0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?.
Quote from: pasala on 13/11/2022 05:01:04At the same time, can't a gaseous planet stay or exist in innermost area ?. They can. We've found planetary systems with gaseous planets that are even closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter
At present we are of the opinion that space is empty.
It is not clear what is being curved.
Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.
Quote from: pasala on 13/11/2022 05:01:04At present we are of the opinion that space is empty. Who is we. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty. However, the fact that space contains things does not explain diffraction as you claim Quote from: pasala on 13/11/2022 05:01:04It is not clear what is being curved. It is clear to anyone who has studied physics.We measure spacetime by using rulers for distance and clocks for time. Newton assumed that those rulers and clocks would show the same distance and time throughout the universe, but Einstein showed that this is not a correct assumption. In some circumstances the differences in the measurements are best described by a curvature of spacetime. Quote from: pasala on 13/11/2022 05:01:04Ok, in case if it is energy and it is from the mass, in such case mass is independent and it can stay anywhere in the universe.This statement doesn’t make any sense. Mass is not independent of the energy stored within it, neither is the energy that can be released independent of the mass. E=mc2.
At present we are of the opinion that space is empty. Who is we. I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty. However, the fact that space contains things does not explain diffraction as you claim
It is not clear what is being curved. It is clear to anyone who has studied physics.We measure spacetime by using rulers for distance and clocks for time. Newton assumed that those rulers and clocks would show the same distance and time throughout the universe, but Einstein showed that this is not a correct assumption. In some circumstances the differences in the measurements are best described by a curvature of spacetime.
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.
But, I think it is better to explore our solar system before going to others.
Basic question is what is being curved.
Suppose if it is energy, its density at a particular place that decides type of planet at a particular place.
Basic question is, can we change Neptune planet and Mercury planets order.
I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether.
Quote from: Colin2B on 13/11/2022 15:10:08I’m not aware of anyone who thinks space is empty.It is, by definition.Not to be confused with the universe, which consists of bits of stuff separated by space.
I am also saying that space is not empty and it is completely filled with aether. Basic question is how to find out this aether. As per Classical view of light is that it is a disturbance in space.
It is the electrons that are released into space are causing EMR or light or in fact a disturbance. It is creating vibrations in the space. What I would like to say that, electrons released by us are charging particles in the space.
Here are the assumptions used:Principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields can only occur at speeds no greater than the speed of light.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theoremThe assumption above also refers to special theory of relativity.The light was generated and interact with polarizers and detectors as photons.Measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pairThe outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half
If we assume that there's no speed limit for physical interaction, then the results were not weird.If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.If we assume that there's supersymmetry or we accept superdeterminism, the measurements won't be actually random nor independent, then the results were not weird either.
If we don't use photon model for light, then the results were not weird either.
Drivel. When you "observe" the photon passing through a slit, you must have extracted some energy from it. Problem is that you can't extract "some" from a quantum. So if anything appears downstream of the slit, it isn't the original photon.
The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2022 11:51:15The confusion about double slit experiments come from misunderstandings of diffraction and interference of light and their underlying mechanisms.Your opinion of your abilities and knowledge is WAY out of whack! You demonstrate over and over that you understand very little physics. Your posts are only interesting when others on this site add some real science as they refute your misunderstandings.
I don't know of any "confusion" about the DSE except in the writings of the woo-woo brigade who don't understand the meaning of "observe" in physics.Single edge diffraction is easily demonstrated, particularly at low frequencies, but does not produce an interference pattern as there is no second wavefront to interfere.
Someone who misunderstands the mechanism of double slit experiment would not likely to admit that they are confused by the result. It would jeopardize their credibility.