1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Has the speed of light been tested in a vacuum?

« on: 06/01/2023 19:21:26 »

Suck the air out of a plastic bottle , it collapses under the vac pressure . Thats what I mean by vac pressure

That's not "vac" pressure, that's just the external air pressure crushing the bottle because it isn't balanced by the internal pressure of the bottle.

Your oceans and Islands are all within the set volume , you are looking from within the volume raather than an external view of the volume with all due respect .

If you are within the Universe (which you are), then you are "looking from within the volume" just as a person on an island would be "looking from within the volume" of the ocean. The analogy is still perfectly apt.

If you removed the islands and oceans from the set...

...then you would no longer be talking about an appropriate analogy, so it's irrelevant.

I'm hung up on this because I think science should be precise in explanation with no room or doubt for critism .

You're not arguing the explanation (a vacuum isn't an explanation, it's a concept), you're arguing the definition. A sufficient explanation of the definition has been given in this thread.

After getting banned from Scienceforums.net for denying the expansion of space based on bad arguments, you've decided to come back here and cause trouble for us again?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Has the speed of light been tested in a vacuum?

« on: 04/01/2023 21:09:59 »

A vacuum is a space devoid of matter according to google

The space between the particles is devoid of matter, hence a vacuum.

Welcome to the Forum Bob!

I don't think this is his first time here. Not by a long shot.

3

New Theories / Re: Not-Quite-So Elementary, My Dear Fermion

« on: 28/12/2022 04:30:44 »

However, I hope you will not be offended. If I said, we could use a second opinion of a physicist with regards to this particular point. because I believe it's important, I don't remember you addressing it anyway

Sure, anyone who wants should feel free to chime in.

Literally existing!? partly existing!? There are no such things, and they have no meaning in this universe, it's either you exist, or you don't.
I think the name quasi-particles has nothing to do with them being real or imaginary or partly existing. They have mass and they interact, they are a form of matter.

I'm not trying to say that quasi-particles aren't real, only that they aren't the same as true elementary particles, and thus aren't "real" particles (in the same sense that "horny toads" aren't "real" toads): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

Although am not sure if they can split the positron in a different experiment into anti-quasi-particles.

In principle, it should be possible to do so, but you would need bulk antimatter in order to accomplish that. Put a positron in normal matter and it annihilates.

what mattered is the question: would there be any matter left of the Electron? which you did not address as well.

Assuming you could somehow get all three quasiparticles to interact with a positron at the same time, then I think it would annihilate and thus become radiation. In that case, nothing would be left of the electron.

Maybe, they don't need a medium like light, or maybe when they are bound, they are each other's medium, maybe if there is a force that governs their bound state (external factor) maybe, it would be their medium, can you say for sure it is impossible to be?

Being in the right medium is what gives rise to them. That's what makes them quasiparticles. An analogy is phonons, which are another type of quasiparticle. Phonons are quantized vibrational modes in a lattice of atoms. If I had a solid that was filled with phonons and then pulled it apart atom-by-atom, then all of the phonons would be gone because there is no longer any way for lattice vibrations to exist in individual atoms. That's what I mean by quasiparticles being an emergent phenomenon. Take away what's needed for emergence, and you can no longer have them. If you still think that quasiparticles are elementary particles, then I think you still have misconceptions of what a quasiparticle is. Here is a video that explains them:

The takeaway here is that spinons, orbitons and holons are not more fundamental than electrons. Rather, they are more complex than electrons.

I don't see that; they can't cease to exist in any sense other than "cease to exist"

If you pluck an electron out of a solid, then it's just an electron. If it was an orbiton, holon and spinon before you did that, then yes, you can choose to say those three quasiparticles ceased to exist when you did that.

4

Just Chat! / Re: Is "new theories" getting worse?

« on: 09/12/2022 16:15:43 »

There has been a dramatic turn for the worse lately, where does all this nonsense come from? I suspect mental health problems.

DarkKnight was another sockpuppet of a former member called Thebox. He has repeatedly come back time and time again posting nonsense before getting banned. He's been kicked off again, though.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we detect coloured objects wavelength's by device?

« on: 08/12/2022 20:55:47 »

On behalf of All of Us, Welcome to the Forum.

He's been here before. And banned multiple times. He's Thebox.

6

New Theories / Re: Hijack: Conserved zero point energy idea

« on: 08/12/2022 15:40:41 »

Science deny the existence of any sort of aether , isn't your reply contradictive ?

Space-time isn't aether.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there an experiment that shows the oscillation in the E field of light?

« on: 08/12/2022 15:37:26 »

Any linear operator from any position can be viewed as x .

Unbounded photons can be viewed to travel at 

c=

Any bounded EM fields can be viewed as influenced by the x,y,z operator and the speed the EM field travels is dependent to the bounded bodies speed .

Nonsense equations as always, huh?

8

New Theories / Re: Hijack: Conserved zero point energy idea

« on: 08/12/2022 15:32:45 »

The BB magically manifests a high temperature , dense state , would be my main objection .

I don't see how that's magical.

The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer. It is important we are clear in our minds what the evidence is relative to, or this can lead to false facts entering the education system . 
Reliable first principle information and reliable evidence is imperative for building a factual underlying basis  of any subject. Without this first principle,  any subject is open to ridicule and expression of disapproval .The reliability of proceding information that is derived from principle information , can be considered in being only as reliable as the principle information . If strict disciplines of how we view principle information is not adhered too , then again proceding information may not be factual information .

I can't make sense of this. Evidence isn't a relative thing.

There is multiple reasoning that the early universe started off in a low temperature , low density , sparse state .

That doesn't mesh with the evidence.

Space-time is a math model

Space-time is an actual thing.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Orbiting or descending into the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way?

« on: 27/11/2022 14:28:12 »

but the stars look like they are going into the centre

They're generally not (other than through gravitational radiation, which is such a slow process for regular stars that it might as well not be happening).

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Any Thoughts or Analysis on this UFO landing video from Saudia Arabia?

« on: 21/11/2022 04:02:45 »

Probably a hoax using CGI. I don't know if a video in itself will ever be good enough to demonstrate alien visitation.

11

New Theories / Re: Gravitational Arm

« on: 16/11/2022 06:05:05 »

However, once one spiral arm had been frozen by gravity force to the other galaxy

It isn't. Gravity isn't freezing anything in place here. It's like saying something in free fall is frozen in place. It's not. This tidal tail is a temporary structure.

12

New Theories / Re: Gravitational Arm

« on: 14/11/2022 05:36:03 »

I'm highly suspicious that this thread is going to be about material which you have had previous threads locked over. So let's get straight to the point: what is your "new theory" here? Keep in mind that if you start making the following arguments, this thread will be locked as well:

(1) That dark matter doesn't exist and that anomalous galactic rotation curves are caused by the gravity of regular matter alone.
(2) That gravity can be used to create unlimited energy.
(3) That it's the natural tendency for objects in orbit to move away from the body that they are orbiting without energy input.
(4) Any other physics-defying proposals you've made before.

So take caution in how you proceed. I will go back and look at your previous threads to check if I have to.

13

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 13/11/2022 17:44:12 »

But, I think it is better to explore our solar system before going to others.

Any theory you come up with is going to need to be applicable to other planetary systems as well.

Basic question is what is being curved.

If space-time is curved then what is being curved is space-time. I mean it's right there in the description.

Suppose if it is energy, its density at a particular place that decides type of planet at a particular place.

I don't know what it would mean to "curve" energy, but your assertion is still refuted by the existence of hot Jupiters.

Basic question is, can we change Neptune planet and Mercury planets order.

If Mercury formed as far out as Neptune in the Solar System, its physical properties would likely be far different by the fact that temperatures out there are far lower. That means it would have a much higher ice content (ice and water boil away where Mercury is now).

I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether.

How are you defining your aether?

14

New Theories / Re: Is it possible to create a humanzee

« on: 12/11/2022 17:44:18 »

I'm even more closely related to my brother than I am to a chimpanzee. That doesn't mean that I'm descended from my brother.

15

New Theories / Re: Is it possible to create a humanzee

« on: 12/11/2022 00:37:46 »

No-one will ever convince me otherwise

Not a very scientific mindset.

The current consensus is that we evolved from an ape that is now extinct (like some species of Australopithecus). They were more human-like than the chimpanzees are.

Why are we not animals?

We are. We are in the kingdom Animalia.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The True Limits of how far We can See?

« on: 03/11/2022 16:53:02 »

Gravity perhaps cannot work FTL.

Gravitational fields don't have a speed. Changes in a gravitational field, on the other hand, do travel at the speed of light.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The True Limits of how far We can See?

« on: 31/10/2022 22:24:58 »

The observable universe is as far as we can see (limited by how far light can travel in the current age of the universe), which is very probably not the universe as a whole. The entire universe might even be infinite in size, but we may never have any way of knowing for sure.

18

New Theories / Re: Is a Particle an Excitation in a Field?

« on: 23/10/2022 17:15:11 »

The idea that aspects of nature have to be "written" somewhere sounds like anthropomorphic thinking. We write things as a way of understanding nature. It's rather like saying that a written description of something is the same as the actual thing it is describing.

19

New Theories / Re: An Offer I Made to Utrecht University in the Netherlands

« on: 19/10/2022 05:19:45 »

When someone says that 2+2=5, and then I correct them by telling them that 2+2=4, I am not abusing them.

20

New Theories / Re: An Offer I Made to Utrecht University in the Netherlands

« on: 19/10/2022 00:45:28 »

Honestly, this is getting tiresome. Using sarcasm and self-deprecating speech is irrelevant to whether or not your device will work. If you've been dealt a bad hand in life, then I'm sorry that things have worked out that way for you but it has no place in a discussion about perpetual motion. We aren't telling you that you are wrong because you are disabled or handicapped or whatever. We are telling you that you are wrong because you are provably wrong. Please stop trying to make this anything more than that, because it isn't.