Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jccc on 17/04/2015 10:16:11
-
thank you Pete! I read those wiki pages.
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon. how do you think i think about those articles talking about photon? i don't believe them anymore.
100 laser balloon popping
if laser beam is particle beam, the energy of the beam should be the same at different distance.
if laser beam is gravitational wave between the source atoms and the target atoms, the energy of the beam should decay by distance.
look how fast the 1st balloon pops and how slow the last 1 is?
Now are you convinced?
-
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon.
...Sounds interesting. I want to know more about it, please!
-
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon.
...Sounds interesting. I want to know more about it, please!
click my name and read my posts. correct me....thank you.
-
Oooooo... Interesting theory! To me it sounds more feasible than photons.
-
Oooooo... Interesting theory! To me it sounds more feasible than photons.
awesome!!! thank you very very much. you are the most open mind honest guy i ever met.
-
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon.
...Sounds interesting. I want to know more about it, please!
Please take note of the fact that you're asking a known crackpot to explain his nonsense with you.
-
Oooooo... Interesting theory! To me it sounds more feasible than photons.
please tell Pete why you think my theory of light sounds more feasible to you, appreciate.
-
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon.
...Sounds interesting. I want to know more about it, please!
Please take note of the fact that you're asking a known crackpot to explain his nonsense with you.
Charming, im ok with being called a crackpot, I know you refer to me.
I know I have been sent to Coventry in a hope I will leave science alone.
I get everything, science is well easy to think about.
-
Well turn off all the lights and you will simply float away. What a load of old rubbish. I think you need a fantasy fiction forum. It is so easy to sit in a comfy chair and let your imagination wander. That way you don't need to expend any of that tiresome effort learning anything. You might actually surprise yourself by what you would learn by actually taking criticism as positive. It is a sign of good character.
-
Well turn off all the lights and you will simply float away. What a load of old rubbish. I think you need a fantasy fiction forum. It is so easy to sit in a comfy chair and let your imagination wander. That way you don't need to expend any of that tiresome effort learning anything. You might actually surprise yourself by what you would learn by actually taking criticism as positive. It is a sign of good character.
what are you talking about?
the light in your room is produced by electricity, turn off the light has nothing to do with gravity between you and earth.
if the sun stops to shine, its gravity still holding us. the sunlight is from the hot atoms on suns surface vibrate at high frenquency, each atom produces its own gravitational wave that outward propagate at c speed.
you didn't read my posts or you have bad memory?
-
Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays to radio waves are definitely *electromagnetic*
We know this because we can generate radio waves and microwaves with devices that drive oscillating electric or magnetic fields and we can generate oscillating electric/magnetic fields by capturing those waves with devices.
We know this because of how microwaves, infrared, visible and ultraviolet radiation interact with atoms and molecules. It is the electronic properties of molecules and atoms that determines which frequencies of light can be absorbed or emitted--mass has nothing to do with it (other than slight perturbations that the mass induces in the electronic structure). Molecules that have electrostatic dipole or quadrupole moments interact much more strongly with electromagnetic radiation that molecules that are completely (electrostatically) non-polar; but water and heavy water behave exactly the same--if light were gravity waves, wouldn't it have different effects on molecules that have different masses?
We know this because of how UV rays, x-rays and gamma rays interact with electrons.
We know this because we can rotate light with magnetic fields.
We know this because Maxwell's equations work.
light is electromagnetic
-
how about gravity? does a vibrating mass produce gravitational wave?
isn't gravity electromagnetic?
-
No
-
Oooooo... Interesting theory! To me it sounds more feasible than photons.
please tell Pete why you think my theory of light sounds more feasible to you, appreciate.
I need to confirm this one thing before I declare who's side I'm on and defend my previous statement.
So basically, to confirm my knowledge on photons I searched around different physics forums and the only answer they had was... That the photon is energy (Source: 'https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-atoms-create-photons.283784/'). I just need a confirmation from you guys that, that is the case and yet we do not have a proper explanation. Although if that's not the case, I would appreciate a descriptive 'why and how'.
-
I know I have been sent to Coventry in a hope I will leave science alone.
No one is sending you to Coventry, it's just that folks have learnt that answering a question from you results in the following:
- An accusation that we just quote book learning
- A statement that you are fully capable of thinking it out yourself
- A nonsensical statement of misused words and phrases.
Eventually people get tired of trying
-
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon.
...Sounds interesting. I want to know more about it, please!
Please take note of the fact that you're asking a known crackpot to explain his nonsense with you.
Look... Mr. Peter (I'm younger than you and less knowledgeable. Hence, 'Mr.'. I hope it didn't offend you in any way), he hasn't yet been disrespectful to me in any way and neither has he shown any other signs of being a crackpot... Atleast not to me. I'm the kind of person who likes to learn from my own mistakes. Maybe he is a crackpot in your opinion, but in my world he is still a polite person who just wants to discuss his theories with us. I might change this opinion later if he evolves to be the kind of person who just claims 'He knows it all' and 'You are all wrong'. But, right now, to me, he is just like any of you.
By the way, I like to be explicit... So I wanted to tell you this one other thing.
I mean you know it already, but yeah I'm going to restate it for the sake of other members. I'm still learning quantum mechanics and surely am less knowledgeable than any of you as of this moment. So Jccc shouldn't be very happy to have me on his side, believing in his theory since, like I just said 'I'm learning quantum mechanics'. Maybe I might disagree with Jccc later (After being completely aware of every aspect of quantum mechanics) but right now I find his theory more feasible than atoms emitting photons.
As soon as you confirm my knowledge on photons be answering my previous post... I will declare with full confidence if I still believe in Jccc's theories or Am on the side of the members who disagrees with him.
That's all I had to say and I hope you try to understand my true intention and do not, in any way find this post offensive. I respect all of you on here and am honoured to be a part of this forum, I truly Am!
-
I need to confirm this one thing before I declare who's side I'm on and defend my previous statement.
..to confirm my knowledge on photons I searched around different physics forums and the only answer they had was... That the photon is energy .....
Welcome Jasper
My understanding is that the photon is a particle, it carries/transfers energy but it not energy per se. It's energy depends on it's frequency.
You might like to read http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm as a starter and perhaps the author will give you a detailed response on the photon. He's well into QM and is worth listening to.
Jccc has some creative ideas (and some naughty ones), but I tend to find EM waves and photons useful concepts that offer enough consistency and predictability for my needs.
-
my ideas are simple.
1. there are 3 building blocks in nature, proton carries 900 + charges, electron carries -1 charge, enertron carries -10^-16 charge.
proton attracts all negative charged stuff, therefore a ball of electron and enertron will form around proton. because enertron is denser than electron ( charge to volume ratio), it condensed around proton by electromagnetic force, density from the proton outward decay at 1/r^3. electron also attracted by proton and stable at atom radius where the proton electron attraction force is equal to the electron enertron repelling force.
proton is like core of earth, enertron is the land and atmosphere, electron is like giant beach ball. atom's force field is far beyond radius, earth's gravitational field is also far beyond atmosphere.
atom in fact is so dense build, that's why atoms are not compressible, that's why electron cannot discharge into proton.
2. a charge's force field extend to infinite distance, it decays at 1/r^2 but never become 0. an atom, even it is electrically neutral, charges within atom still carry same force fields. therefore matter and chemical bounding able to form.
gravity is nothing but net em forces of all charges within or between matters/stars. gravity is a force, all masses attract each other because charges within have boundless force fields. gravity is not wave or particle. when a mass is vibrating, it produces gravitational wave which is a force pause able to act on other masses.
3. energy is force. forces are within charges. forces can only act on charges.
what's all. correct or not? opinion various. time will tell, i might refine my thoughts later. but so far, seems all sounding enough for myself.
we are seekers, without truth, we won't stop. don't let anything stop us. truth will set us free. soon!
Enjoy life, try to love all things, Dear friends!
-
I know I have been sent to Coventry in a hope I will leave science alone.
No one is sending you to Coventry, it's just that folks have learnt that answering a question from you results in the following:
- An accusation that we just quote book learning
- A statement that you are fully capable of thinking it out yourself
- A nonsensical statement of misused words and phrases.
Eventually people get tired of trying
So because I will not accept all science beliefs, you will not discuss science with me, how strange.
-
So because I will not accept all science beliefs, you will not discuss science with me, how strange.
no, we get tired trying to discuss science with you because you think you know many things that you do not. We can't even start talking about anything remotely interesting before you understand elementary mathematics (like units, ratios and arithmetic) and elementary physics (charge, for instance).
-
i have to give thebox credit for some stuff he posted. things not from text books. rarely find those stuff in a science forum.
-
So because I will not accept all science beliefs, you will not discuss science with me, how strange.
Another example of how you misquote and misunderstand what is being said.
The conversation becomes irrational and pointless.
Exactly why I gave up
And am giving up
-
i have to give thebox credit for some stuff he posted. things not from text books. rarely find those stuff in a science forum.
I agree, some ideas are original and others have already been explored before by philosophers. The problem comes when trying to discuss them, you quickly run into such a lack of basic understanding (or a deliberate obscuring?) that reasonable and profitable discussion becomes impossible.
People don't join this forum to provide personal amusement for others, there has to be a pay off, a reward. Sometimes that comes from helping others, sometimes from a really interesting problem or idea. We all have day jobs or other interests and time is part of the cost/benefit analysis. There have been some potentially interesting discussions with the box, but I've had to abandon them because wading through the dross has diverted the ideas way off topic.
For example, I'm tempted to start a thread on the differences between sense perception and probable reality, but perhaps not on this forum because I would value some rational discussion.
-
i think temperature can be defined as average atom vibrating force/momentum in a system.
the hot atoms on sun's surface vibrate to produce gravitational waves outward. that force causes atoms on earth to vibrate to heat up us.
rob your hands, fiction force causes atoms vibrate faster, you feel heat.
energy is force, force is energy.
thoughts? i am thinking new ways to produce force or store force.
-
i think temperature can be defined as average atom vibrating force/momentum in a system.
the hot atoms on sun's surface vibrate to produce gravitational waves outward. that force causes atoms on earth to vibrate to heat up us.
rob your hands, fiction force causes atoms vibrate faster, you feel heat.
energy is force, force is energy.
thoughts? i am thinking new ways to produce force or store force.
Why does gravitational vibrations make more sense than electromagnetic vibrations?
-
in fact, it is charges produce force. charge vibrates, its force/field vibrates, within the field, force transfer to other charges.
atoms are build by charges, atom produces gravitational force/field. atom vibrates, produces force wave.
gravity is em force. all forces are em force. just my view, can't prove yet.
all this came from the doubt of atomic structure. i started thinking it at 1970
-
Force, momentum and energy are all different. Please learn the difference and use the correct word if you want an answer to a scientific question.
-
force and energy is same thing to me. i don't think force is momentum at all.
did you ever doubt any science theories? did you dig in till find answers? please share your experiences, appreciate. must be very interesting to all of us.
-
Alan, i think temperature can be defined as average atom vibrating force/momentum in a system.
what i mean is in gas state, atom momentum proportional to temperature. in solid state, atom vibrating force proportional to temperature.
wiki didn't gave a definition to temperature, so i have my own thought. thoughts?
-
If no one has already, I thought this might be interesting to look up. It is a physics lecture Richard Feynman did called: Photons: Corpuscles of Light. The Sir Douglas Robb Lectures at University of Auckland 1979. You can probably find it on youtube. I don't have the original link, it's an old file I have from when I was in college. No, I'm not that old. :D . I attended college starting in 2012. I love listening to his lectures, also Leonard Susskind. Just thought it may help in some way. Sometimes it's best to start over at the beginning and just re-think all of it all over again. If you come up with nothing new, no harm done but a better understanding of it will come out of it. enjoy!
-
force and energy is same thing to me.
That's why it's unwise for people to accept anything you say as being correct. It might be that to you but it certainly isn't the way Newton, and thereby the rest of the physics community and the world, defined it. Newton very clearly defined it as follows: if an object has a mass m and is moving with velocity v then the force is defined as
F = dp/dt
where p = mv is the particles momentum.
i don't think force is momentum at all.
So what? Nobody else does either.
-
If no one has already, I thought this might be interesting to look up. It is a physics lecture Richard Feynman did called: Photons: Corpuscles of Light. The Sir Douglas Robb Lectures at University of Auckland 1979. You can probably find it on youtube. I don't have the original link, it's an old file I have from when I was in college. No, I'm not that old. :D . I attended college starting in 2012. I love listening to his lectures, also Leonard Susskind. Just thought it may help in some way. Sometimes it's best to start over at the beginning and just re-think all of it all over again. If you come up with nothing new, no harm done but a better understanding of it will come out of it. enjoy!
i like him a lot, more about personality, was a COOL man.
-
I also found this while digging around for some other research I was doing.
o Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves (i.e. light or photons) are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter.
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html
I highlighted that one part and italicized it as well, because neutrinos do exactly the same thing. Or, they have the same properties in respect to that aspect between them anyway.
-
each atom has its own gravitational force/field.
vibrating/exiting atoms produce gravitational waves is logic/fact.
different mass atoms vibrate at same frequency, should produce same color of light, but of different multitude/strength/force/energy.
when current passes carbon wire, resistance makes carbon atoms vibrating, producing a range of light waves.
the stronger bounding force between atoms in a matter, should produce higher frequency gravitational waves.
all speculation, thoughts?
-
The spectrum of light produced by hydrogen and deuterium is essentially identical, despite deuterium having twice the mass of hydrogen.
