The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The real theory of everything!  (Read 9275 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #25 on: 27/03/2015 20:55:30 »






Quote from: Thebox
So if you imagine a balloon and put dots on the balloon to represent objects, and then burst the balloon ...
What??? Why? What does bursting the balloon represent physically? You can't burst space so your comment again makes no sense.

Quote from: box
You say you can't burst space, why can't you burst space?  because space has no physical fabric of space, space is neither flexible or has mass.
Bursting a balloon represents nothing, it is the remaining dots that represent galaxies in space with no balloon and no expanding space.

Let me just clarify something, if you look into space where there is no matter and you just see the black background. you are saying this is what is expanding right?

Space has no motion ,
« Last Edit: 27/03/2015 21:01:31 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #26 on: 27/03/2015 21:23:47 »
I made a comment in another of your threads about the cosmic microwave background which was intended to test your understanding of the expansion of the universe. You clearly didn't get the point, so I just gave up on you at that point. However, I'll give you another go. What do you imagine is generating these microwaves that are coming in from all directions? They are consistent with there being an explosion in a highly-contracted space fabric where they would originally have been emitted as light, and that space fabric has subsequently expanded in such a way that the frequency has reduced to microwaves. The way they behave (coming at us continually from all directions) is also consistent with that model. If you accept that there was some kind of big bang but you want to have a space that's infinite from the start, you're going to have a serious problem to address - the light that was emitted from that explosion would race away from there to infinity and none of the galaxies created out of that explosion would be receiving any light or microwaves from that explosion today, and indeed they would never have received any of it at all. So, where are the microwaves that we detect coming from? You don't have an expansion to reduce their frequency, so you need to have a microwave emitter spread out of sight all round the edge of the visible universe, and if we can detect the frequency falling over time you're going to have to account for that too without relying on any expansion, and then you would have to explain why this source of microwaves should be a distant sphere centred around us. You're also going to have to find a way to explain the slight differences in intensity of the cosmic microwave background which are consistent with a lumpiness that led to the formation of galaxies - you need your monster-spherical microwave generating machine to create them in a very slightly lumpy way too. So, good luck with doing that - you may hit upon the right answer, but you should understand that you're up against an amazing coincidence in that the evidence fits beautifully with the idea of a big bang (not necessarily from an absolute singularity) with a very compact space fabric which then expanded - it's a simple, short burst of light coming out of a single explosion which ends up as a continual microwave shower through every point in the universe from all directions billions of years later. It's almost certainly too good not to be true. It may not be true though, but you're up against astronomical odds, and you need to understand that before you waste any more of your time attacking it.

I get the point, and I am not attacking the big bang completely, only partly, I insist before the big bang there was infinite space, I insist it is still infinite space.   I insist space is not expanding and matter is expanding into space.
Maybe we had a steady state universe and maybe a giant star was at the center and imploded leaving a very weak plasma resonance behind. expanding matter into the universe except our galaxy material was sucked back in by a collapsed vacuum.
like in an underwater explosion.  maybe we are inside like a vacuum bubble inside of a medium.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2015 21:29:28 by Thebox »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #27 on: 27/03/2015 21:51:40 »
I always suspected there was a giant vacuum at the core of your theory.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #28 on: 28/03/2015 01:08:40 »
Part 5a.

In this part we are going to take a look at the qualities and peculiarities of our first category, ''things that can be seen by the eye'',  to produce an outline and understanding of matter. With this we begin a subject which will take lengthy explanation, It is the first part of our thought process of the properties of matter from a physical point of view, hoping to achieve understanding to help us reach a conclusion at a later stage of what ''everything'' is.

What is matter?  We  recognize  that matter is  physical substance in general, that which occupies space and possesses mass, that is made out of a great many atoms, of which the atoms fundamental components are held together by a strong nuclear force.  For now, we will consider matter in an object form rather than the complexity of invisible gaseous forms, this will make it easier at this stage to understand the fundamental characteristics of matter.

