The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Theory of light  (Read 18735 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #75 on: 28/04/2015 18:11:22 »

i call them proton, electron and enertron. no one openly agree with me yet.


because you are wrong, selfdeluded, muddleheaded and arrogant beyond belief. Where is your experimental proof?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #76 on: 28/04/2015 18:37:05 »

i call them proton, electron and enertron. no one openly agree with me yet.


because you are wrong, selfdeluded, muddleheaded and arrogant beyond belief. Where is your experimental proof?

daily facts are, atoms are not compressible, electrons are not discharge into nucleus.

if atom is as present atomic model suggested, atoms will be self discharge instantly, atoms will be very compressible. observation just the opposite.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #77 on: 28/04/2015 19:02:42 »
Quote from: jccc
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
That's ridiculous. The electric field cannot produce gravity. I wish you'd stop saying this crap. Whatever gave you the idea that just because you can type something out on a keyboard that there's any truth to it?

Quote from: jccc
Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to proton numbers within it?
Duh! Gee! No. Nobody's ever wondered about that, duh! The mass isn't proportional to the number of protons in the atom. It's roughly equal to the number of nucleons in the nucleus. That means that its approximately equal to the number of protons plus the number of neutrons. To be exact you'd have to take into account the mass contribution due to the binding enery.

Quote from: jccc
there is only 1 force in nature, the force between charges. without charge, there is no matter, no force, nothing will ever happen.
More nonsense coming from jccc yet again. Will you ever stop making such ignorant things? Where in the world do you get off making ignorant bogus claims like this? There are forces between neutrons due to their strong force and the force due to their magnetic moments.

Again. READ A DAMN BOOK!!!!
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #78 on: 28/04/2015 19:20:20 »
Pete,

this is new theory forum, please be nice.

if you don't agree my new theory, debunk with logic and respect.

i know you are a gentleman,
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #79 on: 28/04/2015 23:11:23 »
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.

Poppycock, as you well know. Electrostatic forces can be shielded by placing a conductor between the charges. Gravity cannot.

If you have a brain, why not try using it? I promise it won't wear out before you learn a bit of humility before the facts.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #80 on: 28/04/2015 23:40:39 »
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.

Poppycock, as you well know. Electrostatic forces can be shielded by placing a conductor between the charges. Gravity cannot.

If you have a brain, why not try using it? I promise it won't wear out before you learn a bit of humility before the facts.

Alan,

electrons are free to move in a conductor, electrostatic forces will induce charges in the conductor first and neutralized/used up before reach the detector, therefore shielded.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #81 on: 28/04/2015 23:50:31 »
Try thinking about what I wrote, rather than shouting garbled nonsense. 
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #82 on: 29/04/2015 00:16:21 »
Try thinking about what I wrote, rather than shouting garbled nonsense.

Alan,

did you find any logic mistake from my posts?

who is shouting garbled nonsense? have you try thinking what i wrote?

Thank you.

 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #83 on: 29/04/2015 03:13:32 »
my ideas are simple.

1. there are 3 building blocks in nature, proton carries 900 + charges, electron carries -1 charge, enertron carries -10^-16 charge.

proton attracts all negative charged stuff, therefore a ball of electron and enertron will form around proton. because enertron is denser than electron ( charge to volume ratio), it condensed around proton by electromagnetic force, density from the proton outward decay at 1/r^3. electron also attracted by proton and stable at atom radius where the proton electron attraction force is equal to the electron enertron repelling force. 

proton is like core of earth, enertron is the land and atmosphere, electron is like giant beach ball. atom's force field is far beyond radius, earth's gravitational field is also far beyond atmosphere.

atom in fact is so dense build, that's why atoms are not compressible, that's why electron cannot discharge into proton.

2. a charge's force field extend to infinite distance, it decays at 1/r^2 but never become 0. an atom, even it is electrically neutral, charges within atom still carry same force fields. therefore matter and chemical bounding able to form.

gravity is nothing but net em forces of all charges within or between matters/stars. gravity is a force, all masses attract each other because charges within have boundless force fields. gravity is not wave or particle. when a mass is vibrating, it produces gravitational wave which is a force pause able to act on other masses.

3. energy is force. forces are within charges. forces can only act on charges.

what's all. correct or not? opinion various. time will tell, i might refine my thoughts later. but so far, seems all sounding enough for myself.

we are seekers, without truth, we won't stop. don't let anything stop us. truth will set us free. soon!

Enjoy life, try to love all things, Dear friends!

according to my theory, 1 atomic weight equals to 1800 total charges, equals to proton charge +900 add enertron charges -899 add electron -1 charge, equals to neutron's total charges.

both positive and negative charges are force sources, mass is a unit to measure the total force/charge within a matter.

there should be no particle that is massless/chargeless, there can be particle/matter that has net charge 0.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #84 on: 29/04/2015 05:08:48 »
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.

Poppycock, as you well know. Electrostatic forces can be shielded by placing a conductor between the charges. Gravity cannot.

If you have a brain, why not try using it? I promise it won't wear out before you learn a bit of humility before the facts.

Alan,

electrons are free to move in a conductor, electrostatic forces will induce charges in the conductor first and neutralized/used up before reach the detector, therefore shielded.

Alan,

after rethink, i have more answer to your question.

you can't shield gravity is because gravity is the net electrostatic forces between two bodies. if you put a shield/mass in between, the total charges are increased, the two bodies will experience more gravitation attraction.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #85 on: 29/04/2015 08:15:21 »
Quote from: jccc
this is new theory forum, please be nice.
I am nice ... to those who pay attention and heed what has been said to them. To those who constantly and thus rudely ignore everything that has been said to them I see no reason to be "nice."

Quote from: jccc
if you don't agree my new theory, debunk with logic and respect.

Fine. You merely made a claim with no justification and no reasoning. That's not science and its not a theory. It's mere speculation which contradicts reality. Your claim is
Quote from: jccc
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity.
Quite unclear. The only "force field" that a sole atom has is a gravitational one. An atom can interact with another atom by covalent bonds which is a sharing of covalent electrons. Two molecules can interact by covalent bonds and van der waal forces. But those are merely forces between atoms and molecules. They most certainly do not extend to infinity. The atom does not have a force, other than a gravitational one, which extends to infinity. That's an experimental observation so your claim to the contrary is bogus.

Quote from: jccc
In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
What you're talking about only accounts for van der waal forces. It does not account for magnetism nor gravity. That too is an experimental fact. If it was the electric force that accounted for gravity then bodies would fall at different rates depending on their mass. That too is contrary to observation.

There. Debunked.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #86 on: 29/04/2015 13:24:48 »
Pete,

thank you.

i like to hear others opinions.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #87 on: 29/04/2015 13:58:50 »
Quote from: jccc
Pete,

thank you.

i like to hear others opinions.
Why? You always ignore them. Everything you say after you read them is as if you never read them at all.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #88 on: 29/04/2015 14:17:24 »
Quote from: jccc
this is new theory forum, please be nice.
I am nice ... to those who pay attention and heed what has been said to them. To those who constantly and thus rudely ignore everything that has been said to them I see no reason to be "nice."

Quote from: jccc
if you don't agree my new theory, debunk with logic and respect.

Fine. You merely made a claim with no justification and no reasoning. That's not science and its not a theory. It's mere speculation which contradicts reality. Your claim is
Quote from: jccc
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity.
Quite unclear. The only "force field" that a sole atom has is a gravitational one. An atom can interact with another atom by covalent bonds which is a sharing of covalent electrons. Two molecules can interact by covalent bonds and van der waal forces. But those are merely forces between atoms and molecules. They most certainly do not extend to infinity. The atom does not have a force, other than a gravitational one, which extends to infinity. That's an experimental observation so your claim to the contrary is bogus.

Quote from: jccc
In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
What you're talking about only accounts for van der waal forces. It does not account for magnetism nor gravity. That too is an experimental fact. If it was the electric force that accounted for gravity then bodies would fall at different rates depending on their mass. That too is contrary to observation.

There. Debunked.

