It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.
When two particles spin in counterclockwise to clockwise directions it creates friction between the two particles, this friction force is capable of binding particles together.In contrast when particles spin in the same direction they are repelled.
This is correct.
Originally posted by binomialtheorem
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.
First off the weak nuclear force isn't gravity. Gravity is another force altogether.
Originally posted by binomialtheorem
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.
First off the weak nuclear force isn't gravity. Gravity is another force altogether.
The strong nuclear force is a force, not the spin of subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.
When two particles spin in counterclockwise to clockwise directions it creates friction between the two particles, this friction force is capable of binding particles together.In contrast when particles spin in the same direction they are repelled.
Friction is caused by electromagnetism.
How can friction bind particles together, if the force that is causing friction is making them repel?
This is what happened when I read the first paragraph.
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.
Originally posted by binomialtheorem
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.
Yeah, I'm not going to even begin to tell you how wrong you are, mostly because you're light year ahead of me anyway.
Originally posted by nii900
and there is chandragupta too or hidden image ..or a print sumwhere sumtimes isnt it
the one that was overwritten and that should be overwrite again ..or not?edit on 16-3-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)
The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
I'm not sure you want to quote Haramein. His theory says the mass of a proton is 39 orders of magnitude larger than what we observe, and he admits the discrepancy, which makes him a charlatan, or a crackpot, or both. So anyone quoting him will probably find themselves labeled similarly. I don't think that's what you want, is it?
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
another scientist has realised the power of spin in regards to the unified field theory
The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
www.theresonanceproject.org...
not sure if he realised it before me but ive only been doing physics for 3 years.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure you want to quote Haramein. His theory says the mass of a proton is 39 orders of magnitude larger than what we observe, and he admits the discrepancy, which makes him a charlatan, or a crackpot, or both. So anyone quoting him will probably find themselves labeled similarly. I don't think that's what you want, is it?
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
another scientist has realised the power of spin in regards to the unified field theory
The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
www.theresonanceproject.org...
not sure if he realised it before me but ive only been doing physics for 3 years.
If you've done physics for 3 years, that's 3 years longer than Haramein. In physics, theory and observation must agree with each other, for Haramein that's not a requirement so he's not doing physics, it's something else. In the physics forums they call his work "crackpottery".
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning
yes it is well known that particles spin,practicly all of them do at near the speed of ligh generating enormous potential for friction/torque.
First I read that red, green and blue quark colors aren't really red, green and blue, and now I read that things that have spin don't really spin?
Originally posted by john_bmth
Electrons don't actually spin...
Sheesh, do you think these physicists are trying to confuse us or something with these names they pick?
The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning
yes it is well known that particles spin,practicly all of them do at near the speed of ligh generating enormous potential for friction/torque.
Electrons don't actually spin...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
First I read that red, green and blue quark colors aren't really red, green and blue, and now I read that things that have spin don't really spin?
Originally posted by john_bmth
Electrons don't actually spin...
What's next? Is someone going to tell me the big bang wasn't big? Or that it wasn't a bang? or both?
Sheesh, do you think these physicists are trying to confuse us or something with these names they pick?
The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
First I read that red, green and blue quark colors aren't really red, green and blue, and now I read that things that have spin don't really spin?
Originally posted by john_bmth
Electrons don't actually spin...
What's next? Is someone going to tell me the big bang wasn't big? Or that it wasn't a bang? or both?
Sheesh, do you think these physicists are trying to confuse us or something with these names they pick?
The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang.
Did you read your own link?
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
electrons do spin
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere.
Originally posted by john_bmth
It's all part of the grand disinfo scheme to lead the public away from the 'true' science performed in space by ninjas