Does the gluon or gluons orbit quarks "8"-shaped or regular orbiting trajectory?

 

Above this text is an image of Neutron (Image 1). The effect of the strong interaction strong nuclear force marked as a "Y"-shaped structure. But what is the thing that makes those quarks stay in one entirety? The  2 down quarks and 1 up quarks. Along with gluons, those quarks form neutrons. 2 Up quarks and 1 down quark with gluons form protons. The gluons connecting those particles to their entirety are called neutrons or protons. 

The strong interaction is not the interaction between quarks. It is the interaction between quarks and gluons. But why gluons are keeping the neutrons and protons as one entirety. There is the possibility that the gluon is orbiting quarks by the eight-shaped trajectory. And that thing means that the pressure of that particle is pushing the quarks to one entirety. Those trajectories are drawn in image 2 by using black circles. (Image 2)

When we are thinking about image 2. There are marked possible trajectories of gluons. The trajectories could be "8"-shaped. But gluons can also orbit those quarks with regular orbiting trajectories. That causes an idea that could there be the forms that we can call "atoms in atoms". So could some elementary particle be the "miniature atom"? 

Why do I think like this? The reason for that is that. If the gluons are moving or jumping between those quarks. That could destroy the proton or neuron. So there must be some kind of electromagnetic vacuum in the middle of those quarks. Or the gluons would orbit around those quarks that cause their quantum fields are pushing quarks together. 

Image 2: 

Explanation 2. 

Could the mysterious graviton be the particle in the middle of the proton or neutron? The theory is that graviton could just be the quantum-size black hole. 

About the question of why protons and neutrons are in their form? In that case. The quantum-size black hole or hypothetical graviton pulls superstrings from quarks inside it. That thing causes the radiation that is called dark energy and the expansion of the universe. 

But that requires that graviton exists. The hypothetical quantum-size black holes are acting just like large black holes. When they are pulling something inside them. That thing causes radiation. So could the graviton be the quantum-size black hole?

But there can be some other interesting explanation for that thing. And that thing is the most fascinating in the world. Maybe there is graviton in the middle of protons or neutrons. That thing means that the graviton could be a quantum-size black hole. That pulls the strings from the quarks inside it. 

Because energy or superstrings are traveling only in one direction. That is in the middle of the quarks that cause the recoil effect. The recoil effect keeps those quarks at a certain distance from the center of the particle. And the balance between the pushing and pulling effect keeps those quarks in one entirety. 

But if quarks are like small yarn balls they are losing their mass all the time when that quantum-size black hole will pull those superstrings in it. And that causes the radiation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

https://thoughtsaboutsuperpositions.blogspot.com/

The principle of the using force in international arenas

(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There is one principle for using force in international politics. That is “the first strike looks very bad thing”. So if we are following this principle and make induction think about this very complicated thing, we must say that the best way to justify own military action against another nation is to provocate opponent to use force against own troops. This is the most elegant way to begin little war against other nations.


Let’s think about the philosophy of the force. If some nation has nuclear weapons, the other world would be very tolerated against that nation. And nuclear armament gives the politicians the very good reason to let conflicts be. When we are talking about the role of nuclear weapons in many conflicts, we must say that no nuclear countries have ever prosecuted in international court.


Also, the nuclear weapons have very good influence in other military operations, or do you think that the nuclear arsenal of the United States or Russia has no influence, how other nations would defend their citizens in the case, that those nations special forces operate in their area. Ald this is the treatment, what makes nations proud.


That’s the reason why France, United Kingdom, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa and North Korea have to provide those weapons. They have seen how the other nuclear nations would be dealing in international politics. There is a long list of nations that don’t let their soldiers to an international court for defending themselves for war crimes. Or have you ever heard that any member of those nations special- or conventional military forces ever convicted or prosecuted in the international court?


There is the reason, why Great Britain and France produced their own nuclear arsenals, what is smaller, but also an effective threat in the hands of those governments. The reason was that those nations had colonies, what became independent mainly in 1950’s and 1960’s, In those nations, military forces were the threat, that members of the colonial army were prosecuted as war criminals And that was the reason for purchasing nuclear weapons.


