The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Science / Re: What is binding energy?
« Last post by Atkhenaken on Today at 02:10:43 »
The universe can only push, it can't pull. Thus, all the universe can do is push and fall. If it falls it must fall into a hole. If it falls into a hole its called "pulling" or "attraction".

So enlighten me. Where is the universe falling? To enable this falling I assume you have a well defined preferred direction called 'down'. Since it is the universe that you say is falling into the hole then gravity must only operate in a preferred direction. Your universe must be much weirder than ours. How many dimensions does it have?

Only humans have the ability to be weird, illogical and strange. The universe can only be what it is. Its humans that have misinterpreted what the universe is, because what the universe is, doesn't suit their agendas or purposes. Thus, the science world has misinterpreted what the universe is because of social constraints, previous misconceptions, personal ambitions, career choices and pressures from peers to conform to old standards. Thus, the currently accepted view of the universe is locked into the acceptance of many old redundant ideas from the past. Religion has restricted our view on the universe by creating an expectation that GOD is the creator and that science has to follow this generally accepted view point by molding its views around this GOD obstacle. Thus, we have ideas like the BIG BANG THEORY which are just religious based nonsense ideas which are compatible with the GOD CREATOR concept. Then, there is the concept of a 'pulling gravity' which is a concept of the horse and buggy era. It was believed that the horse pulls the buggy but this is a misconception of what is actually happening. The horse is actually pushing the buggy. Pulling is just an illusion.

In my universe, which is the REAL ONE, I believe; there is only one sub-atomic particle which exists in three different states; - left spin, right spin and no spin. These states could be interpreted as 3 dimensions. These dimensions or states interact with one another to form matter and space. No spin could be said to be a hole in space. (black-hole) The sun, which is a black-hole attractor, draws in the left and right spin particles which are spinning at the speed of light and pushes them together. This creates a no-spin particle or neutron plus light and energy. Note - I hope this clears things up for you.
22
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is spacetime real?
« Last post by Atkhenaken on Today at 01:44:39 »


what is a spin rotation?

A rotation of a planet or a clock. The clock being a device which mimics the rotation of a planet.
23
New Theories / Re: On 'Kinetic Energy' and 'Electrostatics'.
« Last post by chiralSPO on Today at 01:32:54 »

I believe you are quoting the practiced rehearsed version of public education. I have never seen anything like that, I am before that became the accepted version of reality. I learned the atom of hydrogen as being a sphere or particles of electricity.

If by particles of electricity, you mean protons and electrons, then yes.

That was created and maintained by particles of electricity that race from the far side of the universe to the other far side of the universe. These particles travel in a very straight line, compared to what we commonly refer to as a straight line. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, it is the structure not the substance that gives an element its characteristics. The particles of electricity racing through matter represent by velocity where and what they just passed through. To bring us light, heat, x-rays, vibrations, and anything else we can perceive.

I'm not quite sure what this means, or what it has to do with anything...

If you are familiar with atomic hydrogen welding popular almost a century ago, you know that hydrogen passed through an ARC an ARC which reaches temperatures as high as 35,000 degrees, or simulates those temperatures, transfers this heat to the siamese bonded hydrogen molecule H2, in doing so the siamese bond breaks. Now I consider the addition of 35,000 degrees to be the cause of this great almost unbelievable heat that is generated in atomic hydrogen welding. Even small setups using hydrogen can cut right through the best bank safes on earth like a hot knife through butter when used with more gas pressure.

Yes, very hot hydrogen is... very hot. This has nothing to do with the atomic structure.

But in no way or at anytime do I need "electrons changing orbits" "moving to higher energy states", taking a bus or doing anything but changing velocity to relay what they just passed through to where i want them to communicate it.

No, not to describe arc-welding. But if you want to know where the UV and x-rays from arc welding come from, then yes, you do need to discuss energy levels and atomic structure.

They did in fact outlaw this view of the atom in public schools, as it was the actual stuff that can turn anything on earth into a hydrogen bomb. In my school we learned how to turn just about any substance into a world bending weapon of mass destruction. Not to create weapons of mass destruction, rather to avoid accidentally creating them.

In fact, they did NOT outlaw this view from public schools (seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?) But, do you mean by this that you think this (energy levels and electrons etc.) is real? By the way, an understanding of the electronic structure of atoms will *never* be the information most relevant to constructing hydrogen bombs (the nuclear structure of atoms would be the relevant bit), and no schoolchild would be able to make a hydrogen bomb, even if they fully understood all of the physics involved (it took more than a decade of work by thousands of scientists and engineers with the full support of the government, and using multiple factories to manage this feat).