Pete,

1. atom's force field is beyond distance. gravitational force is em force.  if there is only 1 hydrogen atom and 1 proton (or 1 electron) in the universe, no matter how far away, they will attract each other. that is fact due to C's law.

2. gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within two bodies. in the case of falling objects, every charge within the test object experience the same attraction force from the earth, therefore no matter size/density of the object, their acceleration is equal.

Thank you.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #89 on: 29/04/2015 14:34:28 »
I don't think we're making any progress here, and we should stop feeding this thread. I'm out.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #90 on: 29/04/2015 14:49:15 »
I don't think we're making any progress here, and we should stop feeding this thread. I'm out.

i agree. did i answered every questions you asked?

is any logic mistake?

i be super appreciate some people not comment on my thread.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #91 on: 29/04/2015 15:53:04 »
Quote from: jccc
1. atom's force field is beyond distance. gravitational force is em force.
Will you please knock it off. Everything you're claiming is all nonsense and you're doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to justify these crackpot claims.

Quote from: jccc
..  if there is only 1 hydrogen atom and 1 proton (or 1 electron) in the universe, no matter how far away, they will attract each other. that is fact due to C's law.
That's correct. But that's not an atom.

Quote from: jccc
2. gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within two bodies.
Total crap. There is NOTHING right about that claim, nothing!

Quote from: jccc
in the case of falling objects, every charge within the test object experience the same attraction force from the earth, therefore no matter size/density of the object, their acceleration is equal.
This is another load of horse buns. I the earth isn't charged then a charged particle will fall at the same rate as everything else. But you're claiming that gravity is the same as EM which means that if the earth was charged than the charged particle will fall at the same rate as all other charges, independent of their mass. But since they don't we know that you're once again posting shear nonsense.

Another false assumption which is a direct result of you shear ignorance of physics and a quantitative understanding of gravity and electromagnetism.

ChiralSPO is right. You're such a waste of time. You neither have the ability or willingness to learn but don't have any understanding of how to construct a logical argument and reason correctly. That's obvious from your constant refusal to prove what you're saying. That crap above about gravity being em is merely a bogus assumption which, again,  you make no argument to justify.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #92 on: 29/04/2015 15:55:56 »
I don't think we're making any progress here, and we should stop feeding this thread. I'm out.
I will if you will. From now on I will never post another comment to or about jccc unless one of our gang from NEP does. I kind of look at our group at NEP as an elite group of forum members. Not necessarily for their knowledge of physics but for the admirable way that they keep an open mind, admit their mistakes, approach discussions in a polite and mature manner and are eager to learn physics.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #93 on: 29/04/2015 16:35:50 »
I had a thought about electromagnetism/ electrostatics concerning gravity some years back.  It stemmed from working as an apprentice electrician studying for my journeymans license.  In our home we all notice that we need three wires to ensure a safe connection.  A hot, A neutral and a ground.  There are only two wires that come off of the pole.  Each one consisting of ~120 volts 60hz.  If you combine the two you have ~240 volts 60hz.  When you get to the panel though, you will notice that the neutral and the ground are actually the same thing, they hook up to the same terminals.  Why is this I thought?  The ground on a panel is nothing more than an 8 ft solid copper rod drove into the ground.  (hence the negative polarity).  I've did a few of those, not an easy job.  If you want 120volts you merely attach onto one of the hot lines, and connect the other side to the ground.  So, what is the point in the "neutral"?  Then I was studying the late Tesla and remembered a project he done where he merely pushed the light bulbs into the ground(Earth) and the bulbs lit up.  In his experiment he had found a way to transmit positive energy wirelessly.  In order to use it, it must be grounded first to complete the path.  I've did a lot of other research on this as well.  One being the schuman resonance frewuency of the earth.  Also numerous papers on the Earth being extremely negatively charged.  I wondered then, what would happen if we were negatively charged as well?  EM and ES says that we would fly off the planet because opposite charges attract, like charges repel.  I've since abandoned this for many reasons.  But what is your take on this.  Since one of you mentioned that gravity is an EM wave or of EM origin?