And the example of those nations was the impulse for other players in the international area for beginning the production of nuclear armament. Those weapons are the very good threat, and they keep other nations out of the nuclear states internal business. From the shield of nuclear weapons is very good to begin attacks against hostile actors. And the tolerance of actions what nuclear state does is very high. And this is the good reason to take those weapons in the arsenal.


The world woke up to the threat of nuclear arsenal when Pakistan made the first nuclear test. Now the first Islamic state had those weapons in hand. And at least when North Korea made its first nuclear test and tested the missiles, what would have range even in Finland and other Scandinavia, we realized that those weapons are real. North Korea was not “quiet country” anymore. It was the new nuclear state, what has the technology to make missiles, what can attack in great part of the World. And that weapon is the good thing to make other nations tolerate the Pyongyang's policy.


That nation followed the route, what was beginning by Israel or the United States. The nuclear arsenal was one reason, that the United States air force ever needed to explain their actions in Europe. The threat in the eyes of NATO was that European allies of the United States would not get support from Washington against the Soviet Union. And the invasion of the Soviet Union was out of the question because the nuclear arsenal of that nation would be the very good shield against aggression. Of course Stalin’s actions in his country were defined as police operations, and international law doesn’t allow to convict the members of NKVD because they were police who worked in their own area and the international community has no legal right to convict the internal affairs of independent nations.

Sources :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/all-you-need-to-know-about-pakistans-nastiest-weapon-tactical-nukes.452088/

Picture 1.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVJaBu-cqKiCOm3WMUdB7JG3H1aMXuxNSbx2LxwlbHqNp9bwdS


https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/the-principle-of-using-force-in.html

About situation in Ukraine

7K720 Iskander missile
(NATO SS-26 "Stone")
(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Vladimir Putin and the situation in Ukraine are not been very often in a stand at public media. Reason for that is there is nothing going on in that place, what is called as the Crimean peninsula. This place is in very important strategic location when we are thinking about a transportation of Caucasian oil and gas by tubes to European markets. If the Caucasian oil and gas will replace Russian products, that would mean the decrease of Russians economic and political influence. And in the real world, that means that Russia cannot cut those deliveries for having political acceptance for other actions. If the nation doesn't use Russian oil and gas, the threat would give only by the military forces. And it looks like bad in the international politics. Open threading by weapons will cause the public opinion turn against Russia.

And there have been ideas of massive United Nations peacekeeping operations in Ukraine, but the reason of Russian military power the passion for this kind of operations is much lower than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russian nuclear force is the very frightening thing, what will make think twice, if somebody wants to operate in Ukraine with United Nations mandate. Russian interest is that situation in Ukraine will forget as fas as possible. Also, many European countries will want to normalize their relationship with Russian leaders.


If we think that the USA would come in this situation with military forces, we must say, that this scenario is very improbable, because this nation has been in the war since 2001, and that would be not very good for the reputation of that country. The prize of that war is very high, and the operation in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost more than the Second World War. Also, the losses of human lives in those wars have been very high, and the people of USA have tired about the war.


The war between the USA and Russia would be the World War III, what might mean nuclear holocaust, where the big part of the human population will be killed. This is the reason, why the solution to this problem is not able to find the military way. The problem with this crisis is that Russian military has got power to stand in that area, and those troops are highly protected by nuclear weapons, what has installed on highly mobile battlefield systems warships.


Those weapons are extremely difficult to detect, and they have the capacity to destroy the entire city. If those truck-mounted weapons would detect, they are quite easy to destroy by tactical fighters, helicopters or commando-strike. But the detection is the problem. The weapon itself can be destroyed by anti-tank weapons or bombs. If the core of the bomb will be broken, radioactive plutonium will be delivered to the ground.  But of course, nuclear weapons have the very hard defense and strikes can be shielded by the security-fire by the security team. So this makes those weapons extreme difficult targets for military forces. The system goes, that tactical nuclear weapons will be used in the first strike, and those weapons are supported by strategic nuclear weapons And if Russian conventional forces would get in trouble those weapons will be used in this kind of situation.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

Picture 1
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLGxFjm2f_Q1B794FLy3bk9rbb5tBXSPfDpZFFLlDs_S8lpHxlww

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/


http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-situation-in-ukraine.html