Presently it is suggested that all matter has mass and that all mass is attracted to mass. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses. The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797Ė98 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses and the first to give accurate values for the gravitational constant. Cavendish constructed a torsion balance apparatus that consisted of the use of different size lead balls, an apparatus for measuring very weak forces that in the experiment produced positive results and was able to determine the force between the pairs of masses. The torsion balance apparatus design is also  well known for it's uses by Coulomb to measure the electrostatic force between charges to establish Coulomb's law.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2015 14:37:32 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #29 on: 28/03/2015 13:42:35 »
part-5b .

All matter is said to be made of these tiny particles, called Atoms! So tiny has a singular Atom, they are not seen by the human eye.  To clarify the extent of the smallness of these Atom's, we can imagine a pin head contains thousands of atoms.   Can we conclude as a result or consequence of this,  that if as suggested presently all matter has mass, and all mass is evidentially proven to be attracted to other mass, and the proposition that all matter is made of these tiny particles called Atom's, that any applied attractive force, is generated by the atoms,  when formed into an individual collective  group of Atom's, and all singular atoms are attracted to other singular atoms?  Can we conclude this based on there is not really anything else in matter other than Atom's,  that suggests any other physical variances to make an attractive force?  Could we conclude the force that Cavendish measured was a similarity to the force Coulomb  measured and the electrostatic force between charges to establish Coulomb's law?

What do we mean when we say a Physical variance? We will introduce this through a familiar comparison, if you can imagine a bridge that was designed to allow a vehicle to travel over it that was not in excess of two tons.  Any vehicle that was in excess of two tons would collapse the bridge, this vehicle would be a physical variance to the bridges constant physical properties of strength. Whilst the vehicle is under force from the gravitational constant, the vehicle wants to fall to the ground or river that the bridge rises over.  A two ton vehicle has an equilibrium constant, equal to the gravitational constant  magnitude of force, not causing the bridge to collapse, because the bridge has an equal and opposing force, opposing the two ton of mass of the vehicle.    A vehicle in excess of two ton , collapses the bridge and falls to the ground or river, where the ground also has an opposing force which is much greater than over two tons.

Also in explanation of a physical variance is the more complex thermodynamics,   that  of which is consideration of an object and the temperature of an object.   The physical properties of thermodynamics of an object or system.  Matter has a unique property of absorbing energy and the transmission of energy,  a particular  provision, especially of a timely preparation for future eventualities of nature.  However,  this falls under our category two, and the unseen work in the universe.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2015 14:37:53 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #30 on: 28/03/2015 15:49:17 »
The theory of everything part-5c

What else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter? It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century.  A basic outline of this is Ēthat nothing is ever lostĒ but rather changes form.  This can be experimentally shown to be true.   One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses itís individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash.  Where does this mass go?  It is simply to apply the term, Ēup in smokeĒ and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather the initial excitement of the atoms of the mass by the initial ignition process.  These atoms becoming positive charged by the kinetics involved of the Atoms excitement causing the Atomís to become positive ionís.

A generalization of this is that positive ionís rise being opposed to the gravitational force leaving behind a negative residue of ash that bound the initial structure together.  An ash that can be questioned for a certainty, is  ash really made of atoms?  What difference is there between the ash that sits on the ground and the mass that is lost?


I am not sure if 5c is correct but seems possible?

May be altered.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #31 on: 28/03/2015 19:01:07 »
The theory of everything part-5c

What else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter? It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century.  A basic outline of this is Ēthat nothing is ever lostĒ but rather changes form.  This can be experimentally shown to be true.   One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses itís individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash.  Where does this mass go?  It is simply to apply the term, Ēup in smokeĒ and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather the initial excitement of the atoms of the mass by the initial ignition process.  These atoms becoming positive charged by the kinetics involved of the Atoms excitement causing the Atomís to become positive ionís.

A generalization of this is that positive ionís rise being opposed to the gravitational force leaving behind a negative residue of ash that bound the initial structure together.  An ash that can be questioned for a certainty, is  ash really made of atoms?  What difference is there between the ash that sits on the ground and the mass that is lost?


I am not sure if 5c is correct but seems possible?

May be altered.

