swansont Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 1. Interactive Physics is physics and motion simulation software by Design Simulation Technologies. Also used was Newton by DesignSoft. 2. On an off-line computer. 3. Your question is not pertinent to you addressing my question about our hypothesis. Off-line means we don't have access to it. So your suggestion of just opening it up to find the info is not helpful. It's also hard to fathom that energy is a fixed parameter of the program, rather than a user input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt E Nyman Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 Off-line means we don't have access to it. So your suggestion of just opening it up to find the info is not helpful. It's also hard to fathom that energy is a fixed parameter of the program, rather than a user input. Since you are not listening to anything I am saying, why don't you use any physics simulation program you want and repeat my simulations. You will get the same results. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 1. I have provided the simulations as well as illustrations to make the results more accessible. No you haven't. You said it was on an off-line computer. 2. No, why should they. I have already provided the simulations. No you haven't. You said it was on an off-line computer. 3. You don't have to run the simulations again, unless you think I am lying to you. The whole basis of science is checking other people's results. As you won't provide any data or even your models, how can anyone check that you conclusions are reasonable? 4. I am providing the quantification of binding energy of Deuterium, calculated as a result of the hypothesis. It matches the values given by others. I am unable to see where you provide this. Nor where you show how it is calculated. 5. You will get the same results we did. Then you should not be afraid of providing the data you used. 6. Now please address the physics aspects of our hypothesis or simply point out that you are not equipped or interested in doing so. How can I when you refuse to provide any data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt E Nyman Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) A. The simulations of hydrogen and neutron gravity are simple. You can do them yourself, after which we will have a better climate for this discussion. B. The simulations of strong force are more complex and a bit delicate, just like the balance between repulsion and strong force attraction. C. The simulations, 3D modeling and calculations of Deuterium binding energy is very complex and of little use to you until you believe or repeat at least point A above. Edited October 30, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Since you are not listening to anything I am saying, why don't you use any physics simulation program you want and repeat my simulations. You will get the same results. See above. I can't repeat your simulation without knowing the energy to use. The details of scattering depend on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Since you are not listening to anything I am saying, why don't you use any physics simulation program you want and repeat my simulations. You will get the same results. See above. This implies nobody has simulated such things before and you are the first to notice these things. Many such simulations have been done and so it seems likely that your simulations, or you conclusions based on those simulations, are in error. Without more detail, no one can know why your are getting erroneous results. Just saying "run a random simulation" doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt E Nyman Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) I can't repeat your simulation without knowing the energy to use. The details of scattering depend on it. Before we even worry about the more complex proton simulations, please take a look at the hydrogen and neutron gravity simulations with zero initial velocity: 2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 simulated hydrogen atoms: 2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms with free quarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8sZvadCHH4 3D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms. 3D model of a Neutron: 2D Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with trapped quarks: 3D Charge Posturing and ES Gravity between 2 neutrons: This implies nobody has simulated such things before and you are the first to notice these things. Many such simulations have been done and so it seems likely that your simulations, or you conclusions based on those simulations, are in error. Without more detail, no one can know why your are getting erroneous results. Just saying "run a random simulation" doesn't help. I don't know if anybody has simulated with enough accuracy or gave it enough time to start seeing the results. Please look at the time laps simulations above before you jump to any conclusions. Also take a look at a general mathematical expression showing that there is ALWAYS a finite positive rest force as a result of ES particle posturing and interaction: The electrostatic dipole Figure 1. Conceptual numerical example according to Coulomb's Law: Attraction = Ke* q^2* (/0.9^2 + e^2/1.1^2 - e^2/1^2 - e^2/1^2) = Ke* q^2* (1/0.81 + 1/1.21 - 1/1 - 1/1) = Ke* q^2* (1.23456790 + 0.82644628 - 1 - 1) = Ke* q^2* (0.06101418) = Ke* 0.061q^2 As can be seen in the result of the calculation above, the dipole interaction between two atoms always yields a finite, positive attracting rest force causing gravity. Edited October 31, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 ! Moderator Note This is soapboxing. You are not answering questions, you are ignoring comments, and you are failing to abide by the rules and guidelines of the Speculations forum. This is a forum provided for discussion and critique of new ideas not a place for preaching - our members come here to debate not to be lectured at; when asked for details you must provide them and when challenged on specific point you must engage. Thread locked. For the avoidance of doubt - you do NOT have permission to open another thread on Gravitons/Charge Posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts