The four fundamental forces

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

The four fundamental forces

Unread post by saul » Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:52 am


User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The four fundamental forces

Unread post by D_Archer » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:41 am

There is only one fundamental force:

Chuck Norris:
Image

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

User avatar
rnboyd
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: The four fundamental forces

Unread post by rnboyd » Fri May 29, 2015 9:59 am

There is no "strong force". Read "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose, and get back to me on that. Good cartoon, by the way. :)
The subquantum unfies all the sciences.

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The four fundamental forces

Unread post by Webbman » Fri May 29, 2015 6:40 pm

I see the nuclear force as a sawblade with a tennisball in its hole hopelessly trying to spin into a basketball.
I see gravity as the same sawblade hopelessly trying to rotate like a drill into the same basketball at the same time.

Its hopeless because the teninsball repels the basketball preventing the sawblade from getting too close or too far.

So other than Chuck Norris, who is a force to be reckoned with, there is only one fundamental force, the electric force, which likes to try to spin and drill sawblades into basketballs.

at least the way I see it.
its all lies.

fractal-geoff
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: The four fundamental forces

Unread post by fractal-geoff » Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:12 am

Subject: Faults in science that affect common theory…
Sub-subject; the four fundamental forces…
Disclaimer: I don’t support concepts in any way based upon the universe having a start or limits of distance; these ideas come from the alternative.
As per the cartoon & comments: The strong force as originally visualized is a bit of a magic force. I’ll try to make it simple…
Electricity as a common concept, is something to do with positive and negative bits (& possibly neutral bits; don’t want to over complicate)
The P & N bits are regarded to have these attraction and repulsion components associated with them.
These P & N concepts are also confused with magnetism or magnetic effects and polarity with North & South poles. (I’m just saying; in common perceptions, the meaning of these words gets a bit mixed up.)
These are all electromagnetic effects with many physical similarities but they are happening across many completely different scales with different causes within those scales.
I offer some unusual ideas and suggest that gravity is an effect caused by energy being compressed across multiple scales in a single volume; a type of strain that moves down through scale; a fractal energy strain.
I offer that electromagnetic energy must move as part of its actually being energy whether as a wiggle or wobble or as part of a more organized energy structure.
I observe that the most common form of movement in the universe is rotation and that forces stay more constant when associated with rotation. Also rotation around an axis causes differentials of movement that cause fractal sub-patterns of rotation to arise…*/The basis of forming long lived dense pattern structures.
Rotation causes weak forces of attraction between rotating objects and when limits are reached - forces of strong repulsion; these forces don’t obviously comply with inverse square concepts because they are caused by differentials in rotational vectors.
I ask; in the large scales do we see galaxies racing toward each other through gravitational attraction, do we see solar systems bashing into each other also attracted by gravity?
In the small scales, do we see atoms naturally knocking into each other and breaking up? I suggest that in each scale there are forces that mirror the strong and weak atomic forces but that they don’t rely on the mysterious Positive Negative attraction or likes repelling analogies used within convention.
These electromagnetic forces are vastly more concentrated in the smaller scales.
In each of these scales [galaxy, solar system, atom] energy in equals energy out of the ‘energy structure’ or life expectancy is affected.
Any of these scales: the volume of the “energy in” is not necessarily the same as the volume out, the “energy in” is usually lower density waveforms from distance and “energy out” is usually fractally denser types of waveforms than those that entered. This change of energy volume would cause a continuously attractive force toward the compression forces acting within any volume of energy movement.
I could go on but would lose people… too many ideas too short a time…
What I’m trying to say is that there are alternative explanations of these forces made of mundane every day science but we don’t use them because they don’t really fit the official representation. Our current explanations have core components of the ideas that have origins that go back before written history. [Fundamental particles, equal & opposites, positive and negative… a beginning of the universe] These ideas have parallels across religions and general society and affect all the ideas built on top of them. As humans we build on ideas so it’s like an inverted house of cards; if you want to keep your job don’t challenge them. I’m being cynical, go ahead challenge them but understand that industry is built upon common understanding; the repercussions of changing fundamental concepts reach beyond the game of finding alternatives. It is just a game isn’t it?
Cheers all
Geoff

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests