1

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 01/11/2018 03:40:15 »

What is physics without new ideas shed by the positive light of interest of others with new possible solutions to age old problems?

I mulled over to respond to one of your disappeared post in this thread concerning new ideas. Did you recently delete that post?

p.s. Am up to my neck at the moment, and also needs lots of time and efforts with my pea brain to be able to respond to your other posts if at all. Kindly excuse me if I have gone quiet for a while. Thanks for understanding.

2

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 31/10/2018 04:09:03 »

(apologies for third post in this series, yet I think this is important)

The idea of a grand unified theory that can prove what we can prove "here" in our solar system, our tangible reality, would of course require an explanation as to the link between gravity and electromagnetism. Yet that idea itself would have "profound" implications on theory relevant to the current astrophysical art. Have we burnt the bridge there, is our need to only accept what we know re. astrophysics too big to lose in considering a local theory of everything that will undoubtedly have a butterfly effect of understanding on what we theorise of the stars?

The posits of modern physics in the paradigm of its worldview, would never be able to unify gravity with the three other fundamental interactions. Expect the relentless onslaught when you postulate gravity as an electrodynamics effect, but I don't think you have to really burn the bridge by applying the spiral treatment for its explanation from its first principle, and I believe it could pragmatically explain and predict some physics anomalies, such as Largargian points, three-body problem, etc. 

I like your phrase on "A local theory of everything that will undoubtedly have a butterfly effect of understanding on what we theorise of the stars." Cool.

3

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 31/10/2018 03:45:54 »

I have a question for you though, "do you think a theory of everything will change the way we think about reality as a people?". A theory of everything ideally should be a neat way to put together all known streams of understanding of time and space, maybe with the addition of something like the UVS or golden ratio for time, yet will it change the way we regard reality compared to how we do know what we know today?

IMO, the theory of everything of the objective reality, has to describe the universe and all its observed phenomena accurately. It could completely change the way we think about the actualities of the empirical observations as opposed to what conventional wisdom has had purported. I think the theory of everything will change the way people think about the modern physics postulated reality. Nonetheless, I see the paradigm shift would be toward a neoclassical platform, extending the perceptions of the cosmos and everything in it with the concept of UVS, quantitatively explicable with golden ratio for an all pervasive inviscid medium.

This all pervasive inviscid medium, is contorted as spacetime in modern physics for its pragmatic theory of truth. The algorithm treatments with the application of the Golden ratio to spacetime, nonetheless would enhance its explanatory power and predictive power.

The quest to research will still exist, to push the limits, perhaps even to "dispute" the very idea of what a grand theory presents, yet will it, a grand theory, be convincing, or considered as a deterrent to current research activities in space, in astrophysics for instance?

IMO, current research activities in space, astrophysics, etc, suffered all sorts of physical paradoxes for the mainstream worldview of the cosmos. The quest to research of course will still exist to push the limits, but the main drive is on higher precision measurements for more precise quantitative predictions, but not on its accuracy for its actuality at all.

In time to come, after the correct paradigm shift happened, people at then will look back at the modern physics worldview like it was the falsified geocentrism.

Just my two cents.

4

New Theories / Re: Einstein's Elevator -- is Einstein's equivalence of inertia & gravity logical?

« on: 30/10/2018 11:21:27 »

This is a good question. I do note though that Einstein wasn't entirely familiar with the idea of quantum entanglement, and highly disputed its proposition. The idea, Q-E, suggests that light is only ultimately half expressed in a grand consideration of relativity, which would require a halving of calculated arcsec perhaps?

I found say 5 articles re Einsteinian bending that showed that a proper Einsteinian method gives only 0.87 arcsec, or less. But i am going to vizit my own calculations of 2017 & early 2018 & i will report back.

5

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 27/10/2018 08:16:08 »

I read this UVS site, fairly completely.

TYVM. I hope you enjoyed the read.

The guy has spent some amazing time talking about fundamental principles found everywhere in spacetime, and thus it was a winner to offer that angled approach.

Am in cloud nine. But really, constrained by my limited abilities, I think it could actually be better explicated by people who are more proficient.

Mine is a little more in depth to that pattern, as it provides the basis of fractal topology using the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time. The link is in my web icon under my name here (the planet icon next to the envelope icon), apologies. www.equusspace.com

Impressive site! I read quite a fair bit for now, much more to digest, will dig further.

It's not commerical, nothing is being sold, its really asking for collaboration, and thus money can in time be made by those who think its worth a shot.

Hopefully organizations like SpaceX could find your work useful, and it then takes off at rocket speed on a world wide stage.

My work explains the idea of UVS, yet the idea of UVS used by that theorist is like a kitten playing with a world of single-dimensional time thread, it getts a little knotted (what he is doing).

UVS does not posit the Einsteinian spacetime, it therefore get quite knotted in its neo classical physics world of single-dimensional time. Take for example, it absolute contradicts the postulations of the Big Bang theory, and crashed with almost everything what the mainstream cosmology are postulating.
 

It's easier to suggest that the concept of "time" is a natural UVS itself, as an algorithm, "then" applying that UVS time theory to space. It does work.

I do believe the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time, could work better for its quantitative predictions. Really.

Please have a look at a table in the UVS topic on "Logic and belief systems". Would you consider your EQUUS SPACE posits the type 11 paradigm for the nature of objective reality?

FYI, one MIT associate professor showed me his quantitative analysis with the type 3 paradigm for his posits for the nature of objective reality. And his quantitative predictions for all sorts of electromagnetism phenomena can work, and at times worked better than conventional wisdom. I wish I have the link to show you, but it has disappeared in the forum that had gone defunct.

A physicist also showd me UVS could be mathematically described by a Doubling theory of everything. I dug into it and indeed found it could quantitatively describe UVS, this is despite it adopts the Einsteinian spacetime platform of type 1 paradigm for his posits for the nature of objective reality.

FYI, in that table, UVS posits the type 16 paradigm for the nature of objective reality.

As I was saying, the UVS theory is a step closer to formalising a universal code for spacetime, I can't dispute that.

Am elated! Hope your EQUUS SPACE could bring it further. All the best!

6

Just Chat! / Re: Do ferromagnetic materials have a tolerance of higher-band current frequencies?

« on: 17/06/2018 22:35:46 »

I'm using 400W of microwave energy, standard stuff, launcher, etc, into cable, fed into a coil system around a magnetic rod.

I suspect that your magnetic rod is just an idle bystander in this circuit.

Low-frequency magnetic fields (eg 50Hz) travel through iron about 100-1000 times easier than through air or vacuum (we say iron alloys have a relative magnetic permeability μ_r of 100-1000).
- If you want to carry a lot of magnetic energy in a transformer, you want to ensure that the magnetic field passes through the iron, not through air
- This means that you need an iron core shaped like a circle or rectangle, with no air-gaps. This forms a magnetic circuit.
- In practice, power transformers are often assembled from thin iron sheets shaped like the letter "E" and/or "I".
- So a rod is very inefficient as a power transformer, since most of the magnetic path is through the air.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core#%22E%22_and_%22I%22_core

At high frequencies, the magnetic rod would not carry a magnetic field nearly as well as it does at 50Hz; in fact it is probably worse than a vacuum in that it would exclude the electromagnetic field.
- I suspect that any power transfer in your circuit is just leakage through the air

In some ways, microwaves behave more like water than like 50Hz AC or like 9V DC from a battery.
- You need to carry microwaves in pipes (a "waveguide")
- The microwaves will squirt out through any gaps in the pipe (even quite narrow gaps)
- The microwaves will spray out from the open end of the pipe, and go everywhere
- Anything near a gap in the pipe will get wet (irradiated by microwaves)
- A solid or stranded wire won't carry microwaves much better than a solid or stranded wire will carry water
- If you try and make it turn sharp corners, it is likely to go everywhere
- It is more like plumbing than the familiar electrical wiring
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide_(electromagnetism)

PS: Please clarify "magnetic rod": Is it a:
- Permanent magnet? These are "hard" magnetic materials, and make really poor transformers, even at 50Hz
- Conductive iron rod? The skin effect would prevent microwaves from entering it to any significant depth
- Insulating ferrite rod? 5GHz probably exceeds its maximum frequency

7

Just Chat! / Re: Do ferromagnetic materials have a tolerance of higher-band current frequencies?

« on: 17/06/2018 09:08:44 »

IIRC the hysteresis loss rises pretty nearly linearly with frequency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_hysteresis

8

Just Chat! / Re: Just Chat on “What is space?”

« on: 09/04/2018 15:27:09 »

The other horses are stuck in the gates, I am a clear winner .

Goodbye

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What would you like to measure about a Star?

« on: 01/04/2018 17:35:33 »

We actually have photographed some exoplanets already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets

We can also measure the chemical composition of their atmospheres: http://www.iflscience.com/space/neptune-sized-exoplanet-has-clear-skies-and-water-vapor-atmosphere/

With these techniques, we should be very well-prepared if and when the time comes to choose an appropriate exoplanet to send a probe to.

10

New Theories / Re: Can faster-than-light travel work as a universal manifold?

« on: 08/03/2018 15:09:14 »

You can post whatever you like here as long as it is legal and friendly.
However, there is no benefit in bringing entanglement into a discussion that clearly isn’t giving you the answers you are expecting, it will just create more confusion.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do clouds go red at sunset? Why not green, or some other colour?

« on: 05/03/2018 10:26:37 »

why does a rainbow have seven colours right? That's the next question, right?

The podcast below had some interesting comments on colors in different languages.

Some linguists (Berlin & Kay) did a study of many languages, looking at common color words that would be used by children, for example.
- They excluded technical or specialist words that would be used in specific contexts

They found that every language had 2 words that were equivalent to light or white, and dark or black.
- But they found that other languages had 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or more color words,
- And they concluded that languages generally added color words in a particular order:
- black+white, then red, green or yellow, then green + yellow, blue, etc (if I remember correctly)

The speaker suggested that Old English in the 1200s had words for white, black, red, yellow, and green.
- Purple was present, from the color of European royalty (but from the Romans)
- Violet was later added from the color and name of the flower
- Orange was added later, from the color and name of the fruit

Since white and black are not colors of the rainbow, one assumes that an Old English rainbow would have had perhaps 4 major bands of color.

I'm not sure I believe some of what he says, but listen to the last 10 minutes of: http://historyofenglishpodcast.com/2017/12/31/episode-106-an-illuminating-discovery/

If you listen to the whole episode, you will hear a bizarre explanation for why Romance languages like French use words like "blanc" for white, while English, a Germanic language uses "black" for black - and yet they are derived from the same Indo-European root word!

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can Dark Energy make the Universe expand at faster than light speed?

« on: 01/03/2018 09:26:27 »

I don't see how you link quantum entanglement to the recession rates of galaxy groups.

My point is "where's quantum entanglement on a grand scale"? Why limit the idea to a lab, why not factor it in to the universe?

If we find reasonable evidence then yes, but at the moment you are introducing unrelated factors without any reasonable evidence. Making broad brush comments like this does nothing to move discussion forward but simply causes confusion for the person asking the question and starts to irritate your fellow posters.

Please read post above by @evan_au

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would we calculate the principle of least action for a moving frame?

« on: 28/02/2018 17:18:31 »

You have to consider the basics of Newtonian physics "first";

No, wrong way round. You can derive Newton's laws of motion from least action.

@jeffreyH have a look here http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/energy_to_action.html section VII

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do clouds go red at sunset? Why not green, or some other colour?

« on: 28/02/2018 16:57:36 »

I just think my reply in this post started off on the wrong foot, please understand how that could be possible.

That's understandable, but it is a common confusion which we've seen before.

Well, I mentioned "lead" because back in the 80's it was reported there was a type of brown-red haze owing to the lead in fuel at the time, back in the day. Thought I'd throw that one in.

Excellent, context is always useful.
Although lead oxide is red I’m not sure that the tetraethyllead used in fuel produces a particulate which would reflect red, perhaps @chiralSPO  could help here. I suspect that the haze is from other pollutants and lead is an indirect cause. As you know particulates are removed from car exhaust by the catalytic converter, unfortunately lead deposits stop the catalyst working so they can’t be used in cars using leaded fuel, hence greater pollution.

if you've ever travelled to the Australian outback, Northern Territory, Uluru to be specific, and there's a wind blowing kicking up the red dust, you're going to have a spectacular sunset.

Most of the particles involved in red sunset/sunrise are aerosols, that is solid or liquid particles small enough not to settle out rapidly. As @chiralSPO said, If the particle is small compared with the wavelengths of light, it will scatter short wavelengths - blues and violets - more than long wavelengths, such as red. Many man-made aerosols are small enough to do this so they enhance to the sunsets of Los Angeles and other polluted cities.
Natural aerosols come from forest fires, mineral dust kicked up by sandstorms, sea spray and volcanic eruptions, etc. Volcanoes can inject sulfuric acid droplets into the atmosphere and burning fossil fuels releases sulfur dioxide gas into the air, which then turns into sulfuric acid aerosols.
If air pollution is very bad the sky is so saturated that you don't even see the sun clearly and the sunset can appear bright but washed out. This is because aerosols that are close in size or larger than the wavelengths of visible light tend to scatter all colours indiscriminately, increasing the overall brightness of the sky but reducing the colour contrast.
Another big factor in a spectacular sunset is a projection screen. Just like your Pink Floyd eg you need something to project onto, clouds are good so is dust.
However, you don’t want blanket cloud. Here in the northern hemisphere weather systems come to the uk from the west. The leading edge of a warm front has stratus (blanket) cloud which doesn't allow the sun through, when the warm sector has passed the cloud break into cumulus (fluffy piles) which act as a nice projection screen. This is why “red sky at night” works, because the bad weather has passed, high pressure (which tends to trap particles) is on the way and it’s likely to be at least 24hrs before another front is on its way, or if it is on the way it will block the clear path of the sun.

does that equally translate to sunrise, and if not why not?

