1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is everything fundamentally quantum?

« on: 16/10/2021 19:32:19 »

Are we to believe that atoms can grow ?

No, .

The only answer required without adding personal opinion .

No we are not suppose to believe atoms can grow because the cellular growth of humans for example is nothing like a Rock ! A Rock has a specific mass while human mass can change .  How  many atoms is there in a strand of hair is like asking how long is a piece of string .
Human form is not determined by natural quantum physics and this thread asks,  ''is everything fundamental quantum'' ?
Everything includes ourselves which are not fundamentally quantum in consideration of the differences .
 

2

Just Chat! / Re: English literature : Precise definitions .

« on: 16/10/2021 18:58:41 »

An objects resistance to move or change direction ?

Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?

Because the way you used it in your sentence was nonsensical. The Earth's inertia doesn't have anything to do with magnetic fields.

I didn't suggest it was in my wording !

The weight of the object because of gravitational force is the inertia that is overcome by the ''solidity'' of the magnetic field .

You may also want to consider Plasma physics and magnetic bottling !

3

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 18:24:36 »

The Higgs field would have too have two poles

No, it doesn't.

I suggest you reconsider your answer ! 

If force +ve is equal to force -ve then the momentum of the mass is  ?

4

New Theories / When atmospheric gases ascend do they change frequency ?

« on: 16/10/2021 17:07:19 »

When atmospheric gases gain energy and become more heated they expand and effectively become less dense  that allows them to ascend .

My question is does the emission frequency of the molecules change and/or vibrations ?

5

New Theories / Re: Is the sun photons?

« on: 16/10/2021 16:38:35 »

2. There's no such thing in physical space, as infinitesimally small point - from what is known about the nature of dimensional space, Planck lenght is as close to be a "point of space", as we can get (in practice and in theory).- yet it still has a definitive and  measurable spatial distance, so the idea of a dimensionless point/unit of space doesn't go too well with actual practice...

  I replied in another thread from a paper I read : (x0,y0,z0)   

(x0)+(x0)=x1 is the smallest possible vector and scalar length .

Displacing the point one point .

6

New Theories / Re: Is the sun photons?

« on: 16/10/2021 16:31:29 »

To make things clear - It's not that I agree with OP and his "quite exotic" claims regarding the Sun being made of photons instead of plasma

Can somebody please quote where I say or suggest the Sun is made of just photons ?

The Suns components are electrons and protons that are in an excited state  which produces kinetic energy . The produced kinetic energy is emitted , known as electromagnetic radiation (light).

To explain this to none physicists , E=mc^2 , consider flints and the spark !

''The particles of the Sun are in a tumble drier colliding together under extreme pressure .''

7

Just Chat! / Re: English literature : Precise definitions .

« on: 16/10/2021 16:20:09 »

And don't accuse Peter Higgs of being an English professor. His chair is at the University of Edinburgh. The ability to read what you have written and reproduce it correctly is essential if you are going to pretend to be a scientist.

I live in Britain , I am not selective with Scotland , Wales or Ireland . English enough for me thanks all the same !

8

Just Chat! / Re: English literature : Precise definitions .

« on: 16/10/2021 16:17:52 »

inertia .

You would do well to review the definition of that word. Or learn some physics.

An objects resistance to move or change direction ?

Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?

 

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is everything fundamentally quantum?

« on: 16/10/2021 16:13:00 »

Are there any classical behaviours that cannot be said  to be quantum to some degree?

Are there any theoretically possible tweaks to quantum behaviour  that would change the way the macroscopic  world would behave?

I find it spooky that a rock does not grow but the human fetus grows !
I find it spooky because most visual matter suppose to be formed out of atoms !
Are we to believe that atoms can grow ?

10

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 15:59:36 »

More nonsense. The Higgs field doesn't have a polarity. It's electrically neutral.

Hooray , finally you've got something correct ! Indeed the HIggs field does not have a single polarity or the movement of bodies would not be possible . The Higgs field would have too have two poles , a negative and a positive pole that converged to create an electrical neutral pole , like wise and equal too:

 E =

Can you explain to the readers what pole an Electron  and Proton field convergence creates ?

11

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 15:52:42 »

As I have said previous you are really only relying on what is written rather than the physical facts .

If they were (and they aren't, btw) they would still be doing better than you. You are relying on dross which you made up without knowing the facts.

I am starting to think I have entered some alternative reality on this forum , the people replying do not seem to be able to think .  It is interesting that I am using facts , simple facts such as Coulombs laws .

This is the first time I believe you have replied and again it lacks impression for a science post .

Fact one :Every substance in the Universe is energy relative to space

Fact two: The energy of any volume is divided proportionally throughout the volume .

Fact three: E=/t

It is absurd for any of you too deny these simple physics facts !

12

New Theories / Re: Does light of different wavelengths have the same energy?

« on: 16/10/2021 04:08:58 »

The point is if you shun a beam of blue light on an object for example 1 second, the shorter wave length , a red light beam would deliver the same amount of energy but it would take nanoseconds longer because of the longer wave .
Consider this example as pulses of light rather than a constant beam .

What do you mean by "shun"?

A photon with a shorter wavelength has more energy than a photon with a longer wavelength. That is a fact. The energy of a photon is given by E = hf, where "f" is the frequency. Since all light travels at the same speed in a vacuum, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

''Shun'' means shine !
As I explained already =

If you are stretching anything by force , the energy is divided but remains the same value .

