Summations Only

For anyone who is interested in the Hunt for the Higgs video program that Tangle mentions here, the entire video is now available on YouTube. You can easily find it by doing a search.

Well Krauss' book has been out for something like three months, and surely designtheorist could have gotten to that Feynman paper by now. Perhaps DT is no longer interested.I hope it wasn't too mean spirited of me to point those things out.

So you believe that demonstrating electrical phenomena within the magnetosphere of a planet is sufficient evidence of your proposition? I cannot telly you what to believe, but you haven't shown anything like evidence that direct measurements show currents "every where we have looked or gone".Is this electric universe another one of those subjects that is on topic everywhere? I hope not.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is all fine, but this isn't really getting to the meat of the matter is it? In order for the plasma in the sun to have an electric effect on the solar system, then for things more than several diameters away, it would be important for the sun to have a net charge. Does it? Instead what we see is the solar system acting exactly as if the sun were affecting the motion of all of the other planets by warping space time to produce gravity effects.Yes, we can agree that the orbit of planets is largely determined by the plasma of the sun. But that's a far cry from any proof that the effect under question is not simply the mass of the plasma rather than being charge related.

Nonsense. essentially none of the earth is plasma nor is the earth significantly charged. Accordingly, it's motion in the solar system is determined almost entirely by the mass in the system without even considering the form that mass takes. How honest I am? Perhaps we'll learn how foolish you are instead. You could not possibly have thought this through.There is, of course more than one way to accelerate charged particles. Yes, such particles do accelerate under the influence of magnetic and electrical forces, and we can lump those two things together as one 'way. But charged particles also have mass, and thus are subject to gravitational forces. Charged nucleons (protons) and uncharged nucleons are also subject to the strong nuclear force at close distances. We can also accelerate charged particles by smacking them with other particles, charged or uncharged.One might well ask what forces of nature are incapable of accelerating a charged particle.Are you going to answer my question regarding the lack of evidence that nuclear fusion occurs in the sun?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I sure wish I'd read this crap before I bothered responding to you. Besides the fact that I'm way less than 100 years old so no one has been lying to me for that long, I should know better than to indulge 'physics is all wrong' proponents, affectionately known as (aka) cranks. Electrostatic forces are strong, yes, but let's note that performing your feat requires separating negative charge from positive charge. I don't know if your claim is correct; it sounds quite dubious. But the claim sure is meaningless in advancing your proposal.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I believe the statement below is an attempt to be on topic.

A fair proposal, but one that is not matched to the evidence. The standard model does predict an extremely tiny neutron dipole moment of 10—32ecm, but that moment is simple not strong enough to explain why an atom like He-3 is completely stable despite the repulsion of the two protons. The strong nuclear force does that work.There is a wikipedia article on the neutron electric dipole moment that is reasonably supported with pointers to the experimental evidence and the theoretical support for the tiny value of the nedm. I see no reason to take your word for it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When we measure voltage at a point we measure a difference in potential between that point and a reference. We can choose different reference potentials and thus get different voltage readings for the same point.I don't think this idea is in any way helpful to justatruthseeker, but let's watch him run with it. I'm beginning to enjoy his, er... enthusiasm for rescuing science from the lies and cover ups. I see a future POTM nomination for him.

Okay. I pick signal ground of the laptop computer I'm typing on. Now it's your turn. Please show your work. Remember of course that for atoms the separation of charge is on the order of 1 to 100 Angstrom.Potential results from a charge separation. When I am at a distance between a separated +1e and -1e charge that dwarfs the separation distance between the charges what force will I feel. Hint, force law from a dipole is 1/r^3 and not 1/r^2. Remeber also that the sign and magnitude of the force depends on the orientation of the dipoles to my laptop, where sad orientation is probably random distributed. My educated guess is zero total for all atoms in the universe, but show me your workEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

From the article in wikipedia that you quoted, but did not read to closely, let's take this answer.

quote:

---

In the context of binding protons and neutrons together to form atoms, the strong interaction is called the nuclear force (or residual strong force). In this case, it is the residuum of the strong interaction between the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons. As such, the residual strong interaction obeys a quite different distance-dependent behavior between nucleons, from when it is acting to bind quarks within nucleons. The binding energy related to the residual strong force is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

---

To sum up the above, the strong nuclear force is a residuum of the strong interaction between quarks. The strong interaction is the inter quark force. The strong force is the inter nucleon force.So the question to answer now is whether the interquark force is electrostatic. Well apparently not.

quote:

---

At atomic scale, it [the strong interaction] is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, which in turn is orders of magnitude stronger than the weak force interaction and gravitation.

---

You did not cite anything that tells us what gravity is. Let me describe the situation in some detail. Picture an electron and a proton centered at exactly the same point. Each would generate a electric field equal and opposite from that generated by the other particle, yielding no net electric field through out all of space. On the other hand separating the charges by some distances does creates a net electric dipole field, but the field is not spherically symmetrical. Both sign and magnitude depends on the orientation of the dipole. Now given random orientations relative to some external object, the net electric field would again be zero. In order to detect the dipole we would need some way to align the orientations.Even given some alignment, the dipole force law is not an inverse square law relationship. If this was the way gravity was produced, we would observe that planets did not obey a 1/r^2 force law, and we would observe that gravity could be repulsive rather than attractive. We would also observe that gravity would have zero effect on objects having neutral charge. Finally, we would observe forces that were not proportional to the mass of the object. Accordingly no equivalence principle meaning that General Relativity is a bunch of hooey. No explanation for the anomaly in the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, and Earth, etc. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's take this statement to be correct.So what? The point is that it is not electro-magnetic. The strong nuclear force is generated by the strong interaction which is a fundamental force, and which is not generated by charge. The attractive force between nucleons is greater than can be generated by electrostatic forces.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you going to explain why my calculation of the potential difference for all of the atoms in the universe measured relative to my chosen ground potential is wrong? You did not actually address the point.Are you capable of calculating the electric field for a dipole? Can you make an argument that I have done it incorrectly?

No. I mean the same people who say the strong force is a residuum of the strong interaction. Remember that you are the one who provided the reference saying exactly that.And no a force is not "moving charges", so why not tell us what you really mean when you say that. I cannot address this until you say something coherent.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.