1

New Theories / Re: Why would a photon move @ the speed of light?

« on: 29/09/2018 21:07:30 »

Trying to condense this theory to the narrowest of terms.   

I believe electric and magnetic properties also relate to spin.

If you spin a marble, like a top, there's a pole perpendicular to the floor if it remains in one place, directly over a South pole located on the bottom.  This I think of as the first spin (possibly/probably) akin to magnetic pole.

Roll the marble on the floor and will have a pole that exists parallel to the floor (akin to electric pole).

If the marble was a photon, it would need both spins @ speed of light to achieve light-speed in a relative straight trajectory.

2

New Theories / Why would a photon move @ the speed of light?

« on: 29/09/2018 20:33:27 »

While contemplating a meaning of Einstein's e=mc˛
--

I question: Why would a photon move @ the speed of light?

Light has both wave and particle properties, when scrutinized.  It implies characteristics of spin are involved.

Photons are the most primitive known particle.

I postulate “photons move @ speed of light, when two polar orientations incorporate spin @ speed of light.”

Electric 1 pole + 1 spin and magnetic 1 pole + 1 spin properties that relate in some form of perpendicular agreement.

A deep thought, since… it also implies (to me) photons that don’t spin at the speed of light, constitute space.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is global warming the fault overpopulation rather than motor vehicles?

« on: 11/12/2016 17:48:22 »

I care about people dying at a rate faster than ever happened in WWII. I dont't care about sea ice that has no effect on sae level and no other significant effect.

It's really hard to track deaths do to climate change because many are simply not reported in US media.  US media seems to have a ban on "climate" related news.  Heat waves didn't reach WWII casualties, so I suppose it's not something you would care about.  However, the Arctic air being pushed further south will cause cold related deaths which also won't likely be linked to "climate change".

The average 3mm annual sea level rise doens't impact many communities all at once, but this year will likely change that.  The Arctic and Antarctic regions are experiencing rather unusual ice reductions, which may (or may not) register greater than 3mm annual sea level rise. 

At present total polar sea ice area/extent is 1 month off schedule.  It's not been recorded before, so when we hit February low, we have have a February high sea level.  I don't know.  I've been told the area/extent doesn't contribute to sea level change...  I believe we'll see what happens come February/March... 

Tho president elect Trump will probably suppress such information, to the best of his administrations ability...

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png

4

General Science / Re: Recent Science News Stories and Science Articles

« on: 11/12/2016 16:43:02 »

This seems like news to me.  Its not graced the mass media waves much tho.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The Arctic is unseasonably warm.  80˚ North has been in polar night over a month and a half.  Nearly a month ago, it it 36F (20C) degrees above normal, which did grace some headlines.  Since then, not much in the way of news.

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png

The attached chart is one I composed from from http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

It's based on the most recent 2016 and has 2011-2015 plot history superimposed in cyan.

Top that off with unusual early/excessive melting of Antarctica, I find it all highly disturbing that it's not in the "news."  Does it explain Trump being president - elect??? No, but its freakishly coincidental.


NorthPoleNovember2016.png (17.1 kB . 600x400 - viewed 10818 times)

5

The Environment / Polar vortex disturbed by receeding ice...

« on: 11/12/2016 14:55:55 »

To the best of my knowledge, there are people working on papers to describe the phenomena.

We've seen polar temperatures being pushed out of polar region toward the equator as the polar vortex weakens/splits due to warmer moisture evaporating in the polar regions.  This also appears to have accelerating affect on polar melt...  ARGH.

Pretty sure 2017 is expected to be the next warmest year, tho I haven't seen anyone place odds on it.  Based on the current CO₂ charts and knowing Trump wants more methane pumped out of the ground, the oceans are going to get warmer more rapidly, especially with more moisture in the air...  Yay :-/

Seems like Donald Trump got elected because enough people simply want to believe it aint so.

So hard to understand how everything changes, with few details of even the recent past.

Is there an optimal size for polar vortex speed and temperatures or does the amount of water in the air make a difference?