Yes, the scattering of light works just the same for sunrise. The only difference is the good weather eg high pressure has moved east, so possibility of poor weather is increased.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do clouds go red at sunset? Why not green, or some other colour?

« on: 27/02/2018 20:16:34 »

@opportunity

Not being comical, but "who's Ralph"?

Ralph listens to the programme and got in touch over email. He's listening in Australia, he tells us. We've posted his question on his behalf and emailed him the link to this thread; perhaps he'll see that you are interested and get in touch?

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the Planck scale accurate according to the photo-electric effect?

« on: 16/02/2018 22:45:01 »

@chiralSPO is another of our reliable posters and should be taken note of. You will notice he has also raised the question I asked “what do you mean by distance”.
I hope the combination of answers will help you understand the relationship between electron energy transitions and photon energy/frequency.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the Planck scale accurate according to the photo-electric effect?

« on: 16/02/2018 16:19:53 »

Correct me if I am wrong, the distance of the energy jump is indicative of the wavelength of jump, and thus inversely proportional to the frequency?

This is wrong, you stand corrected

I think you may be confusing the "distance" between energy levels with an actual spatial distance. An electron doesn't have to to move physically through space to change energy levels. The Bohr model of the atom shows electrons as distinct particles moving in circular orbits around the nucleus like a mini solar system, but this model is a dramatic oversimplification which is in many ways misleading. If instead we think about orbitals (not orbits), in which electrons are behaving as waves in a spherical distribution about the nucleus, it can be seen that there is no strict relationship between where the electron is in the atom and how much energy it has (you can think of electrons in high energy levels as either having more potential energy than their lower-energy counterparts, which would place them farther from the nucleus, or having more kinetic energy, but actually being as close or closer.

It is fairly easy to prove that red light has longer wavelength than green light, which is still longer than the wavelengths for blue light. All you need is a diffraction grating and some monochromatic lasers, or just white light (and the equation which relates diffraction patterns to wavelength, found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating#Theory_of_operation )

That the energy of shorter (bluer) light is higher than for others can be demonstrated through the photoelectric effect or by looking up (or testing) the voltages required for monochromatic LEDs to emit light. I can easily power a red LED with 2 V, but need at least 3 to get my blue LED to function.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the Planck scale accurate according to the photo-electric effect?

« on: 16/02/2018 11:17:00 »

I think Planck was wrong about frequency and energy as a direct relationship

I think you are talking about the Planck-Einstein equation:
E = h f
Where:
- E is the Energy of a photon
- h is the Plank constant
- f is the frequency of the photon
- This is a linear relationship (photon energy is directly proportional to photon frequency).

This equation is well-proven over many orders of magnitude. So you would need some much better evidence to suggest that it is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy

the photo-electric effect

The equivalent equation for the photoelectric effect can be written as:

E_max = h f - φ
Where:
- E_max is the maximum Energy of an electron, which has been kicked out of a metal by a photon
- h is the Plank constant
- f is the frequency of the incoming photon
- h f is the energy of the incoming photon
- φ is the work function of the metal
- This is a linear relationship (electron energy is proportional to photon frequency)
- But it is not a direct proportionality, because it takes energy to extract an electron from the conduction band of a metal. Thus the ejected electron has less energy than the incoming photon

This does not invalidate the linearity of the Plank-Einstein equation; in fact, it provides strong evidence that the energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency.
Einstein received the Nobel Prize for deducing that light was quantized (E=h f) from the photoelectric experiment.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

Anyone who knows the energy levels of the atom knows the frequency of photon release increases with each photoelectric effect the higher-out the energy shell...and not as the Planck equation suggests; the further out the energy shell (higher as we call it) the lower the energy release though, and thus the lower the energy release for the higher the frequency for the photo-electric effect

I think that mentioning the photoelectric effect is just confusing this statement?

The equation for the energy levels of a Hydrogen atom is called the Rydberg equation:
E  α R (1/n² - 1/m²)
Where:
- E is the energy of the photon which is emitted or absorbed by this atom
- α means "proportional to"
- R is the Rydberg constant
- n is the lower shell number that the electron resided in
- m is the higher shell number that the electron resided in

What this says is that:
- A transition from shell 3 to 1 releases more energy (a higher-frequency photon) than a transition from shell 3 to 2
- A transition from shell 3 to 2 releases more energy (a higher-frequency photon) than a transition from shell 4 to 3
- This can be understood in terms of the inverse-square law, where the electrostatic attraction between electron and nucleus is much stronger for small n, and so electrons jumping between low-numbered shells release more energy than electrons jumping between high-numbered shells.
- The inverse square law and the Rydberg equation are both non-linear equations.
 
This non-linear relationship for the energy levels of an electron in an atom does not in any way invalidate the linear relationships for the energy of a photon in "E = h f" and implied by  "E_max = h f - φ".

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula