Won't you do the least bit of research, pete? 😉Do you have a reference for this? Just want to make sure there are no clerical errors.
Quantum chromodynamics - Wikipedia
The second paragraph is a perfect example of the behavior which is described in the first. This is beautiful enough to frame.
I find all this extremely interesting and beautiful. I recently had shoulder surgery so I looked a bit into how shoulders 'work'. The body side of the joint is connected to the shoulder blade, most will be aware of that. Did you know that only in humans (with the exception of one ape species), the shoulder blade sort of floats on the rib cage? In all other species the blade is fixed to the rib case. The advantage of a floating blade is that by moving the blade you can change the angle of the joint, which gives us the incredible large angular range of motion of the joint.
That again is the reason that only humans (and that one ape) can throw a spear!
But primitive humans still had a fixed shoulder blade. The really incredible thing is that we see that shoulder blade start to 'float' at the time that primitive humanoids started to pick up stones to throw to animals (and each other). The better throwers had more chance of living long enough to spawn offspring, transmitting the genetic setup that would promote a more flexible connection of the shoulder blade to the rib cage. The math shows that over long timescales, even extremely small differential survival differences will ultimately become dominant. This resulted, as we all know, in ever more sophisticated throwing weapons culminating in finely balanced spears and Olympic champions.
Evolution as a principle, is at the same time so incredibly simple that you can easily explain it to kids, as well as so incredibly creative as to where it can lead. It never ceases to amaze me.
Jan
That again is the reason that only humans (and that one ape) can throw a spear!
But primitive humans still had a fixed shoulder blade. The really incredible thing is that we see that shoulder blade start to 'float' at the time that primitive humanoids started to pick up stones to throw to animals (and each other). The better throwers had more chance of living long enough to spawn offspring, transmitting the genetic setup that would promote a more flexible connection of the shoulder blade to the rib cage. The math shows that over long timescales, even extremely small differential survival differences will ultimately become dominant. This resulted, as we all know, in ever more sophisticated throwing weapons culminating in finely balanced spears and Olympic champions.
Evolution as a principle, is at the same time so incredibly simple that you can easily explain it to kids, as well as so incredibly creative as to where it can lead. It never ceases to amaze me.
Jan
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I thought gluons were massless. I’m pretty sure that’s the current consensus. Maybe look at E = mc^2 and consider the binding energy of the quarks to find where the mass of the proton/neutron comes from.
Nope. You don't know what you don't know here. That's as simple as I can put it. I've been studying this stuff a long time.
Thanks Galu. I'm working on reinventing myself, hence the new moniker. Notice?😀
Realtime evolution. That's "realtime" with no space. 🙂
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You’ve been looking in the wrong places. Your science is almost all completely wrong, starting with it being deterministic. You’ve already said that you believe we have free choice, so as far as I am concerned you’ve already disagreed in a fundamental way with your own publication. Sorry, but you just appear to be on a fringe without credibility.
@bigun
I should say also that I've seen a pattern of overestimating your knowledge on many things and then coming out with didactic comments. You really can and should do better. I generally know when I have little knowledge on a subject and just refrain from commenting. I've noticed very broadly that you don't have that built in filter.
You also refuse to take criticism even when it's well deserved. There seems to be little point in being civil with you when you refuse to do proper research and diminish the knowledge of your betters in specific fields.
I should say also that I've seen a pattern of overestimating your knowledge on many things and then coming out with didactic comments. You really can and should do better. I generally know when I have little knowledge on a subject and just refrain from commenting. I've noticed very broadly that you don't have that built in filter.
You also refuse to take criticism even when it's well deserved. There seems to be little point in being civil with you when you refuse to do proper research and diminish the knowledge of your betters in specific fields.
Last edited:
There's a glitch preventing me from posting with the original so in the meantime...Which pete, disco pete 1.0 or 2.0?
Admin is working on it. Who knows, this may be the new me.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I won’t debate it further with you, it is too close to your heart, you are too vested in this and I don’t want to attack you on this again as it makes me feel bad. I admire your dedication and genuine interest in physics, because it has been my own subject of study (from youth to PhD). I’ve already given you my earnest opinion and hope you will take some time to consider the deterministic underpinnings of the paper you linked, perhaps following this will allow you further insight before tackling your rejection of key aspects of accepted quantum theory.
As for filtering, I don’t take this thread too seriously, it’s been a fun ride. You will see others have had just as much fun. In other threads outside of the lounge we are behaving better! Just look at Ken’s work on NOS DAC’s that is doing some interesting things.
Last edited:
This is a point I’ve been making since the beginning of these threads; the pseudoskeptic’s argument (no matter what the topic) is inherently bad faith. To attempt to “debate” a pseudoskeptic is to enter a debate with a handicap, namely, that you are a crank/ignorant/magic thinker (etc) and all arguments from the pseudoskeptic are premised on this. This is why there is no reason to debate civilly with a pseudoskeptic; on the contrary, the whole point of debating one is to get under their skin, insult them and do whatever it takes to obliterate the Oz illusion and demonstrate for everyone the little man behind the curtain, driven more by emotion, identity and knee-jerk reactionary impulses than by so-called facts and logic.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You may feel bad because you post fringe stuff yourself and because ‘fringe’ carries negative connotations. Nevertheless, when you promote ideas that are widely viewed by the mainstream (a.k.a. Majority of experts in the field) as wrong, you have put yourself on the fringe by definition whether you like it or not. And fringe ideas propagate where understanding has gaps, not where verifiable facts exist since by definition verifiable facts are the grist of the mainstream.
Feel free to criticize my ideas as much as you like. I have found criticism to be of huge value when it is done well.
The biggest handicap to debate is belief. Hence why it’s banned in large part around here.
Feel free to criticize my ideas as much as you like. I have found criticism to be of huge value when it is done well.
The biggest handicap to debate is belief. Hence why it’s banned in large part around here.
Last edited:
The mass of gluons has to do with bare and dressed charges of quarks. My understanding is that the dressed charges of quarks includes the mass of the gluons. The naked charge and mass of a quark is a very small percentage of the dressed charge. That naked mass is associated with the Higgs mass though I'm not sure it's identical. But the Higgs is basically what gives the quark its mass. But it's not enough to give the proton or neutron its total mass.
The mass that enters into the gluon has to do with asymptotic freedom and asymptotic safety. As the quarks move farther away from each other within the nucleon the bonds of the gluons grows stronger and eventually rigidly confines them. That bond is so strong it is overwhelming in opposing any force trying to move them apart farther. Technically you could say that all the mass is in the quark itself but it just isn't true. The binding force itself is in the dressed mass of the quark and that dressed mass comes from the gluons binding strength. So Wikipedia might say that quarks provide all the mass but that is just a superficial way of looking at it.
The mass that enters into the gluon has to do with asymptotic freedom and asymptotic safety. As the quarks move farther away from each other within the nucleon the bonds of the gluons grows stronger and eventually rigidly confines them. That bond is so strong it is overwhelming in opposing any force trying to move them apart farther. Technically you could say that all the mass is in the quark itself but it just isn't true. The binding force itself is in the dressed mass of the quark and that dressed mass comes from the gluons binding strength. So Wikipedia might say that quarks provide all the mass but that is just a superficial way of looking at it.
Are you suggesting my position on evolution is unfounded!?
LET"S GET READY TO RUMBAAAAL!
More armchair argumentation from a person who’s willingly ignorant about the subject and as such has contributed nothing of substance to the subject of the thread.
It’s a shame you lack the courage of other scientists who looked into these “gaps,” concluded there was something worth looking at even if concluding so was, Newton forbid, heterodox. In fact, your cut-and-run argumentation in this thread speaks very clearly of this cowardly tendency.
You’re no doubt comfortable with your own expertise (I don’t doubt it either); it’s a shame you couldn’t marshal any of it to challenge the findings of someone like J. Allen Hynek or James MacDonald. Maybe things will change.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.