from stars. (which is how we got on this tangent) I claim your theory is completely broken, and you claim to be too busy to deal with objections. Also, the very experiments that determine the physical size of the proton also determine that the electron is much smaller.

-Will

[Mike C]

Erasmus

 

Granted, I should have used the word 'moot'.

 

However, these posts are getting too long and time consuming,so I will no longer keep repeating what I have already said.

 

NS

[Qfwfq]

...so I will no longer keep repeating what I have already said.

Which means I can close the thread.