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is global warming the fault overpopulation rather than motor vehicles?

« on: 10/12/2016 21:02:27 »

Regardless of who the plumber is...  The Earth has a warming trend going on.  2015 was the hottest on record, soon to be replace by 2016, AFAIK.

Sea ice is in, a seemingly horrifying, melting trend...  It's not news in US of America for some reason I can only theorize and it behooves me.  Perhaps NASA & NOAA and a bunch of schools have a data conspiracy thing going on, trying to inflate their global monitoring budgets...  I kinda doubt it, but it could be...

This study seems somewhat Germane to the topic at hand.
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/03/study-links-human-actions-to-specific-arctic-sea-ice-melt/

7

The Environment / Re: Do tropical cyclones have an effect on Polar temperatures?

« on: 30/11/2016 03:25:28 »

I meant the polar regions reflect warming more than the rest of the planet.

 "more sensitive to.."

Best I can surmise the polar regions are one month off schedule.

The Artic is ~ 1 month behind average annual ice formation.

 conversely

The Antartic is ~ 1 month ahead of annual ice retreat.

I don't know where antartic current and average temp, but according to http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php  it's warmer than usual in the artic.

8

The Environment / Re: Tropical Cyclone to polar temperature coeficient

« on: 27/11/2016 18:13:00 »

Polar regions are more sensitive to global warming than that rest of the globe.
While studying the Antartic area ice, sudden drops are difficult to ignore.  I started wondering if they're coupled with tropical cyclones.  Briefly looked at methods to correlate them, but can't justify analysis.  Tho I would like to know.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/uh-amsr2-ant-area-overview.png

9

The Environment / Do tropical cyclones have an effect on Polar temperatures?

« on: 27/11/2016 15:09:28 »

I've become overly concerned with the polar ice caps.  Doesn't help that 2016 has seen record weather and record low ice in both Artic as well as Antartic regions.

Knowing a tropical cyclone/storm is a heat pump, the largest on Earth.  Because so much heat is disbursed into the atmosphere, each storm probably has an effect on polar regions. 

Googling for correlations has been fruitless.  The data are complicated and connections likely minor at best.  Difficult to draw without a lot of analysis.  Am I barking up the wrong tree. 

Would it be useful to identify correlations?

10

New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether

« on: 28/09/2016 16:12:30 »

I don't believe there is a "static" aether.  To my knowledge, it's been proven that simply does not exist.

What hasn't been established nor dispelled is that a fluid like aether may exist. 

I've been struggling with the concept internally and have yet to concoct proof or denial.

We apparently cannot detect such substance, its beyond our ability at present.  It seems there is evidence that suggests there are characteristics of such substance that have affect on mass.

11

New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether

« on: 28/09/2016 13:16:58 »

  The directional path of light on the rotating Earth is c+v and c-v for a one way direction. The + and - cancel out when measuring the two way speed of light. This was proven with atomic clocks on airplanes one flying east and the other west.

Okay, I assume that's accurate. 

What does that have to do with Luminiferous Aether and its detection?

I understand that the existence or non-existence of Luminiferous Aether has little or no bearing on earth bound calculations.

OTOH, it may explain the consistent speed phenomena of spiral galaxies, where "dark matter" proposedly fills the void.

12

New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether

« on: 26/09/2016 14:34:38 »

The measured speed of light in a vacuum being the same in every frame disproves the logic of your suggestion. What moves the electrons and photon to be confounded in every frame? The answer to that will point you in the correct direction.

That would only defeat my logic if the vacuum is moving at a different rate of speed than the surface of the Earth, which I presume is where it was measured.

I've become inclined to believe that the "aether" does interact with mass and flows in the same general direction of mass.  A vacuum cannot be created on earth w/out mass surrounding it.  MME was designed with the ideas that the aether doesn't interact with mass and the Earth passes through it with no interaction, yet it may still have an effect on light.  I see that as a highly flawed concept.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How strong is the evidence that the Electron is not a composite particle

« on: 24/09/2016 20:47:59 »

You understand the largest machines in the world were built and are operated looking for "stronger" evidence that support THE constitutional concept of atomic structure.

