1

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 29/03/2023 21:33:56 »

That is how it works. As for Kryptid's comments, yes I made up a thing to explain a thing, it's called an original idea, or 'hypothesis' in physics, a science in which this is the standard way of going about doing science. We see phenomena and come up with ideas to explain them.

That's not really what you've done. When confronted with something that completely prevents your model from working (by many, many, many, many orders of magnitude), you come up with something for which (1) there is no evidence and (2) doesn't even have a decent description. Your only statement about it is that it's a "special rule/principle". With that kind of reasoning, you can come up with an idea that goes against any observed phenomenon. For example, I could have a model where cells are powered by nuclear fusion. The immediate response to that is that cells are nowhere near hot enough for fusion to occur. Then I handwave that by saying there is a "special rule/principle" that allows it to occur in cells at low temperatures and pressure, despite there being zero evidence for this rule and no mechanism describing how it works.

You also haven't provided a reference where W bosons are observed to create an attractive force. Every time I've gone looking, I've found no references to the weak nuclear force being either attractive or repulsive.

There's also another problem: quantum tunneling only allows particles to travel to locations that are equal to or less than the energy level that they were originally at (otherwise, the first law of thermodynamics is violated). In order for an electron to tunnel up and out of the Earth, it would have to travel up against a gravitational potential. The only way that can happen would be if there was some location beyond Earth where the potential energy of the electron could be less than it is on Earth (in the Sun, for example). It could not tunnel, for instance, into me. My own gravitational field is far too weak and thus the tunneling electron would have to gain potential energy in order to do that (which is forbidden).

Then comes the question of how things that are neither electrons or protons experience gravitational attraction. Neutron drop experiments have been performed and they are observed to free fall. How does that happen in your model?

2

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 29/03/2023 17:44:10 »

You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you?

How does that make any significant difference?

There would have to be some special rule/principle governing the behaviour of electrons in orbit around a nucleus allowing them to tunnel to far great distances

Sounds like something you made up in order to avoid having your model falsified by the available data.

or it might be that aspects of quantum theory are incorrect.

What's your evidence for that?

The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately.

I don't see how. Your model doesn't seem to make quantifiable predictions. Can you do the math showing what the strength of gravity should be in your model? Can you do the same thing in terms of prediction the value of gravitational lensing of light?

Do you have a reference for the exchange of W bosons creating an attractive force?

I think, also, string theory more or less also made the admission that gravitational fields are formed of quanta (particles) of the electrical field (i.e. electrons).

Do you have a citation for this?

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 11/03/2023 18:55:47 »

I'm not the only moderator. If Halc thinks that you are getting too off topic, then you should respect his decree. If you want to ask about the energy source of the Big Bang, you can make a new thread about it. Just don't let it devolve into a discussion about your Theory D.

4

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 09/03/2023 17:32:28 »

However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.

The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.

So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?

There is no need to bypass the laws of physics. The energy was always there since the beginning of time.

5

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/03/2023 17:37:54 »

Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?

We have no choice. We can't explain what we can't observe.

I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.

The laws of physics weren't preventing people from accessing those unseen parts of the Earth. It was just a lack of know-how and trying. It's a rather different story for the observable universe (unless faster-than-light travel proves to be possible some day).

Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

The Big Bang theory generally does assume that.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Because that's how long ago the Big Bang happened.

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)

I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.

6

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 07/03/2023 21:20:09 »

If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

It didn't. The assumption of the Big Bang is that the Universe started off at infinite size at the Big Bang, but in an incredibly hot, dense state everywhere. Then, as it expanded, it cooled off until we have what we see today. The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.

The idea that all matter in existence was once crammed into a single point of zero size is a something of a pop-sci myth. It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe. The word "singularity" is more of a reference to the fact that the Universe approaches infinite density and temperature as you go back through time and approach the moment of the Big Bang.

7

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Are Dogs Evolved to Hate Cats (and Vice Versa)?

« on: 05/03/2023 22:49:08 »

I would say not. Dogs could certainly see cats as potential prey. Likewise, a cat would see a dog or wolf as a potential predator (under the right circumstances). However, that isn't hatred and not all dog/cat interactions are like this.

Dogs and cats can be raised together and end up getting along quite well. I've seen it with my own eyes.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Distribution of Earth's mass?

« on: 25/02/2023 01:31:45 »

I would have intuitively thought that there would be more mass along the equator than at the poles, but the actual mass distribution seems to be more random than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#/media/File:Gravity_anomalies_on_Earth.jpg

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Will tidal power cause the moon to crash into us?

« on: 07/02/2023 21:56:58 »

Tidal interactions are the result of the Earth spinning faster than the Moon orbits around it. The ultimate result is for rotational kinetic energy to be extracted from the Earth and transferred to the Moon which slowly increases its orbital distance from us. So tidal power ultimately comes from the Earth's rotation, not the Moon's orbit.

The rotational kinetic energy of the Earth is truly immense and it's already being drained by the Moon. Human use of that energy would be minuscule by comparison. Eventually, you'd expect Earth's rotation to slow down until a day was as long as a lunar orbit. At that point, the two are tidally locked and you can no longer use tidal power.

10

New Theories / Re: Biblical Flood

« on: 04/02/2023 21:11:37 »

My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.

Well then your model has been falsified, as antiprotons are very much real.

Since you have ignored my last post yet again, and you were warned about it, this thread is getting closed. Don't open a new thread about your model or it too will be closed and you will be suspended for trying to bypass a thread locking.

11

New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons, preon, preons

« on: 03/02/2023 16:44:13 »

How would one test this model?

12

New Theories / Re: One Theory Of Homosexuality...

« on: 30/01/2023 01:09:49 »

I wouldn't be surprised if certain artificial chemicals do have a potential impact on sexual orientation if exposure happens during early development (especially hormone mimics). However, that can't be the only cause, as homosexuality existed before such chemical synthesis was invented.

13

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?

14

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.

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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?

20

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.