-
The spectrum of light produced by hydrogen and deuterium is essentially identical, despite deuterium having twice the mass of hydrogen.
The spectra of 59Fe and 59Co are totally different, despite having nearly identical mass.
-
The spectrum of light produced by hydrogen and deuterium is essentially identical, despite deuterium having twice the mass of hydrogen.
The spectra of 59Fe and 59Co are totally different, despite having nearly identical mass.
good point and info!
maybe hydrogen and deuterium vibrate at same band of frequency, mass proportional to wave strength not frequency.
same mass, different bounding force strength between atoms in 59Fe and 59Co, would change the spectra? i said so.
-
The spectrum of light produced by hydrogen and deuterium is essentially identical, despite deuterium having twice the mass of hydrogen.
What do you mean by "essentially"? If you mean "very close" then I agree. One obtains the spectrum for atomic deuterium from the formula for atomic hydrogen by replacing the mass by the reduced mass.
-
Yes, I meant "very close." They are not identical, as there is some influence from the mass of the nucleus, but it is insignificant compared to the influence of changing the atomic number (charge of the nucleus). It takes a very good spectrometer using some special techniques to distinguish an H emission spectrum from a D emission spectrum.
-
I also found this while digging around for some other research I was doing.
o Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves (i.e. light or photons) are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter.
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html
I highlighted that one part and italicized it as well, because neutrinos do exactly the same thing. Or, they have the same properties in respect to that aspect between them anyway.
i read it, not agree. i think em force and gravitation force are the same force.
if the moon suddenly becomes a proton star, only carries n amount of positive charges, let's see the force between moon and earth. set earth has m protons and m electrons.
the attraction between moon proton and earth electron is n x m, the repulsion between earth proton and moon proton is also n x m. it should be no net force. but in reality, induce made the net em forces an attraction which proportional to the product of charges/masses.
if the moon becomes an electron star, we get the same amount of em attraction force/gravity.
gravity wave is produced by vibrating mess/charge, how could a star or the earth vibrate at high frequency? only atoms able to vibrate at high frequency to produce detectable waves.
-
i read it, not agree. i think em force and gravitation force are the same force.
if the moon suddenly becomes a proton star, only carries n amount of positive charges, let's see the force between moon and earth. set earth has m protons and m electrons.
the attraction between moon proton and earth electron is n x m, the repulsion between earth proton and moon proton is also n x m. it should be no net force. but in reality, induce made the net em forces an attraction which proportional to the product of charges/masses.
if the moon becomes an electron star, we get the same amount of em attraction force/gravity.
If the moon became strongly charged (either positive or negative) there would be an added attractive force between the moon and the Earth because of an induced dipole--you are correct that there are an equal number of protons and electrons on the Earth (give or take a few), but incorrect in assuming that there would be no net force: if the moon became very positive, the electrons of the Earth would be attracted, and the protons repelled, ultimately causing the side of the Earth closer to the moon to get more negative, and the far side to get more positive. Now the attraction of the close negative side is greater than the repulsion of the far positive side.
gravity wave is produced by vibrating mess/charge, how could a star or the earth vibrate at high frequency? only atoms able to vibrate at high frequency to produce detectable waves.
who (other than you) said anything about high frequency gravity waves? light is high frequency EM waves. Gravity waves (which to my knowledge have not been detected yet) are more likely to be (relatively) low frequency, because, as you pointed out, stars are massive.
-
agreed, but this? if the moon became very positive, the electrons of the Earth would be attracted, and the protons repelled, ultimately causing the side of the Earth closer to the moon to get more negative, and the far side to get more positive. Now the attraction of the close negative side is greater than the repulsion of the far positive side.
even in the case of proton moon, the attraction will be small. isn't the induce effect is only work at atom range not earth size?
-
It works on any size that electrostatics works at. This certainly includes the macroscopic scale--for instance if you take an inflated balloon, rub it on your head and use it to pick up small things like feathers or paper slips or stick it on the wall ( and The balloon gets a charge, and it is attracted to the wall, even though the wall is neutral.
Now, if you put enough charge on the moon that electrostatic force on the Earth was substantial, the moon would probably start "throwing" charged dust off its surface.
-
It works on any size that electrostatics works at. This certainly includes the macroscopic scale--for instance if you take an inflated balloon, rub it on your head and use it to pick up small things like feathers or paper slips or stick it on the wall ( and The balloon gets a charge, and it is attracted to the wall, even though the wall is neutral.
Now, if you put enough charge on the moon that electrostatic force on the Earth was substantial, the moon would probably start "throwing" charged dust off its surface.
even the moon is all protons, the atoms on the near side of the earth or far side are induced about same attitude, the electrons in every single atom move toward to moon but still within the atom, it is not like the far side of the earth contain more proton in every atom and the near side atoms contain more electron. electrons moved position a little due to induce but still with the atom.
agree?
-
Disagree.
Charge separation can be much more than within an atom. Especially considering Earth's salty oceans (dissolved and mobile positive and negative ions), which would probably accommodate much of the charge polarization. It would be like a tide, but instead of moving mass around, charge would move.
-
so if the moon is all proton, electrons on earth will discharge into the moon?
or the near side of the earth contains more electron per atom/volume?
-
well, if the moon were *all* proton, the moon would explode.
but, if we imagine that it doesn't somehow, Earth's electrons would ultimately find their way to the moon until the moon and Earth had equal pull on the remaining electrons.
If the moon had a major charge imbalance, and were similarly prevented from destroying itself, I would predict the electrons stay on the Earth, but that the Earth would be polarized.
-
well, if the moon were *all* proton, the moon would explode.
but, if we imagine that it doesn't somehow, Earth's electrons would ultimately find their way to the moon until the moon and Earth had equal pull on the remaining electrons.
If the moon had a major charge imbalance, and were similarly prevented from destroying itself, I would predict the electrons stay on the Earth, but that the Earth would be polarized.
Chiral, appreciate your discussing!
prove me wrong will only help me to move onto right. i think the atoms each will be polarized but not the earth.
the attraction force between moon and electron in an atom on earth = n x 1/R^2
the attraction force between electron and nucleus = proton number x 1/r^2
my point is trying to find out/explain the mechanism of gravity, help me on it!
-
see, it goes around around, comes around. the big question to me is still:
if the electron possible to discharge from earth atom into positive charged far away moon, why can't it discharge into own nucleus?
-
Read about "field ionisation". In a strong enough electric field, you can indeed strip electrons from atoms. This phenomenon is used in mass spectrometers.
But electrostatics and electron orbitals have absolutely nothing to do with gravitation, so you won't find out anything about gravity by asking questons about electrostatics or atomic structure.
-
Alan,
i always say/think orbitals are imaginary, i never said gravity has anything to do with it.
you are at it again! created words/ideas for me.
-
Alan,
i always say/think orbitals are imaginary, i never said gravity has anything to do with it.
you are at it again! created words/ideas for me.
I find it amazing how someone like you who has almost no understanding of quantum mechanics can claim that orbitals are imaginary when in fact you don't have the skills to make such arguments or to theorize why orbitals would be imaginary. lt's quite clear that you don't know what you're talking about and know that you're unable to produce a logical argument to support your claims. All you've done since you've got here is make random statements with no thought put into them.
-
if the electron possible to discharge from earth atom into positive charged far away moon, why can't it discharge into own nucleus?
Because the strong force is dominant at the nuclear level and overcomes the electrostatic force.
-
if the electron possible to discharge from earth atom into positive charged far away moon, why can't it discharge into own nucleus?
Because the strong force is dominant at the nuclear level and overcomes the electrostatic force.
anyone can read can copy and paste that. but what's the mechanism? energy level? orbital?
if we still go around.....
-
Alan,
i always say/think orbitals are imaginary, i never said gravity has anything to do with it.
you are at it again! created words/ideas for me.
I find it amazing how someone like you who has almost no understanding of quantum mechanics can claim that orbitals are imaginary when in fact you don't have the skills to make such arguments or to theorize why orbitals would be imaginary. lt's quite clear that you don't know what you're talking about and know that you're unable to produce a logical argument to support your claims. All you've done since you've got here is make random statements with no thought put into them.
Pete, since day 1 i came to this forum, you said the same thing over and over.
if you really understand qm, please tell me the mechanism of energy level and orbital?
attack my theory/idea/logic, not my education/personal, please be professional, and friendly.
-
If I may speak for Pete, the problem is that QM is fairly straight forward for someone who can do multivariate differential and integral calculus and simple differential equations (though it still takes a lot of effort to make sure it all makes sense), and nearly impossible to "prove" anything to someone who lacks those tools.
The "logic" of quantum mechanics is totally at odds with what we observe in the macroscopic world, but totally in line with (fairly) simple mathematical equations.
It may have been Feynman who said "shut up and calculate" (though some attribute it to Mermin)
-
If I may speak for Pete, the problem is that QM is fairly straight forward for someone who can do multivariate differential and integral calculus and simple differential equations (though it still takes a lot of effort to make sure it all makes sense), and nearly impossible to "prove" anything to someone who lacks those tools.
The "logic" of quantum mechanics is totally at odds with what we observe in the macroscopic world, but totally in line with (fairly) simple mathematical equations.
It may have been Feynman who said "shut up and calculate" (though some attribute it to Mermin)
i am not seeking the prove of the equations. i want to learn the logic to make those equations.
how many equations to support the big bang theory? is the big bang theory correct?
maybe, tomorrow, big bang will become flat earth. maybe not.
are you sure there is orbital? are you sure there is photon and graviton? based on what fact?
isn't we all science lovers and good thinkers? can we help each other to uncover truth/science instead of compete known knowledge?
-
i am not seeking the prove of the equations. i want to learn the logic to make those equations.
Expend the effort to learn the equations and the logic will follow.
Shut the ____ up and calculate!!!!!!
-
i am not seeking the prove of the equations. i want to learn the logic to make those equations.
Expend the effort to learn the equations and the logic will follow.
Shut the ____ up and calculate!!!!!!
the logic followed you all the way to here, mind to share a picture of it?
-
Pete, since day 1 i came to this forum, you said the same thing over and over.
if you really understand qm, please tell me the mechanism of energy level and orbital?
attack my theory/idea/logic, not my education/personal, please be professional, and friendly.
See? This is a major problem in your grasp of physics. Physics has yet to been able to reveal what mechanisms are at work in various processes. That's not what physics does, i.e. it doesn't tell people what mechanisms are. In a lot of situations it very well can do so. However when it comes down to the basic theorems it's unable to. The reason being because they are basic which means that they can't be described in more fundamental terms. The Schrodinger is a postulate of quantum mechanics. That means that it can't be rigorously derived. While there are derivations they're not really rigorous. They are only meant to give a feeling for where that equation came from. Given the Schrodinger equation one plugs into it the potential function and one of the results obtained is the possible energy values.
You have chosen to remain ignorant by your choice not to learn physics. When I say that you've chosen not to learn physics I mean the only way that a physicist can learn physics - but hard long study. You want to take a short cut and just ask questions thinking that you'll understand the answers. When you get an answer that doesn't jive with your experiences with the world then you reject it claiming that it's all an illusion or that all of us physicists are wrong and/or deluded. And you're going to remain that way because there's no other way to learn physics correctly other than hard study. That means reading the texts which were written to teach people to be physicists and to work out the problems created by the author to instil the knowledge into you.
So enough with your accusations and listen to Ethos, ChiralSPO and myself and shut up and learn physics.
-
that's your way of science, no my way.
anyone agree with you? how about start a pool?
why don't you shut up and think the logic behind your science?
-
that's your way of science, no my way.
That's the way of the scientific community. You never had to tell us that your way is no the way of the scientific community.
anyone agree with you?
Everyone who understands physics does. I'd bet that if you contacted any physicist at MIT, Harvard, Caltech, etc., they'd agree with me too.
-
please be friendly.
you guys say calculate and then logic will follow.
calculate what? 1 proton and 1 electron to form an atom, is the electron table at atom radius or circling the proton?
calculate the attraction force between them or the circling speed of the electron?
what are those have anything to do with photon emitting and energy exchanging?
what is energy level? what's the mechanism?
-
please be friendly.
When you start acting like a reasonable person and stop making accusations I will. Until then you get what you deserve.
you guys say calculate and then logic will follow.
calculate what?
If you read a text on quantum mechanics you'll learn that. Why should we who have worked so hard at learning this keep shoveling it to you when you're going to keep saying its all in our imagination? You'll then learn which questions have answers and which ones don't.
-
Pete,
if there is a clear logic, why can't you simply state it? what's the secret?
anyway, this thread is about light.
is light gravitation wave produced by exited atom?
is light photon particle/wave emitted by electron?
what's your opinion? Thanks.
-
Pete,
is light gravitation wave produced by exited atom?
is light photon particle/wave emitted by electron?
what's your opinion? Thanks.
I thought he (and the others) had already stated this very clearly. Not just in this thread but others.
-
Pete,
if there is a clear logic, why can't you simply state it? what's the secret?
And you wonder why I'm not polite? It's because you never listen to what we're telling you. For example; just now I told you how to obtain it. I.e. I wrote Given the Schrodinger equation one plugs into it the potential function and one of the results obtained is the possible energy values. Why did you ignore that? The problem here is that you don't have the math skills to understand the derivation. For example, see: http://users.aber.ac.uk/ruw/teach/237/hatom.php
Do you understand this derivation?
anyway, this thread is about light.
Then why did you ask are you sure there is orbital?
is light gravitation wave produced by exited atom?
Surely, you must be kidding? Of course it doesn't.
is light photon particle/wave emitted by electron?
It's a photon. A photon is a quantum entity. Particles and waves are classical concepts. The best that can be said is that it depends on how its observed. That's what the wave-particle duality means. You've seen this discussed thousands of times since you've been here and you still haven't got that?
-
If I may speak for Pete, the problem is that QM is fairly straight forward for someone who can do multivariate differential and integral calculus and simple differential equations (though it still takes a lot of effort to make sure it all makes sense), and nearly impossible to "prove" anything to someone who lacks those tools.
The "logic" of quantum mechanics is totally at odds with what we observe in the macroscopic world, but totally in line with (fairly) simple mathematical equations.
It may have been Feynman who said "shut up and calculate" (though some attribute it to Mermin)
i am not seeking the prove of the equations. i want to learn the logic to make those equations.
how many equations to support the big bang theory? is the big bang theory correct?
maybe, tomorrow, big bang will become flat earth. maybe not.
are you sure there is orbital? are you sure there is photon and graviton? based on what fact?
isn't we all science lovers and good thinkers? can we help each other to uncover truth/science instead of compete known knowledge?
Thumbs up to you JC I am on your wavelength of thinking and you are correct I can never find no facts either.
-
Dear Brother,
are you sure about this?
they got laser guns and we got rusty swords, they are many, we are 1*1=0.
-
Dear Brother,
are you sure about this?
they got laser guns and we got rusty swords, they are many, we are 1*1=0.
Jccc, is it really that hard for you to grasp the concept of addition and multiplication?
...Or were you poking fun of your own 'Science brother'?
-
1 electron * 1 proton = 0 charge.
he'll agree.
-
i am not seeking the prove of the equations. i want to learn the logic to make those equations.
It's the exact same thing. The equations of physics that you're referring to are postulates which means that they can't be logically derived from simpler equations. They are obtained from the analysis of experiments using inductive reasoning.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
Since the conclusion of inductive arguments are probable and not 100% certain, crackpots use this to claim that the laws of physics are wrong.
-
1 electron * 1 proton = 0 charge.
he'll agree.
How does that follow from the word salad you wrote saying
Dear Brother,
are you sure about this?
they got laser guns and we got rusty swords, they are many, we are 1*1=0.
The "*" symbol is used to represent multiplication, not addition. And this was written with two "1"s, not a 1 and a "-1" so jccc is doing what we call "backpedaling".
Jasper - jccc claims to have meant that total charge = +q + (-q) = 0. However that's the first time he mentions charge in this thread (other than some meaningless drivel where he wrote if the electron possible to discharge from earth atom into positive charged far away moon, why can't it discharge into own nucleus?)
-
I had a thought about electromagnetism/ electrostatics concerning gravity some years back. It stemmed from working as an apprentice electrician studying for my journeymans license. In our home we all notice that we need three wires to ensure a safe connection. A hot, A neutral and a ground. There are only two wires that come off of the pole. Each one consisting of ~120 volts 60hz. If you combine the two you have ~240 volts 60hz. When you get to the panel though, you will notice that the neutral and the ground are actually the same thing, they hook up to the same terminals. Why is this I thought? The ground on a panel is nothing more than an 8 ft solid copper rod drove into the ground. (hence the negative polarity). I've did a few of those, not an easy job. If you want 120volts you merely attach onto one of the hot lines, and connect the other side to the ground. So, what is the point in the "neutral"? Then I was studying the late Tesla and remembered a project he done where he merely pushed the light bulbs into the ground(Earth) and the bulbs lit up. In his experiment he had found a way to transmit positive energy wirelessly. In order to use it, it must be grounded first to complete the path. I've did a lot of other research on this as well. One being the schuman resonance frewuency of the earth. Also numerous papers on the Earth being extremely negatively charged. I wondered then, what would happen if we were negatively charged as well? EM and ES says that we would fly off the planet because opposite charges attract, like charges repel. I've since abandoned this for many reasons. But what is your take on this. Since one of you mentioned that gravity is an EM wave or of EM origin?
-
So, I just don't see how light could be a gravitational wave. Maybe it could be a consequence of gravity or something, like if not for gravity light could not be. Like the center of a black hole, too much gravity and light cannot escape it. Of course I did see something awhile back where scientists have found a way to make light take on a new state of matter. Is there more to this? It is an interesting thought, but you better brush up on a LOT of math. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-bind-photons-together-to-create-new-state-of-matter-comparable-to-lightsabers-8841612.html
Of course you could just google "light takes on new state of matter" and read what literature is out there about it. I would recommend only reading published university research papers though. Still, very cool stuff.
-
i call them proton, electron and enertron. no one openly agree with me yet.
because you are wrong, selfdeluded, muddleheaded and arrogant beyond belief. Where is your experimental proof?
-
i call them proton, electron and enertron. no one openly agree with me yet.
because you are wrong, selfdeluded, muddleheaded and arrogant beyond belief. Where is your experimental proof?
daily facts are, atoms are not compressible, electrons are not discharge into nucleus.
if atom is as present atomic model suggested, atoms will be self discharge instantly, atoms will be very compressible. observation just the opposite.
-
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
That's ridiculous. The electric field cannot produce gravity. I wish you'd stop saying this crap. Whatever gave you the idea that just because you can type something out on a keyboard that there's any truth to it?
Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to proton numbers within it?
Duh! Gee! No. Nobody's ever wondered about that, duh! The mass isn't proportional to the number of protons in the atom. It's roughly equal to the number of nucleons in the nucleus. That means that its approximately equal to the number of protons plus the number of neutrons. To be exact you'd have to take into account the mass contribution due to the binding enery.
there is only 1 force in nature, the force between charges. without charge, there is no matter, no force, nothing will ever happen.
More nonsense coming from jccc yet again. Will you ever stop making such ignorant things? Where in the world do you get off making ignorant bogus claims like this? There are forces between neutrons due to their strong force and the force due to their magnetic moments.
Again. READ A DAMN BOOK!!!!
-
Pete,
this is new theory forum, please be nice.
if you don't agree my new theory, debunk with logic and respect.
i know you are a gentleman,
-
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.
Poppycock, as you well know. Electrostatic forces can be shielded by placing a conductor between the charges. Gravity cannot.
If you have a brain, why not try using it? I promise it won't wear out before you learn a bit of humility before the facts.
-
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.
Poppycock, as you well know. Electrostatic forces can be shielded by placing a conductor between the charges. Gravity cannot.
If you have a brain, why not try using it? I promise it won't wear out before you learn a bit of humility before the facts.
Alan,
electrons are free to move in a conductor, electrostatic forces will induce charges in the conductor first and neutralized/used up before reach the detector, therefore shielded.
-
Try thinking about what I wrote, rather than shouting garbled nonsense.
-
Try thinking about what I wrote, rather than shouting garbled nonsense.
Alan,
did you find any logic mistake from my posts?
who is shouting garbled nonsense? have you try thinking what i wrote?
Thank you.
-
my ideas are simple.
1. there are 3 building blocks in nature, proton carries 900 + charges, electron carries -1 charge, enertron carries -10^-16 charge.
proton attracts all negative charged stuff, therefore a ball of electron and enertron will form around proton. because enertron is denser than electron ( charge to volume ratio), it condensed around proton by electromagnetic force, density from the proton outward decay at 1/r^3. electron also attracted by proton and stable at atom radius where the proton electron attraction force is equal to the electron enertron repelling force.
proton is like core of earth, enertron is the land and atmosphere, electron is like giant beach ball. atom's force field is far beyond radius, earth's gravitational field is also far beyond atmosphere.
atom in fact is so dense build, that's why atoms are not compressible, that's why electron cannot discharge into proton.
2. a charge's force field extend to infinite distance, it decays at 1/r^2 but never become 0. an atom, even it is electrically neutral, charges within atom still carry same force fields. therefore matter and chemical bounding able to form.
gravity is nothing but net em forces of all charges within or between matters/stars. gravity is a force, all masses attract each other because charges within have boundless force fields. gravity is not wave or particle. when a mass is vibrating, it produces gravitational wave which is a force pause able to act on other masses.
3. energy is force. forces are within charges. forces can only act on charges.
what's all. correct or not? opinion various. time will tell, i might refine my thoughts later. but so far, seems all sounding enough for myself.
we are seekers, without truth, we won't stop. don't let anything stop us. truth will set us free. soon!
Enjoy life, try to love all things, Dear friends!
according to my theory, 1 atomic weight equals to 1800 total charges, equals to proton charge +900 add enertron charges -899 add electron -1 charge, equals to neutron's total charges.
both positive and negative charges are force sources, mass is a unit to measure the total force/charge within a matter.
there should be no particle that is massless/chargeless, there can be particle/matter that has net charge 0.
-
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.
Poppycock, as you well know. Electrostatic forces can be shielded by placing a conductor between the charges. Gravity cannot.
If you have a brain, why not try using it? I promise it won't wear out before you learn a bit of humility before the facts.
Alan,
electrons are free to move in a conductor, electrostatic forces will induce charges in the conductor first and neutralized/used up before reach the detector, therefore shielded.
Alan,
after rethink, i have more answer to your question.
you can't shield gravity is because gravity is the net electrostatic forces between two bodies. if you put a shield/mass in between, the total charges are increased, the two bodies will experience more gravitation attraction.
-
this is new theory forum, please be nice.
I am nice ... to those who pay attention and heed what has been said to them. To those who constantly and thus rudely ignore everything that has been said to them I see no reason to be "nice."
if you don't agree my new theory, debunk with logic and respect.
Fine. You merely made a claim with no justification and no reasoning. That's not science and its not a theory. It's mere speculation which contradicts reality. Your claim is
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity.
Quite unclear. The only "force field" that a sole atom has is a gravitational one. An atom can interact with another atom by covalent bonds which is a sharing of covalent electrons. Two molecules can interact by covalent bonds and van der waal forces. But those are merely forces between atoms and molecules. They most certainly do not extend to infinity. The atom does not have a force, other than a gravitational one, which extends to infinity. That's an experimental observation so your claim to the contrary is bogus.
In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
What you're talking about only accounts for van der waal forces. It does not account for magnetism nor gravity. That too is an experimental fact. If it was the electric force that accounted for gravity then bodies would fall at different rates depending on their mass. That too is contrary to observation.
There. Debunked.
-
Pete,
thank you.
i like to hear others opinions.
-
Pete,
thank you.
i like to hear others opinions.
Why? You always ignore them. Everything you say after you read them is as if you never read them at all.
-
this is new theory forum, please be nice.
I am nice ... to those who pay attention and heed what has been said to them. To those who constantly and thus rudely ignore everything that has been said to them I see no reason to be "nice."
if you don't agree my new theory, debunk with logic and respect.
Fine. You merely made a claim with no justification and no reasoning. That's not science and its not a theory. It's mere speculation which contradicts reality. Your claim is
An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity.
Quite unclear. The only "force field" that a sole atom has is a gravitational one. An atom can interact with another atom by covalent bonds which is a sharing of covalent electrons. Two molecules can interact by covalent bonds and van der waal forces. But those are merely forces between atoms and molecules. They most certainly do not extend to infinity. The atom does not have a force, other than a gravitational one, which extends to infinity. That's an experimental observation so your claim to the contrary is bogus.
In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.
What you're talking about only accounts for van der waal forces. It does not account for magnetism nor gravity. That too is an experimental fact. If it was the electric force that accounted for gravity then bodies would fall at different rates depending on their mass. That too is contrary to observation.
There. Debunked.
Pete,
1. atom's force field is beyond distance. gravitational force is em force. if there is only 1 hydrogen atom and 1 proton (or 1 electron) in the universe, no matter how far away, they will attract each other. that is fact due to C's law.
2. gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within two bodies. in the case of falling objects, every charge within the test object experience the same attraction force from the earth, therefore no matter size/density of the object, their acceleration is equal.
Thank you.
-
I don't think we're making any progress here, and we should stop feeding this thread. I'm out.
-
I don't think we're making any progress here, and we should stop feeding this thread. I'm out.
i agree. did i answered every questions you asked?
is any logic mistake?
i be super appreciate some people not comment on my thread.
-
1. atom's force field is beyond distance. gravitational force is em force.
Will you please knock it off. Everything you're claiming is all nonsense and you're doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to justify these crackpot claims.
.. if there is only 1 hydrogen atom and 1 proton (or 1 electron) in the universe, no matter how far away, they will attract each other. that is fact due to C's law.
That's correct. But that's not an atom.
2. gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within two bodies.
Total crap. There is NOTHING right about that claim, nothing!
in the case of falling objects, every charge within the test object experience the same attraction force from the earth, therefore no matter size/density of the object, their acceleration is equal.
This is another load of horse buns. I the earth isn't charged then a charged particle will fall at the same rate as everything else. But you're claiming that gravity is the same as EM which means that if the earth was charged than the charged particle will fall at the same rate as all other charges, independent of their mass. But since they don't we know that you're once again posting shear nonsense.
Another false assumption which is a direct result of you shear ignorance of physics and a quantitative understanding of gravity and electromagnetism.
ChiralSPO is right. You're such a waste of time. You neither have the ability or willingness to learn but don't have any understanding of how to construct a logical argument and reason correctly. That's obvious from your constant refusal to prove what you're saying. That crap above about gravity being em is merely a bogus assumption which, again, you make no argument to justify.
-
I don't think we're making any progress here, and we should stop feeding this thread. I'm out.
I will if you will. From now on I will never post another comment to or about jccc unless one of our gang from NEP does. I kind of look at our group at NEP as an elite group of forum members. Not necessarily for their knowledge of physics but for the admirable way that they keep an open mind, admit their mistakes, approach discussions in a polite and mature manner and are eager to learn physics.
-
I had a thought about electromagnetism/ electrostatics concerning gravity some years back. It stemmed from working as an apprentice electrician studying for my journeymans license. In our home we all notice that we need three wires to ensure a safe connection. A hot, A neutral and a ground. There are only two wires that come off of the pole. Each one consisting of ~120 volts 60hz. If you combine the two you have ~240 volts 60hz. When you get to the panel though, you will notice that the neutral and the ground are actually the same thing, they hook up to the same terminals. Why is this I thought? The ground on a panel is nothing more than an 8 ft solid copper rod drove into the ground. (hence the negative polarity). I've did a few of those, not an easy job. If you want 120volts you merely attach onto one of the hot lines, and connect the other side to the ground. So, what is the point in the "neutral"? Then I was studying the late Tesla and remembered a project he done where he merely pushed the light bulbs into the ground(Earth) and the bulbs lit up. In his experiment he had found a way to transmit positive energy wirelessly. In order to use it, it must be grounded first to complete the path. I've did a lot of other research on this as well. One being the schuman resonance frewuency of the earth. Also numerous papers on the Earth being extremely negatively charged. I wondered then, what would happen if we were negatively charged as well? EM and ES says that we would fly off the planet because opposite charges attract, like charges repel. I've since abandoned this for many reasons. But what is your take on this. Since one of you mentioned that gravity is an EM wave or of EM origin?
James,
gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges within matter. or between matters. in contact, it acts as chemical bounding, in distance, it acts as gravity. i explained earlier in this thread.
force is not wave, if a charge/force vibrates it produces force wave. em force is what make up gravitational force.
atoms each has mass/gravity, if atoms vibrate, they will produce a force pause/wave, at same frequency. that is the mechanism of em radiation.
if light is photon emitted by electrons change quantum state, what's the mechanism? what is quantum state? is electron emit 4 x 10^14 photons per second to produce red light? or the electron vibrates 4 x 10^14 times to produce red photon?
-
based on Coulombs's law, every charge has unbounded force field f=q/r^2.
an atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinite. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every single charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity. Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to nucleons numbers within it?
every neutral charged atom have 2 force fields, a positive field and a negative field. those forces decay at distance but never vanish. atoms positive force field decay at 1/r^2, negative force field decay at 1/r^3.
every positive charge on the moon attracts every negative charge and repel every positive charge on earth, the net em forces between all charges of the moon and the earth is always end up an attraction force due to electrostatic induction. the attraction force we called gravitation force is nothing more than em force.
just like married couples could share sex, stranger can share sex. if you are charged, you always attract opposite charges and repel same charges.
make love to wife or any woman, is called sex. the sex between you and wife is the same as the sex between you and another woman. you can say 1 is em sex, 1 is gravitational sex. it is same thing.
-
we can never see a proton itself, proton is deep in the center of a enerton ball.
proton carries + 900 charges, it has a positive force field fp=900/r^2.
proton attracted - 899 enertrons to form proton ball, the enertrons in the proton ball has a negative force field f1=899/r^3, due to the density of the enertron is decay at 1/r^3 away from proton, due to the attraction force between proton and enertron is decay at 1/r^2.
electron has a negative force field fe=1/r^2.
electron is rest at where the proton attraction force is equal to the enertron repulsion force. that is atomic radius.
-
Which rather upsets all those people who use proton accelerators to treat cancer, with not a single mention of "enertrons"
to date more than 25 isotopes have been found to exhibit proton emission. The study of proton emission has aided the understanding of nuclear deformation, masses and structure, and it is a wonderfully pure example of quantum tunneling.
Oh dear, even Mother Nature doesn't know about enertrons or the invisibility of protons.
Is it just remotely possible that jccc is speaking from the wrong end of his alimentary canal?
-
Is it just remotely possible that jccc is speaking from the wrong end of his alimentary canal?
Maybe he only has a bad case of gas? I suppose one might determine that jccc is; "just full of hot air".
-
proton attracted - 899 enertrons to form proton ball, the enertrons ..
Sheesh! You and your fantasy enertrons. Let me remind you of one of the character traits of a pseudoscientist
8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in a complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined....
-
we can never see a proton itself, proton is deep in the center of a enerton ball.
proton carries + 900 charges, it has a positive force field fp=900/r^2.
proton attracted - 899 enertrons to form proton ball, the enertrons in the proton ball has a negative force field f1=899/r^3, due to the density of the enertron is decay at 1/r^3 away from proton, due to the attraction force between proton and enertron is decay at 1/r^2.
electron has a negative force field fe=1/r^2.
electron is rest at where the proton attraction force is equal to the enertron repulsion force. that is atomic radius.
i truly believe that the universe speaks through people who are unaware that they are conduits. artists and such. certainly most of our seemingly innocent or unwitting thoughts come from somewhere higher than our own minds. the universal consciousness seems to manifest and make itself known at its own will, and the information is clear for those who are seeking.
-
the speed and strength of light, gravity and em force, are magically match. what's the odds?
isn't the nature told us all the secret ALREADY?
-
the speed and strength of light, gravity and em force, are magically match.
Like so much of what you post, that sentence doesn't make sense. E.g. there is no sense in speaking about the speed of light and the strength of light to match. The same with the rest of your claim.
-
speed of light, gravity and em force are the same c.
strength of light, gravity and em force are all inversely proportional to r^2.
-
strength of light, gravity and em force are all inversely proportional to r^2.
So is sound, thickness of a balloon skin as it inflates, it's called geometry.
When the geometry is different, they can all cease to be prop to r2
-
strength of light, gravity and em force are all inversely proportional to r^2.
So is sound, pressure due to ripples in a pond, thickness of a balloon skin as it inflates, it's called geometry.
When the geometry is different, they can all cease to be prop to r2
so you think geometry made light, gravity and em force all have same speed?
why is dipole field strength falls off inversely with the cube of the distance?
you don't even know how a hydrogen atom is formed, is it 2d or 3d yet, get those right first.
-
so you think geometry made light, gravity and em force
No, that's your misreading what I said
why is dipole field strength falls off inversely with the cube of the distance?
Do you mean dipole antenna? Inverse square
Do you mean dipole moment? Different geometry, not the same as the others, check your facts and look carefully at what the terms mean.
you don't even know how a hydrogen atom is formed, is it 2d or 3d yet, get those right first.
I know, I've got it right, you just don't want to believe.
Off to talk to folks with real questions.
-
what's the odds told you?
moon disk and sun disk are the same size in the sky
light, gravity and em force speed are the same c in space
i say the solar system is designed
gravity is em force and light is em wave
-
what's the odds told you?
moon disk and sun disk are the same size in the sky
light, gravity and em force speed are the same c in space
i say the solar system is designed
gravity is em force and light is em wave
Gravity is not Em force, Em wave is coupling between all matter.
-
all truth goes through three stages. first it is ridiculed. then it is violently opposed. finally it is accepted as self-evident.
-
all truth goes through three stages. first it is ridiculed. then it is violently opposed. finally it is accepted as self-evident.
And all the bull s_1t also goes through three stages. First it is eaten, then it is scrutinized, and finally it's excreted.
-
yes, such as flat earth, gravitron, photon. time will tell.
-
yes, such as flat earth, gravitron, photon. time will tell.
I like your wavelength JCCC, consider that emr to be like a constant energy channel with no net charge, all values are zero unless by interaction. Interaction being matter or observer effect that makes a net charge.
i.e I send a carrier wave through the constant such as satellite signal. A stream through the zero.
Now consider matter and Protons and einsteins photon electrical effect, matter emits light that travels through the light, a sort of fibre optic signalling.
Consider light opposes light, two streams travelling opposing directions.
quarks attract quarks, so protons attract protons, electrons emitted from the charged protons oppose incoming light.
This is gravity dude. The photon electrical effect is the mechanism.
''LIGHT HAS BEEN put to work generating the same force that makes airplanes fly, a study appearing online December 5 in Nature Photonics shows. With the right design, a uniform stream of light has pushed tiny objects in much the same way that an airplane wing hoists a 747 off the ground.''
http://www.wired.com/2010/12/laser-light-can-lift-tiny-objects/
Because matter emits an equal and opposing electrical field.
-
i don't have wave length, due to i don't vibrate, my force field is not moving.
if i shake my head 4 x 10^14 times per second, the sky around me will turn red.
if you shake your head 8 x 10^14 times per second, your sky will be blue.
bet?
-
i don't have wave length, due to i don't vibrate, my force field is not moving.
if i shake my head 4 x 10^14 times per second, the sky around me will turn red.
if you shake your head 8 x 10^14 times per second, your sky will be blue.
bet?
you would black out and see nothing
-
got me that 1
-
Ever see an electron?
-
Ever see an electron?
i did not. scientists did.
they say electron has energy levels and shells, every shell can occupy 2 electrons the most.
they see electrons emit photons, many colors.
-
they see electrons emit photons, many colors.
Wrong. Electrons don't emit photons. Atoms do.
-
Wrong. Electrons don't emit photons. Atoms do.
atoms exited and vibrate? so they produce gravitational waves?
-
no wonder box and i shake our heads until black out.
-
no wonder box and i shake our heads until black out.
Why is that? Is it because you insist of confusing quantum mechanics with classical mechanics?
-
we try so hard to shine some light on science.
too bad we both black out before reach the visible frequency.
-
we try so hard to shine some light on science.
too bad we both black out before reach the visible frequency.
Again you're writing meaningless posts.
-
they see electrons emit photons, many colors.
Wrong. Electrons don't emit photons. Atoms do.
so how atoms emit photons?
this is from wiki, is it correct? thanks!
The frequencies of light that an atom can emit are dependent on states the electrons can be in. When excited, an electron moves to a higher energy level or orbital. When the electron falls back to its ground level the light is emitted.
-
so how atoms emit photons?
When the wave function of the electron changes state from one energy eigenstate to another then a photon is released. When you start asking for mechanisms you're not going to get anywhere because it doesn't exist beyond that. It's well known that when studying quantum mechanics and people start asking "how can that be" then they go down the drain.
this is from wiki, is it correct? thanks!
What's from wiki? What I said? Hardly! I learned it when I studied quantum mechanics as an undergraduate and in graduate school.
The frequencies of light that an atom can emit are dependent on states the electrons can be in. When excited, an electron moves to a higher energy level or orbital. When the electron falls back to its ground level the light is emitted.
So. You finally get it, huh? It reality that's an approximation, i.e. it's really the atom that changes from one energy eigenstate to another, not merely the electron. The potential energy exists between the nucleus and the electron, not merely the electron in a potential field.
-
results in the double slit experiment, if explained by gravitational wave between the source, target and detector, there would be no magic/mystery.
please think about it, you may see new light.
-
light was not there before you detect it.
light is gravitational wave between the source atoms and the target/detector atoms.
-
We already describe light as a wave. An ELECTROMAGNETIC wave. I see no way that calling it a gravitational wave adds any clarity to the double slit experiment. We also have very solid proof that light is electromagnetic (we can measure its electric and magnetic properties; we can generate it with machines that create oscillating electric fields or magnetic fields; etc.)
To my knowledge we have not measured any gravitational waves yet...
-
both fields have force carrier, atoms.
oscillating atoms produce those vibrating fields propagate at c, not those field self recreate and propagate.
we measure em wave all the time, we don't see em wave as gravitational wave, because misunderstanding the nature of gravity.
if you realized gravity is in fact as i suggested, net electrostatic force between all charges within masses. you should see what i see.
all atoms/masses are connected by gravity all the time. the force between them transfer energy without medium or contact. the distance between atoms govern the strength of the force and the time needed to transfer.
so nice you join the discussing, i thought i am in the icebox alone.
-
after i understood light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms, i am sure there is no photon.
...Sounds interesting. I want to know more about it, please!
Please take note of the fact that you're asking a known crackpot to explain his nonsense with you.
Look... Mr. Peter (I'm younger than you and less knowledgeable. Hence, 'Mr.'. I hope it didn't offend you in any way), he hasn't yet been disrespectful to me in any way and neither has he shown any other signs of being a crackpot... Atleast not to me. I'm the kind of person who likes to learn from my own mistakes. Maybe he is a crackpot in your opinion, but in my world he is still a polite person who just wants to discuss his theories with us. I might change this opinion later if he evolves to be the kind of person who just claims 'He knows it all' and 'You are all wrong'. But, right now, to me, he is just like any of you.
By the way, I like to be explicit... So I wanted to tell you this one other thing.
I mean you know it already, but yeah I'm going to restate it for the sake of other members. I'm still learning quantum mechanics and surely am less knowledgeable than any of you as of this moment. So Jccc shouldn't be very happy to have me on his side, believing in his theory since, like I just said 'I'm learning quantum mechanics'. Maybe I might disagree with Jccc later (After being completely aware of every aspect of quantum mechanics) but right now I find his theory more feasible than atoms emitting photons.
As soon as you confirm my knowledge on photons be answering my previous post... I will declare with full confidence if I still believe in Jccc's theories or Am on the side of the members who disagrees with him.
That's all I had to say and I hope you try to understand my true intention and do not, in any way find this post offensive. I respect all of you on here and am honoured to be a part of this forum, I truly Am!
wonder where is he now? why leave this forum?