1
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 07/11/2018 08:51:17 »Looks like this, Thanksscience is stupidity
I'm afraid you're on the wrong website then.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 07/11/2018 08:46:33 »
what's the problem with you I'm just high school carrier
3
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 07/11/2018 04:02:52 »science is stupidity waste of time delusions on mentally ill scientists' mindsAshes for those who love science and spent their whole life on it although it was very hard work realizing that what they love is interpreted as a psychological disease with delusions called theories for those learners who left real enjoyment of life sex and spend their lives in misery.
What are you even talking about?
Mathematics is for crazy people and everyone who spend time on science is stupid.
4
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 06/11/2018 20:32:46 »Thanks,It wasn't an insult.This is a science forum so please don't post any of your own personal insults.
Ashes for those who love science and spent their whole life on it although it was very hard work realizing that what they love is interpreted as a psychological disease with delusions called theories for those learners who left real enjoyment of life sex and spend their lives in misery.
If you think that makes sense you should probably be seeking professional help.
Thanks,
5
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 06/11/2018 19:27:00 »This is a science forum so please don't post any of your own personal insults.
Ashes for those who love science and spent their whole life on it although it was very hard work realizing that what they love is interpreted as a psychological disease with delusions called theories for those learners who left real enjoyment of life sex and spend their lives in misery.
If you think that makes sense you should probably be seeking professional help.
Thanks,
6
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 06/11/2018 17:55:29 »Ashes for those who love science and spent their whole life on it although it was very hard work realizing that what they love is interpreted as a psychological disease with delusions called theories for those learners who left real enjoyment of life sex and spend their lives in misery.Indeed it isn't but that doesn't make it.....
Make it... what?
7
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 05/11/2018 22:05:36 »Science is not about random guesses.Indeed it isn't but that doesn't make it.....
8
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 05/11/2018 21:43:43 »Why do you not consider physics to be a science?science is useless knowledge is what the reality is science is this could be like this and later it would be another thing.
9
New Theories / Re: is reality mathematical?
« on: 05/11/2018 21:27:28 »You're playing with terms I think.playing with terms? aha what is playing with terms? term one plays with term 2 stupidity
"physics is knowledge but not science" sounds pretty questionable.
10
New Theories / is reality mathematical?
« on: 05/11/2018 13:34:33 »
physics is knowledge but not science, knowledge is what reality is science are theories describes what reality should be.
matter is a block consists of itself without any smaller components
we can't understand physics in general and matter formation specifically without mathematics , unfortunately the reality is not mathematical new theories as I said describes what reality should be mathematics describes what matter should be"atoms" but the reality of atoms whether they are mathematical or not is unknown however we use mathematics to describe it as being mathematical in nature
matter is a block consists of itself without any smaller components
we can't understand physics in general and matter formation specifically without mathematics , unfortunately the reality is not mathematical new theories as I said describes what reality should be mathematics describes what matter should be"atoms" but the reality of atoms whether they are mathematical or not is unknown however we use mathematics to describe it as being mathematical in nature
11
New Theories / Re: relativistic inertia
« on: 28/09/2018 23:00:29 »
if mass zero"photon" there should not be any inertia or acceleration and any force is able to move the photon with the maximum speed c in zero seconds.
12
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 22:52:11 »a waves ''characteristics'' are flowing energy.A wave occur in continuous field , however photons are discrete
13
New Theories / relativistic inertia
« on: 28/09/2018 22:49:07 »
If force f acting on an object of mass m causes acceleration a , then in fact the force causes change in motion represented by a , however the same object resist the change in motion by the same force in the opposite direction let's call resistance r:
r α f/a
m=f/a
r α m
if we stop acting on an object with force f there should be constant velocity v , the object still has inertia since inertia depends only on mass m:
r=Cm
C=constant
inertia has mass units or energy units according to relativity.
There should be a relation between kinetic energy and mass-energy of an object .Change in motion or acceleration is in fact change in velocity or change in kinetic energy.
An object with more mass-energy has less tendency to absorb more kinetic energy and needs more force for that purpose
According to relativity the mass of an object increases while it speed up , so I have this thought experiment :
Let's say we have mass m moving in straight line with constant speed v , let's say we increased its mass some how, the total mass will start to slow down the object with acceleration a to reach another smaller v or perhaps zero m/s. if there is force to decrease the speed of mass m then there should be another force to resist increment in mass m " newton's third law"
it is both directions adding mass will increase acceleration and adding kinetic energy will also increase acceleration this also a proof for mass-energy principle.
Conclusion:
If inertia resistance is proportional to mass m and acceleration " change in motion" is inversely proportional to inertia
then force or change in kinetic energy " adding more kinetic energy" is proportional to acceleration since force or adding more kinetic energy is in fact increment in mass according to relativity and according to my thought experiment
in my thought experiment my increment in mass tend to increase acceleration negatively ,i.e slowing it down , then:
resistance is proportional to mass
r α m
r α f/a
m=f/a
r α m
if we stop acting on an object with force f there should be constant velocity v , the object still has inertia since inertia depends only on mass m:
r=Cm
C=constant
inertia has mass units or energy units according to relativity.
There should be a relation between kinetic energy and mass-energy of an object .Change in motion or acceleration is in fact change in velocity or change in kinetic energy.
An object with more mass-energy has less tendency to absorb more kinetic energy and needs more force for that purpose
According to relativity the mass of an object increases while it speed up , so I have this thought experiment :
Let's say we have mass m moving in straight line with constant speed v , let's say we increased its mass some how, the total mass will start to slow down the object with acceleration a to reach another smaller v or perhaps zero m/s. if there is force to decrease the speed of mass m then there should be another force to resist increment in mass m " newton's third law"
it is both directions adding mass will increase acceleration and adding kinetic energy will also increase acceleration this also a proof for mass-energy principle.
Conclusion:
If inertia resistance is proportional to mass m and acceleration " change in motion" is inversely proportional to inertia
then force or change in kinetic energy " adding more kinetic energy" is proportional to acceleration since force or adding more kinetic energy is in fact increment in mass according to relativity and according to my thought experiment
in my thought experiment my increment in mass tend to increase acceleration negatively ,i.e slowing it down , then:
resistance is proportional to mass
r α m
14
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 20:42:21 »Hi, all kinds of EM waves including visible light.Why not light to be consisted of electromagnetic waves and particles represented by photons If it has characteristics of both a wave and a particle?Hello, are you referring to visible light or the '''light'' that traverses through the space between objects?
Each part of light gives observations for its own characteristics.
That to be said when light is emitted from a source there should be a photons emission as well as electromagnetic waves emission from the same source.And both travel with the same speed of light.
And there is a relation between Electromagnetic wave frequency and photon energy the more frequency the more photon energy making photon and waves a unified collection, but the two are separate entities so that we can apply Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics equations separately.
15
Technology / Re: Are we able to make sustainable implants?
« on: 28/09/2018 20:37:04 »Earrings have permanent holes in the ear and doesn't need to make new hole each time........And several watts from riding a bicycle .But that does not involve a risky and unpleasant process of putting implants inside one's body.Quote from: YahaI will never extract a milliwatt from my body using an implantBut maybe you are already extracting microWatts with external devices like a self-winding watch, a pedometer, a fitness monitor or smartphone accelerometer?
And if you have ever used a sleeping bag, you have extracted tens of Watts from your sleeping body - for your own comfort!
You already have earrings.
And if you are asked to put implants it would be to save your life.
If implants are for emergency reasons and to save my life then it is OK.
16
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 20:32:18 »
How light is both photons and EM waves if the two are completely different ?
Photons are neutrally charged , EM waves are electric field perpendicular to magnetic fields.
photons are particles , EM waves are waves and vibrations.
Photon is absolute energy , EM waves are fields.
Photons are neutrally charged , EM waves are electric field perpendicular to magnetic fields.
photons are particles , EM waves are waves and vibrations.
Photon is absolute energy , EM waves are fields.
17
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 20:04:30 »If the two are one thing how does a neutrally charged photon gives electric properties to the EM waves?Photon is neutrally charged.Nobody said (or implied) that it isn't.
18
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 10:06:39 »Photon is neutrally charged.Why not light to be consisted of electromagnetic waves and particles represented by photons If it has characteristics of both a wave and a particle?You can think of the photon as being both a wave and a particle, traveling as a wave with its energy instantly absorbed on contact just like a particle.
Each part of light gives observations for its own characteristics.
That to be said when light is emitted from a source there should be a photons emission as well as electromagnetic waves emission from the same source.And both travel with the same speed of light.
And there is a relation between Electromagnetic wave frequency and photon energy the more frequency the more photon energy making photon and waves a unified collection, but the two are separate entities so that we can apply Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics equations separately.
19
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 08:44:08 »
An electron absorbs a photon and a vibrating electron produces photons, at the same time this electron produces independent EM waves since the electron is electrically charged.
20
New Theories / Re: Does light consist of both waves and photons?
« on: 28/09/2018 08:25:41 »I meant if we thought of light as particles the part of light"photons" gives the idea light is particles , and if we thought of light as electromagnetic waves , the part of light"waves" gives the idea that light is electromagnetic waves.Each part of light gives observations for its own characteristics.That idea doesn't work.
If I shine a beam of light through a diffraction grating it all gets split into diffracted beams- so it must all have wave properties.