James,

gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.

force is not wave, if a charge/force vibrates it produces force wave. em force is what make up gravitational force.

atoms each has mass/gravity, if atoms vibrate, they will produce a force pause/wave, at same frequency. that is the mechanism of em radiation.

if light is photon emitted by electrons change quantum state, what's the mechanism? what is quantum  state? is electron emit 4 x 10^14 photons per second to produce red light? or the electron vibrates 4 x 10^14 times to produce red photon?
« Last Edit: 01/05/2015 04:38:11 by jccc »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Is light a Gravitational Wave?
« Reply #94 on: 29/04/2015 19:14:59 »
based on Coulombs's law, every charge has unbounded force field f=q/r^2.

an atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinite. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every single charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity. Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to nucleons numbers within it?

every neutral charged atom have 2 force fields, a positive field and a negative field. those forces decay at distance but never vanish. atoms positive force field decay at 1/r^2, negative force field decay at 1/r^3.

every positive charge on the moon attracts every negative charge and repel every positive charge on earth, the net em forces between all charges of the moon and the earth is always end up an attraction force due to electrostatic induction. the attraction force we called gravitation force is nothing more than em force.

just like married couples could share sex, stranger can share sex. if you are charged, you always attract opposite charges and repel same charges.

make love to wife or any woman, is called sex. the sex between you and wife is the same as the sex between you and another woman.  you can say 1 is em sex, 1 is gravitational sex. it is same thing.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2015 05:36:07 by jccc »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of light
« Reply #95 on: 30/04/2015 03:48:22 »
we can never see a proton itself, proton is deep in the center of a enerton ball.

proton carries + 900 charges, it has a positive force field fp=900/r^2.

proton attracted - 899 enertrons to form proton ball, the enertrons in the proton ball has a negative force field f1=899/r^3, due to the density of the enertron is decay at 1/r^3 away from proton, due to the attraction force between proton and enertron is decay at 1/r^2. 

electron has a negative force field fe=1/r^2.

electron is rest at where the proton attraction force is equal to the enertron repulsion force. that is atomic radius.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of light
« Reply #96 on: 01/05/2015 07:23:18 »
Which rather upsets all those people who use proton accelerators to treat cancer, with not a single mention of "enertrons" 

Quote
to date more than 25 isotopes have been found to exhibit proton emission. The study of proton emission has aided the understanding of nuclear deformation, masses and structure, and it is a wonderfully pure example of quantum tunneling.

Oh dear, even Mother Nature doesn't know about enertrons or the invisibility of protons.

Is it just remotely possible that jccc is speaking from the wrong end of his alimentary canal?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of light
« Reply #97 on: 01/05/2015 13:49:22 »


Is it just remotely possible that jccc is speaking from the wrong end of his alimentary canal?
Maybe he only has a bad case of gas? I suppose one might determine that jccc is; "just full of hot air".
« Last Edit: 01/05/2015 22:16:51 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of light
« Reply #98 on: 01/05/2015 17:56:07 »
Quote from: jccc
proton attracted - 899 enertrons to form proton ball, the enertrons ..
Sheesh! You and your fantasy enertrons. Let me remind you of one of the character traits of a pseudoscientist
Quote
8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in a complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined....
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of light
« Reply #99 on: 12/05/2015 10:05:30 »
we can never see a proton itself, proton is deep in the center of a enerton ball.

proton carries + 900 charges, it has a positive force field fp=900/r^2.

proton attracted - 899 enertrons to form proton ball, the enertrons in the proton ball has a negative force field f1=899/r^3, due to the density of the enertron is decay at 1/r^3 away from proton, due to the attraction force between proton and enertron is decay at 1/r^2. 

electron has a negative force field fe=1/r^2.

electron is rest at where the proton attraction force is equal to the enertron repulsion force. that is atomic radius.

i truly believe that the universe speaks through people who are unaware that they are conduits. artists and such. certainly most of our seemingly innocent or unwitting thoughts come from somewhere higher than our own minds. the universal consciousness seems to manifest and make itself known at its own will, and the information is clear for those who are seeking.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theory of light
« Reply #99 on: 12/05/2015 10:05:30 »

 

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