21

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 01/04/2017 03:11:57 »

Let me change the question for those who do not understand the question.

At what pace does the present become the past?

All depends on one's personal frame MrBox. If you are traveling at a significant percentage of c, your seconds will advance at a much slower rate compared to someone at rest. If you are presently influenced by a strong gravitational field, your seconds will advance much faster, and also, compared to a different frame. Remember however, defining someone at rest is only a relative consideration. An absolute position of rest is impossible to define. These individual factors make it impossible to establish any definitive universal or common rate for the passage of time. It all depends on your personal frame and how those seconds are viewed from the observers position.

22

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 31/03/2017 23:09:04 »

Quite clearly you have failed to consider what is wrote in this thread.

Quite clearly you have a flawed understanding concerning the theory of Relativity.

There simply is NO "Universal common now" or a universal common present for which we might use as a "Standard" where we could reference other frames of time against,.............period!

23

New Theories / Re: Does F = ma and E = mc^^2 mean F = E?

« on: 31/03/2017 15:49:23 »

The main stream model does not explain the perpetual motion of the electron or photon. The photon is a representation of the distance for energy propagation with no entropy.

The main stream model is overlooking what the word "perpetual" actually means when speaking about the life of the photon. The photon experiences no time, therefore, it is not "perpetual" in it's frame of reference. It's birth and death occur simultaneously within it's frame of existence so it's life does not represent "perpetual motion" or perpetual anything else.

And in the case of "slow light", the photon which enters that experiment is not the same one exiting. Each individual photon still travels at c in this experiment and if not, we can disregard the standard model.

Plainly put, the photon doesn't live long enough to loose the energy of it's wave. We may observe the lengthening or shortening of this wave in our frame but in the photon's frame, it's all over in an instant.

24

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 29/03/2017 00:38:25 »

Motion is always a mechanical transfer. Time = Motion = c energy.

LB7 yes electrons move as 1/w spin. Photons on the other hand move through space as a vector spherical radius as a wave of c energy.

Physbang nothing begets nothing and a belief in magic.

Ethos, yes why is there motion? Time is a fundamental energy transferring motion. Where did energy come from?

I would assume that the large majority of Physicists would answer that question with: "From the Big Bang".

As for me, that question is much more complicated than just simply blaming it all on The Big Bang. Surely, Energy was present before "The Big Bang" or there simply wouldn't have been any bang what-so-ever. I realize there are those that will disagree with this notion by conjuring up magical terms like: "Quantum Fluctuations" and claim that "The Big bang" simply happened without a required cause. I am unable to swallow that pill myself and have a personal theory about our Universal Genesis but will not bore our members with it at this time.

As a side; Something inclines me to the suspicion that Energy is directional akin to Entropy. While Entropy is the process by which the balance scales level out, so-to-speak, Energy or the available usage thereof will trend in that direction as well. According to the law of conservation, the total amount of Energy will still be there but will be inaccessible for use when Entropy has run it's course. Entropy has a direction and useful Energy rides along on the same train.

Alas, I confess to having no experimentally processed answer to your question; "Where did Energy come from?" I, and no one else has the ability to observe what lies beyond "The Big Bang" and the answer to that question will remain hidden for a great long while if not for ever.

25

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 27/03/2017 22:01:45 »

?

Curious question my friend, and one that will receive many different answers I'm sure. As to the cause, it all depends on the physical circumstances surrounding each independent frame relative to all others. I would rather answer this question: "Why is there motion?"

My answer: "Time",.............The fourth dimension.

26

New Theories / Re: What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 23/03/2017 18:44:45 »

There is no standard of time and there is no standard ground state to measure against. All observations are relative. Physics is the same in every frame because every measurement has the same ratio of relativity. There is no rest frame.

I completely agree with you GoC, and the study of  Relativity concerns the measure of (t,l, and m) of one frame "Relative"to another frame and is not meant to be relative to any proposed "universal common now". No such "universal common now" or universal present can be used as a standard. The expression "universal common now" is IMHO, virtually meaningless to the Physicist.

27

New Theories / Re: What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 18/03/2017 17:09:17 »

The standard second is the time elapsed during

9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In 1997 CIPM added that the periods would be defined for a caesium atom at rest, and approaching the theoretical temperature of absolute zero (0 K), and in 1999, it included corrections from ambient radiation. Absolute zero implies no movement, and therefore zero external radiation effects (i.e., zero local electric and magnetic fields).

everywhere and always (at least until we redefine it).

Yes, when locally defined but not applicable by those who propose associating it with a "universal common now". The notion of a "universal common now" has little, or nothing at all, to do with how we define the standard second.

28

New Theories / Re: What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 18/03/2017 14:26:05 »

So what exactly are you implying when you say you see no means of providing evidence for a standard second?

It's quite simple Timey, there exists no "universally common now". Without that bases, no "standard second" can be established. Each and every individual frame will have it's on definition for what constitutes their measured second, therefore, no standard or universal second exists.

29

New Theories / Re: What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 18/03/2017 13:13:09 »

Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.

This is where I must break my silence about your "standard second" view of reality. There is no such reality where one could define a "universally common now", it simply does not exist.

I have kept my silence regarding your theory Timey out of respect for what I view as your sincere and dedicated efforts. But standing your ground on what you term; "the standard second" will doom your efforts at ever constructing an accurate and acceptable theory of reality.

Sorry my friend, but if your theory is to succeed, you will need to provide evidence for this "standard second" you keep invoking. And frankly, I see no means by which that can ever be achieved.

30

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we moderate discussion of new theories in the main part of the forum?

« on: 12/03/2017 23:14:55 »

Surely the answer is quite clear.

Don't post anything that is politically incorrect. 

The Standard Model has nothing to do with politics, so I would rest easy about that question if I were you zx16.

31

New Theories / Re: High efficiency motor theory

« on: 09/03/2017 19:11:39 »

All I am doing here is trying to lead you lot by the nose to the physics of a notion I had about physics after learning physics 9 years ago.
It is true that nobody ever stops learning though...

I think most of the membership here at TNS are interested in encouraging you timey. At least, this is my intention and hopefully, every other interested member as well! Wishing you all the best my friend.........................

32

New Theories / Re: High efficiency motor theory

« on: 09/03/2017 01:26:08 »

Here's another article which explains this phenomenon in some detail:


http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/thunderstorms-proven-to-create-antimatter

33

New Theories / Re: High efficiency motor theory

« on: 09/03/2017 00:00:43 »

Any comment on the link there people's?

Positron clouds found at top of violent thunder cloud?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-05-physicist-mysterious-anti-electron-clouds-thunderstorm.amp

Fascinating article timey, and quite an unexpected finding. This deserves a much closer look and a serious investigation...............................

34

New Theories / Re: What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 07/03/2017 00:02:25 »

...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?

The action of a force being applied to a mass will give that mass momentum, so the initial force applied transfers some of it's energy to said mass resulting in a velocity for said mass.

In the emptiness of space, where no resistance is applied to a given mass velocity, no additional energy is required to keep said mass in motion. Understanding that even in what we term "empty space", an occasional atom of Hydrogen will retard said motion even if only in the slightest.

As alan has explained, momentum is mass times velocity and that momentum is conserved.

35

New Theories / Re: What is the difference between gravity potential, and gravity potential energy?

« on: 06/03/2017 23:42:09 »

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?

Basic physics defines this phenomenon as the tendency for a mass, once set in motion to continue in motion until acted upon by a resisting agent. Where no resisting agent is applied, the mass will continue at it's initial velocity indefinitely.  This is why we define momentum as "conserved".

36

New Theories / Re: Re: Does a photon have inertia?

« on: 06/03/2017 23:17:02 »

If a photon moves at the speed of light,  then why hasn't it got a huge mass?

Because the photon has zero proper mass to begin with.

37

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Newton's Rotating Globes Experiment Done In Space Program?

« on: 12/02/2017 22:34:44 »

If no such experiment has been done, how much confidence should we put in our prediction that there is tension in the cord.   

This experiment would only be valid if one were to also consider the combined mass of both globes and the velocity of their rotation. If the gravitational attraction between both globes were sufficient, it could overcome the centrifugal force created by their rotation. The tension that might develop all depends on their combined mass and speed of rotation, and that is a physical fact born out by experiments we can preform here on earth.

38

Just Chat! / Re: What proportion of girls study physics at school?

« on: 03/02/2017 01:02:48 »

http://gizmodo.com/these-17-women-changed-the-face-of-physics-1689043918

An unreasonable and sexist piggish type person might be inclined to believe that were it not for the observed smaller ratio of girls to boys in physics classes, that perhaps physics might not be at the stand-still it is today!

Good on ya 'Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics!'...
Nice website!

You go girl................!

Timey,..... you're as equal and capable as anyone of our male members, keep fighting young lady!

39

General Science / Re: Is Capitalism for the greater good?

« on: 03/02/2017 00:53:04 »

Who wants "capitalists" and "communists", they are stupid and just cause wars.  I want people who are interested in science.  The rest can go away.

Try searching out the topics that interest you zx16, we have a great deal of science here at TNS. Enjoy..............................................

Thanks,  can you get rid of the politicians

A politician is simply someone with an opinion that feels a need to share with others. Frankly my friend, we are all politicians to one degree or another, and expressing ones opinion is also how scientists learn from each other. This forum is comprised of a wide range of individuals with an even wider range of opinions and most of us enjoy the exchange. For most of us, it's not really about seeing our posts appear for everyone else to read, it's about the exchange of ideas and learning from one another.

The human animal really only learns through experience or listening to others about their experiences. Here at TNS, we have the ability to expand our horizons by drawing on the experiences of others. Something one could not accomplish living through only their personal events because life is just to short. We share and draw from each others experience.

40

Just Chat! / Re: What proportion of girls study physics at school?

« on: 03/02/2017 00:29:26 »

But are they real scientists?

Why not?

Are you being too friendly to women

I trust in this position: "When possible, be friendly with all people." I don't think we can be "too friendly" with anyone when processed with care.