Most of the mass of the burnt wood ends up as carbon dioxide and water. Both are produced as gases that are invisible to the human eye under normal circumstances. But Lavoisier and others were able to capture these gases and show that mass was conserved. (over all the products of combustion weigh significantly more than the mass of the wood burned, because you also have to consider the oxygen from the air that is consumed and becomes part of the products) The energy released from burning wood is insignificant compared to the energy that would be produced from conversion of mass to energy.

You need to refine your conception of "positive." Usually we use positive to denote electric charge, as in the charge of protons and nuclei is positive. This has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Most wood fires do not generate plasma (charged ions in a gaseous state). The excited atoms in the flame are still neutral, just with a lot of energy, that can be released as light.

Ash is definitely made of atoms! If the wood is not completely burned, and some "charred" wood remains in the ash, this is largely carbon (black). If the combustion is complete, and only white ash remains, this is mostly oxides of metals from the original wood: potassium oxide, sodium oxide and magnesium oxide are major components. The word potassium comes from potash (ash left in the pot). The potassium and sodium oxides will dissolve in water to form a basic (alkaline) solution.

Please learn more about the sciences before expounding on them. Many of the questions you raise in this thread (and others) have already been answered (many of them more than a century ago), or are the result of your own misunderstanding.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #32 on: 28/03/2015 19:10:59 »
part-5b .

All matter is said to be made of these tiny particles, called Atoms! So tiny has a singular Atom, they are not seen by the human eye.  To clarify the extent of the smallness of these Atom's, we can imagine a pin head contains thousands of atoms. 

A pin head does not contain thousands of atoms. If you are going to "clarify the extent of the smallness of an atom" you should understand how small the atom actually is. A pin head probably contains roughly 1x1020 atoms--that's 100000000000000000000 atoms. (thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands of atoms)!

Also there are particles smaller than atoms. They are also considered matter, and have mass.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #33 on: 28/03/2015 19:13:54 »
The theory of everything Ė Part 1

[...............]


This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?

If you spent half as much time learning as you did "teaching" you might have something to teach.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #34 on: 28/03/2015 21:59:04 »
The theory of everything Ė Part 1

[...............]


This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?

If you spent half as much time learning as you did "teaching" you might have something to teach.

Part-5c edited

What else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter?  It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century.

A basic outline of this is ''that nothing is ever lost'' but rather changes form.  This can be experimentally shown to be true.   One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses it's individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash.

Where does this mass go?  It is simply to apply the term, ''up in smoke'' and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather a change in form of the block of wood, often in the form of carbon dioxide and water. These are both produced as gases that are invisible to the human eye under normal conditions.

Scientists are able to capture these gases and show that mass is conserved by capturing the separate elements of the dispersion of the whole, and measuring the mass of the individual elements to make findings that nothing is ever lost.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #35 on: 28/03/2015 23:18:55 »
Part -5d

We shall also find on the subject of matter, that there are many interrelationships of the properties of substances.  There is a marriage type relationship between all matter, where as all matter is dependent of being atoms, and dependent of mass,  and we can say with a certainty,  the deepest understanding of matter comes from understanding the actual mechanism underneath.

Can we really consider an atom without considering the laws of attraction of an electron and a proton and considering a relationship for the cause of gravity mechanism?

Can we really ignore that a grouping  of atoms will be of a positive and a negative with attraction attributes of both positive and negative?

Can we really ignore the evidential facts that two bodies that are positive will repel one another?

In looking for an answer to ''everything'', we must leave no stone unturned and consider all the rudiments involved,  looking to find a common principle on which something is based.


Moving on in our consideration of our first category, ''things that can be seen'', like objects, we are now going to consider objects we observe, that are not solids like stone but  matter with a various types of properties, such as fluids and plasma's.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2015 23:27:13 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #36 on: 29/03/2015 16:43:50 »
Part -5e

Firstly we will take consideration for fluids, and we will look at a common familiar we all know, water (H≤0).  In the consideration of all matter, water is a substance with its own unique properties, it has the ability  to exhibit a trio of characteristics, that of a solid, (when in the form of ice), a liquid (when in the form of water), and a gaseous form (when in evaporation).

Water also has a unique property that allows it to recombine from a gaseous form back to a liquid form of water, often observed as raindrops or condensation.

One could also express, that ancient religion even recognised the evaporation process but did not quite understand the physics involved.

''For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the Heavens were of old, and the Earth standing out of the water and in the water''. 

Water, like any other matter, has mass, and is effected by gravity the same as any other substance that has mass.  The questions we need to ask ourselves are, why is there differences in form?  how can water rise by being evaporated?  how is ice formed?.    One could ask themselves questions about buoyancy, and question the relationship between buoyancy and gravity.    A wise man once noticed an apple falling from a tree, and what goes up, must come down, unless there is an equal and opposing force.

We all observe a created puddle on a rainy day, and we all observe that when it stops raining, and the Sun starts to shine, the puddle vanishes into an invisible rising mist.

What causes the water puddle to become an invisible mist?  Water , like any other matter is made of atoms. Water, like any other matter is attracted to the ground.   When the Sun  transfers it's energy to the water, the water evaporates.  Then the opposite direction to gravity , the less dense mist rises.

A person would have reasonable argument to assume that something is in the process of the water when changing into a vapour, that makes the water anti-gravitational whilst in vapour form. We all know when the vapour recombines back into water, it then becomes back under the influence  force of gravity, as can be seen in a falling raindrop or condensation running down a window.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 17:03:43 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #37 on: 29/03/2015 17:32:51 »
Part -5e

In the consideration of all matter, water is a substance with its own unique properties, it has the ability  to exhibit a trio of characteristics, that of a solid, (when in the form of ice), a liquid (when in the form of water), and a gaseous form (when in evaporation).

Water also has a unique property that allows it to recombine from a gaseous form back to a liquid form of water, often observed as raindrops or condensation.


Water does have many unique properties (for instance, its unusually high dielectric constant), but the ability to exist as solid, liquid or gas is certainly NOT unique. Almost all molecular or elemental substances can exist in any of these sates (dependent on temperature and pressure), and can be converted from any state to any other state by changes of temperature and/or pressure. You can find melting and boiling points for most substances on wikipedia. Notable exceptions are molecules that are either too large or too fragile to be vaporized (like proteins, long polymers, nitrogen triiodide, etc.)

Water, like any other matter is attracted to the ground.   When the Sun  transfers it's energy to the water, the water evaporates.  Then the opposite direction to gravity , the less dense mist rises.

A person would have reasonable argument to assume that something is in the process of the water when changing into a vapour, that makes the water anti-gravitational whilst in vapour form. We all know when the vapour recombines back into water, it then becomes back under the influence  force of gravity, as can be seen in a falling raindrop or condensation running down a window.
Also, the fact that water vapor rises from a puddle, has nothing to do with "anti gravity." It is a matter of buoyancy. Dry air has almost twice the density of water vapor. In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 17:34:44 by chiralSPO »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #38 on: 29/03/2015 17:41:07 »
Part -5e

In the consideration of all matter, water is a substance with its own unique properties, it has the ability  to exhibit a trio of characteristics, that of a solid, (when in the form of ice), a liquid (when in the form of water), and a gaseous form (when in evaporation).

Water also has a unique property that allows it to recombine from a gaseous form back to a liquid form of water, often observed as raindrops or condensation.


Water does have many unique properties (for instance, its unusually high dielectric constant), but the ability to exist as solid, liquid or gas is certainly NOT unique. Almost all molecular or elemental substances can exist in any of these sates (dependent on temperature and pressure), and can be converted from any state to any other state by changes of temperature and/or pressure. You can find melting and boiling points for most substances on wikipedia. Notable exceptions are molecules that are either too large or too fragile to be vaporized (like proteins, long polymers, nitrogen triiodide, etc.)

Water, like any other matter is attracted to the ground.   When the Sun  transfers it's energy to the water, the water evaporates.  Then the opposite direction to gravity , the less dense mist rises.

A person would have reasonable argument to assume that something is in the process of the water when changing into a vapour, that makes the water anti-gravitational whilst in vapour form. We all know when the vapour recombines back into water, it then becomes back under the influence  force of gravity, as can be seen in a falling raindrop or condensation running down a window.
Also, the fact that water vapor rises from a puddle, has nothing to do with "anti gravity." It is a matter of buoyancy. Dry air has almost twice the density of water vapor. In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.

Thank you for the comments, all the interface of emr happens on the waters surface.  the water evaporates from the surface. The intensity of process is weak, energy that passes into the water when water is at depth is captured in the thermocline.
Air will be added to my theory as the last subject on matter.  Air also rises. 

''In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.''

That's not natural on earth is it?

Water naturally turns into vapour unlike a object.

Thanks for this -

''dielectric, insulating material or a very poor conductor of electric current. When dielectrics are placed in an electric field, practically no current flows in them because, unlike metals, they have no loosely bound, or free, electrons that may drift through the material. Instead, electric polarization occurs.''

and this , I will add both in the my next part.
''Water comes out to be dielectric because of the dielectric polarization (it's an electric dipole and is a highly polar molecule & even rotates - aligning itself in field direction) associated with it. The electric field induced by polarization overcomes the effect caused by applied electric field.''

« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 17:57:19 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #39 on: 29/03/2015 18:11:15 »


''In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.''

That's not natural on earth is it?


There are caves and underground pockets that are filled with methane. But ultimately, who cares whether or not it is natural on Earth? Physics applies everywhere. There is water on the moon, which doesn't have any substantial amount of atmosphere. Titan's atmosphere is almost entirely methane, and Jupiter and Saturn are almost entirely hydrogen and helium.

We can also construct small test environments on Earth to experimentally show what happens in atmospheres of different composition, temperature and pressure.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #40 on: 29/03/2015 18:17:47 »


''In the absence of air, or in a hydrogen or helium or methane atmosphere (all less dense than water vapor), water vapor will not rise.''

That's not natural on earth is it?


There are caves and underground pockets that are filled with methane. But ultimately, who cares whether or not it is natural on Earth? Physics applies everywhere. There is water on the moon, which doesn't have any substantial amount of atmosphere. Titan's atmosphere is almost entirely methane, and Jupiter and Saturn are almost entirely hydrogen and helium.

We can also construct small test environments on Earth to experimentally show what happens in atmospheres of different composition, temperature and pressure.

Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.

What you can construct is not natural , it  is observer effect.   
  We are explaining evaporation on earth in our atmosphere, relative to our planet not relative  other planets with different aspects.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 18:20:48 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #41 on: 29/03/2015 18:36:33 »

Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.

no. just no.

What you can construct is not natural , it  is observer effect.   
  We are explaining evaporation on earth in our atmosphere, relative to our planet not relative  other planets with different aspects.

Experiments require control that requires conditions are not strictly "natural." Yet, we rely on experimental results to confirm or rule out scientific theories. There are certainly ways that an experiment can be poorly designed, and biased by the way that they are set up. But with proper planning, design and execution, one can avoid this type of failure and get useful results.

Any theory of physics that only works on Earth is not very useful.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #42 on: 29/03/2015 19:21:54 »

Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.

no. just no.

What you can construct is not natural , it  is observer effect.   
  We are explaining evaporation on earth in our atmosphere, relative to our planet not relative  other planets with different aspects.

Experiments require control that requires conditions are not strictly "natural." Yet, we rely on experimental results to confirm or rule out scientific theories. There are certainly ways that an experiment can be poorly designed, and biased by the way that they are set up. But with proper planning, design and execution, one can avoid this type of failure and get useful results.

Any theory of physics that only works on Earth is not very useful.

My final answer is the important answer, I already have my final  conclusion , however a one liner would not be much of a theory.

Theory of everything part-5f.

When considering the unique properties of water, we are considering these aspects as in natural attributes, unlike the burning wood where we add fire.   Water also has a property of being a dielectric substance.  A dielectric substance having the qualities of being a poor electrical conductor.  Water is an electrical neutral dipole,  equal and oppositely charges that can become polarised to a specific charge.

When water is in interaction with electromagnetic radiation, or for simplicity light, the water molecules on the surface become polarised to a positive polarity, and the molecules are said to rotate in the direction of the electrical field,  aligning itself in the field direction associated with it. The electric field induced by polarization overcomes the effect caused by the applied electric field.

Can we not consider this to be a possible mechanism of gravity or in some way interrelated?

Can we not consider the very ground beneath our feet to be of dielectric properties?

Can we really not consider Galaxies to have polarisation effect on each other?

Would polarisation of atoms,  a change in equilibrium, explain a particular condition of something that is happening at a specific time?

It is experimentally observed that when a metal object is heated, the metal expands, and when the metal cools it contacts.

What is happening inside the metal?  One could presume that when we add energy to the metal,  which  is made out of  Atomís,  the Atomís become excited and create kinetic energy by their own means of process. A process in which that Atomís, start to repel other Atomís.

It is evidentially proved that two of the same polarity charges will repel each other.  One could certainty ask question of this process, and make comparisons to expansion being positive polarity of atoms and contraction being a negative or a returning equilibrium polarity of the Atomís that make up the metal.

We may say that the comparison to water is irrelevant, however, we can not ignore the behaviour characteristics of Atomís when all matter is Atomís.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 19:25:19 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #43 on: 29/03/2015 19:23:01 »

Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.

no. just no.
Exactly my friend. :)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #44 on: 29/03/2015 19:29:10 »

Water at a certain low temperature is a negative polarisation, when emr charges the water it becomes a positive polarisation and the water even rotates aligning itself in field direction.

no. just no.
Exactly my friend. :)

Water has 3 states of being , all 3 states are a difference in energy.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1878
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #45 on: 29/03/2015 21:30:40 »
Water has 3 states of being , all 3 states are a difference in energy.

energy and entropy

Also water has many states many more than three states of being. There are several phases of solid water (different types of ice) that have different properties, and can be converted from one into the other. Additionally, supercritical water is a fluid phase that is not quite liquid and not quite gaseous. It is really weird stuff that can take on a whole range of densities, viscosities and acidities, just depending on the temperature.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2015 21:35:19 by chiralSPO »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #46 on: 30/03/2015 00:04:44 »
Water has 3 states of being , all 3 states are a difference in energy.

energy and entropy

Also water has many states many more than three states of being. There are several phases of solid water (different types of ice) that have different properties, and can be converted from one into the other. Additionally, supercritical water is a fluid phase that is not quite liquid and not quite gaseous. It is really weird stuff that can take on a whole range of densities, viscosities and acidities, just depending on the temperature.

Has a generalization I get three stages of energy level, ice being the lesser state, water being the equilibrium,  vapour being the higher energy form, but I thank you for the input.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #47 on: 30/03/2015 02:56:56 »
Never mind physics you have no concept of chemistry. You have dug yourself a hole from which your pride will not let you climb. Actually admitting an error is an important part of the learning process. Not admitting an error is unscientific. Ditch the pride and allow yourself to fail. It is an illuminating experience. You don't have to do this here and now but personally and privately. I guarantee that it will start a new chapter in your pursuit of scientific knowledge.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #48 on: 30/03/2015 03:26:09 »
Ditch the pride and allow yourself to fail. It is an illuminating experience.
And what are the odds of such an occurrence ever taking place? Personally, I think this whole thread is an exercise in futility. How many more times are we expected to listen to another crackpot vomit up new "theories of everything"?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #49 on: 30/03/2015 14:04:26 »
Never mind physics you have no concept of chemistry. You have dug yourself a hole from which your pride will not let you climb. Actually admitting an error is an important part of the learning process. Not admitting an error is unscientific. Ditch the pride and allow yourself to fail. It is an illuminating experience. You don't have to do this here and now but personally and privately. I guarantee that it will start a new chapter in your pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Correct my knowledge of chemistry is little, I do not understand s1 and s2 layers, and the P layers thoroughly , I have no  idea about two substances becoming one, by having weak covalent bounds.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: The real theory of everything!
« Reply #49 on: 30/03/2015 14:04:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length