As China just did with a couple of bags of calcium carbide and water from the Fire Department. Most in China probably did not know just how dangerous acetylene can be. Because our military used to be trained to use that substance to take out an entire nation if we were the victims of a first strike. So it was kept kind of quiet. As kids we fired cannons that used a couple grains of calcium carbide to create the explosion when mixed with water. I have been warning people for years it is only a matter of time before explosions nearing atomic explosions will be accidentally created because most are not aware of what they are working with anymore.

Most of the people who work with carbide and acetylene do (or should) know how dangerous it is. But the energy involved in a chemical explosion involving acetylene is still orders of magnitude smaller than even the smallest nuclear weapon. You would literally need tens of thousands of tons of acetylene (and at least twice as much oxygen) to generate the same blast energy as a nuclear warhead that could fit in a small automobile.

Please stop trying to spread such misinformation.
24
evan_au: excellent feedback!



=====
- Constructing all particles out of photons seems a stretch. There are a number of quantum properties that real particles possess, but photons do not. Even tying a photon in a loop is unlikely to generate such properties.
=====
EM mass has been explored extensively in Physics. I have a variety of speculations on how quantum properties manifest themselves in the topology of EM mass but I have not included them in the paper. I can give plenty of references on the subject, all peer-reviewed, but the link I provided in the References section is the description that has the most appeal to me. [http://]home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/homepg2/electron.pdf



=====
- "We know that the weight of the connection between particles is related to the reciprocal of their classical spatial distance." This does not seem to describe the electromagnetic interaction, which follows an inverse square law, or the strong nuclear force, which follows a more complex law.
=====
I have not attempted to explain any of the forces mathematically in this model, I'm only describing the model itself (i.e. weighted graph). If I attempted to explain inter-particle EM interaction in terms of the weight between nodes I would refer to this:

"In this model the weight of a connection determines the local area of contact..."

Notice that the local AREA of contact (meters squared) would decrease appropriately with the weight between particles.



=====
Editorial:
- There are three references. To what extent have these been peer-reviewed?
=====
The concept of EM mass is the only contentious reference here but that has been published as mentioned. References 2 and 4 are works from renowned physicists and I highly doubt would receive any push-back whatsoever from the community. The third reference has been "endorsed" on Arxiv but to be honest I only included it because I liked the derivation.



=====
- Radius of particles P1 & P2 is shown in one place as 1013m, but in most places as 10-13m
=====
Excellent catch!! This has been corrected



=====
- The term "soliton" is used first in the conclusion. To make conclusions about something, you should first discuss it in the body of the document.
=====
I consider the EM mass particle to be a soliton but if you believe this exposes a potential semantic problem I can change the wording.
25
New Theories / Re: On 'Kinetic Energy' and 'Electrostatics'.
« Last post by William McC on Today at 00:15:48 »
No one has ever demonstrated unlike particles attracting, or even come up with any feasible theory for that premise. The reason is that there are no attraction forces in our universe. This was proven a century ago and no one ever disputed it with any sane explanation.

So, why do electrons and protons combine to form hydrogen atoms (accompanied by the release of energy), and why does it require energy to remove an electron from an atom?

I believe you are quoting the practiced rehearsed version of public education. I have never seen anything like that, I am before that became the accepted version of reality. I learned the atom of hydrogen as being a sphere or particles of electricity. That was created and maintained by particles of electricity that race from the far side of the universe to the other far side of the universe. These particles travel in a very straight line, compared to what we commonly refer to as a straight line. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, it is the structure not the substance that gives an element its characteristics. The particles of electricity racing through matter represent by velocity where and what they just passed through. To bring us light, heat, x-rays, vibrations, and anything else we can perceive.

If you are familiar with atomic hydrogen welding popular almost a century ago, you know that hydrogen passed through an ARC an ARC which reaches temperatures as high as 35,000 degrees, or simulates those temperatures, transfers this heat to the siamese bonded hydrogen molecule H2, in doing so the siamese bond breaks. Now I consider the addition of 35,000 degrees to be the cause of this great almost unbelievable heat that is generated in atomic hydrogen welding. Even small setups using hydrogen can cut right through the best bank safes on earth like a hot knife through butter when used with more gas pressure.

But in no way or at anytime do I need "electrons changing orbits" "moving to higher energy states", taking a bus or doing anything but changing velocity to relay what they just passed through to where i want them to communicate it.

They did in fact outlaw this view of the atom in public schools, as it was the actual stuff that can turn anything on earth into a hydrogen bomb. In my school we learned how to turn just about any substance into a world bending weapon of mass destruction. Not to create weapons of mass destruction, rather to avoid accidentally creating them. As China just did with a couple of bags of calcium carbide and water from the Fire Department. Most in China probably did not know just how dangerous acetylene can be. Because our military used to be trained to use that substance to take out an entire nation if we were the victims of a first strike. So it was kept kind of quiet. As kids we fired cannons that used a couple grains of calcium carbide to create the explosion when mixed with water. I have been warning people for years it is only a matter of time before explosions nearing atomic explosions will be accidentally created because most are not aware of what they are working with anymore. I have made videos and communicated over the internet but most believe me to be some kind of violent terrorist. I can assure you if you are alive I am not a terrorist.

youtu.be/L0oDSDII-30



Sincerely,

William McCormick
26
In principle, yes. This is how infra-red radiation was originally discovered.

The astronomer Herschel conducted an experiment where he broke up light into its constituent colors using a glass prism (like a small rainbow).
He used a thermometer to measure the amount of energy in each color, and compared it to the temperature when he placed the thermometer outside the visible band of colors.
He was astonished to see that the thermometer showed a higher temperature in the region beyond the red (infrared) than it did on visible colors. Eventually, it was discovered that the Sun puts out more energy in infrared than it does in visible light.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#History_of_infrared_science

Although this works for infrared, raindrops won't bend microwaves as effectively, because water absorbs microwaves, and the size of raindrops is much smaller than the wavelength of microwaves.

A rainbow can only bend light which makes it through the atmosphere, and our eyes are fairly effective at picking up the shortest wavelengths that make it through the atmosphere. The atmosphere blocks most ultraviolet (and many kinds of glass also block ultraviolet). See the diagram at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Absorption
27
General Science / Re: Why is mains electricity 240v AC?
« Last post by alancalverd on 25/09/2016 23:02:42 »
Quote
There's no way round the fact that UK manufacturing industry will still have to stick to the EU regs for much- probably most- of their market.
What manufacturing industry?

From the Office for National Statistics
Quote
In the 3 months to April 2016, the UKs trade in goods deficit with the EU widened by 0.6 billion, to a record 3 monthly deficit of 23.8 billion. In the 3 months to April 2016, exports of goods to the EU increased by 2.1 billion and imports of goods from the EU increased by 2.7 billion, to a record 3 monthly level of 58.6 billion.

Quote
Now they won't have any representation on the drafting of those rules.
Puts us on a par with China and India, who export all sorts of stuff to the EU. Fact is that if your product meets the CE specification, it can be placed on the market in any of 28 countries without having to meet individual national specifications. And since the CE specification is generally the same as the ISO specification, you'd have to meet it anyway to sell to the USA. 

Quote
How is that better?
We won't have to pay for the privilege of being outvoted and told what to do.
28


 Light seems to me to be able to move at C, at the speed of light,

But does light move at c? 

IF Photons pushed Photons and the emittence speed was c, surely the Photons would be pushed at c ?


I even consider c is the limit of stretch of light and liking to a force rather than a speed, a bit like gravity falling speed but the invert.
29
The first thing to say is that I am not a professional physicist.

My impressions from a quick read are below:
Major:
- Constructing all particles out of photons seems a stretch. There are a number of quantum properties that real particles possess, but photons do not. Even tying a photon in a loop is unlikely to generate such properties.
- "We know that the weight of the connection between particles is related to the reciprocal of their classical spatial distance." This does not seem to describe the electromagnetic interaction, which follows an inverse square law, or the strong nuclear force, which follows a more complex law.

Editorial:
- There are three references. To what extent have these been peer-reviewed?
- Radius of particles P1 & P2 is shown in one place as 1013m, but in most places as 10-13m
- The term "soliton" is used first in the conclusion. To make conclusions about something, you should first discuss it in the body of the document.
30
New Theories / Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Last post by GoC on 25/09/2016 22:28:44 »

captcass
\

I noticed you were expecting a standard distance for your meter stick. Relativity shows us there is no standard meter stick. Time slows distances increase to measure the same speed of light in every frame. SR is a special increase through space. GR is dilation of space itself as a gradient of course. So the physical size of the measuring stick increases to compensate for the dilated space for light to transverse. Light produced in gravitation causes red shift in light frequency.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length