You are talking about magnitude as opposed quantity!

13

Just Chat! / Re: English literature : Precise definitions .

« on: 16/10/2021 03:57:51 »

No, because fields don't exhibit solidity. The word you are probably looking for is tangibility.

The word is relativity !

The compressed magnetic field between two like wise signed poles being squeezed together is dense enough to overcome the earths inertia .  Relatively it takes another object with solidity to move something . Relatively there is solidity between the two magnets exerting force .

14

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 03:52:30 »

Of course we'll just ignore Newtons Third Law and Coulombs law then and forget that a Higgs field or atoms potentially have the components to push back ?

Nothing about free protons or free electrons violates any of the laws of physics. You'd know that if you were an actual physics professor (but you're not, are you?).

Can you please provide a link to your claims ?

https://www.britannica.com/science/cathode-ray

You'll find that what you are suggesting are not true proton beams or electrons beams  , the physics of the universe does not allow for the momentum of free electrons or protons .

And so I see that you are still stuck on that same nonsense about protons and electrons. You talked about this same thing when you were here last time. And yet you think I can't recognize that you're Thebox? I'd straight up ban you, but I need to convince the other moderators that it's you first. Unfortunately, I'm occupied with other things at the moment so that will have to wait. Enjoy your time here while you have it.

As I have said previous you are really only relying on what is written rather than the physical facts .

An electron surrounded by electrons can not physically be displaced because the confinement is equal and proportional to the surrounding protons attraction .

In quantum field theory , a HIggs field has to be likewise in polarity to atomic matter or there'd be a stationary visual universe . No body would be in motion and that is based on the electrodynamics of moving bodies .

I said earlier about your accusations but in due respect your conversation has upgraded so I may stick around for a while unless you carry on convincing yourself I am somebody else .

15

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 03:36:37 »

You are claiming you can separate the atomic force and create an electron or proton beam ?

Yes, because it's done on a regular basis. Proton beam therapy is a cancer treatment, whereas cathode rays are made of electrons.

I very much doubt that and I know physics can't do this because a single pole beam would have no momentum because the specifics of the Higgs field would constraint that beams flow !

Too bad, the existence of proton beam therapy and cathode rays proves you wrong. Your claim of the beams having no momentum is nonsense, as usual. Anything with energy can have momentum.

Of course we'll just ignore Newtons Third Law and Coulombs law then and forget that a Higgs field or atoms potentially have the components to push back ?

Can you please provide a link to your claims ?

You'll find that what you are suggesting are not true proton beams or electrons beams  , the physics of the universe does not allow for the momentum of free electrons or protons .

16

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 03:18:52 »

That is not true , we can't measure the forces between the proton and electron , we don't know the mass .

We can measure their masses by measuring how much a beam of protons or electrons are deflected in a magnetic field.

The fact that you don't know this only further shows that you ain't a physics professor.

Really ? You are claiming you can separate the atomic force and create an electron or proton beam ?

I very much doubt that and I know physics can't do this because a single pole beam                                                 would have no momentum because the specifics of the Higgs field would constraint that beams flow !

I really think you are thinking too deep on what is written rather than simplicity .

If you was teaching a primary school student science you would want easy learning wouldn't you ?

17

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 03:09:39 »

Not correct only by incorrect understandings !

No, it just straight up isn't correct. The relationship between mass and energy is already known to be E=mc².

There is no physics that I am aware of that states the mass of an electron isn't proportional to the mass of a proton

What does that even mean? The mass of the two are completely different.

  That is not true , we can't measure the forces between the proton and electron , we don't know the mass .

18

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 03:05:24 »

E==

m=mass
V=volume
t=time
E=energy

Those numbers for example ?

That's better, but it's still not correct. Mass divided by volume is not energy, nor is 1 divided by time energy.

Not correct only by incorrect understandings !

Consider the original post ! An atom consists of an electron and proton . There is no physics that I am aware of that states the mass of an electron isn't proportional to the mass of a proton ? Of course based on the relativity between a proton and an electron !

Added, mass is energy  , everything in essence is energy relative to space !

19

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 02:44:42 »

Are you trying to explain energy and mass to somebody who has interest or a student who is likely to dig up roads for a living ?

Fundamental education is simpler and easier , additionally it eliminates the smarties from the dime bars .

The education sector costs millions in funding , why waste valuable and expensive education on dime bars ?

If they can't understand that smarties have mass and an energy equivalent , they are dime bars and need educating differently instead of stereotypical .

That doesn't stop my statement from being correct.

E==

m=mass
V=volume
t=time
E=energy

Those numbers for example ?

 

20

New Theories / Re: Energy equals !

« on: 16/10/2021 02:26:16 »

If you'd read I said you could use numbers if you like !

You can't not use numbers.

Are you trying to explain energy and mass to somebody who has interest or a student who is likely to dig up roads for a living ?

Fundamental education is simpler and easier , additionally it eliminates the smarties from the dime bars .

The education sector costs millions in funding , why waste valuable and expensive education on dime bars ?

If they can't understand that smarties have mass and an energy equivalent , they are dime bars and need educating differently instead of stereotypical .

Added yes we can use mass which has numbers !