Electrons and "positrons" are the smallest massive objects known to exist for any length.  Anything smaller decay near instantaneously into space (my postulation) and/or become parts of other atomic structures (which seems the general consensus).

There's approximately n*100 different theories, stringing various forces together, that make atomic structures  (n=number of string theorists, also a postulation (or guess, in this instance)).

Many would be happy if there was but one definitive answer to such question.

14

New Theories / Luminiferous Aether

« on: 24/09/2016 16:16:37 »

Been exploring the concept in my head.  Seems to me, many of us argue (within ourselves) about the need for a medium of space. 

Like myself, many suspect there must be a medium for light and/or gravity waves to propagate through space, but we cannot see it.  We can neither prove, nor disprove such quality, it has no tangible quality, other than taking/making up space.

The Michaleson Morely experiment (MME) is the most prominent example of the search for a definitive answer.  But the experiment was limited to being performed at the surface of the earth.

I postulate atomic structure (mass) displace aether.

If that postulation is correct, I conclude that solid mass displace most aether, followed by liquids then gas.  From the core of the earth to the outer most reaches of the atmosphere, it would be something of a sliding scale.

I’ve been struggling to contrive a method to detect it, but I’m coming up blank.

Even if there is such a quality, can we assume it doesn’t interact with mass/matter?

Best I’ve got:  Its everywhere there isn’t atoms, there is aether.  If there is aether around the sun and we’re orbiting the sun within it…  It stands to reason the aether would flow in a similar path around the sun, as the Earth.

–

That’s explains to me, why MME and others fail to detect any aether quality of space.

15

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 10/09/2016 20:35:53 »

What is gravity...  The question still stands as unanswered.

Yeah Newton was the first to give it a name and value.

Einstein took a completely different approach and described some things more accurately, but still neither had said what it is.

We see there's a correlation between mass size, locality and attraction.

But we have yet to identify the underlying "cause" of the force.  Tho the LHC has put forth what appears evidence of the bozon, Higgs proposed. 

Electricity & Magnetism seem to share identical attraction properties of Gravity, on a much more powerful scale.   We don't know why E. is stronger than M, nor why E & M are far greater than G.

These are questions we would like answered.  Hopefully someone will come along and point out why.  If god created the universe, it seems god's not telling how.  Or if it randomly happens to be so....  We're just gonna have to figure it out.  Who knows, maybe some kind aliens will come along and enlighten us.

16

New Theories / Re: Does spin plus aether equal matter?

« on: 06/09/2016 14:14:01 »

I'm with you Atkhenaken

Been hiding from this forum while delving into my own postulations.  I've contrived a similar postulation to yours.  But I think your off by two spin.  There's perpendicular forces ie. electro-magnetism.

That suggests theres 4 spin.  up/down - left/right...  Which makes your universe a little less simple (not much tho).

I understand your desire to use the term aether.  I don't quite see it as an aether.  Space the final frontier, is difficult to explain, because we simply cannot see it.  Doesn't mean it's "nothing", but if you cannot examine a thing, it makes it hard to describe...

I've been working on describing all of the forces as I understand them, to myself with a similar thesis.  You're eaton I refer to as photon in my thoughts, w/out the speed of light.

I don't agree with your neutron - blackhole hypothesis.  I've haven't worked out the math, but I think electrons have electric polar spin alignment and protons have perpendicular (magnetic) polar spin alingment. I think neutrons have both combined in harmony.

These are some of the ideas I've been working on.  Theres a lot more details that need to work out, but I think you & I are on the right track.

Instead of 10 dimensional strings, it all boils down to a buckyball universe.    Describing the bucky ball is difficult when you cannot ever hold one still and look at it nor, measure it's properties, etc...  That's where the math will come in handy.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If the sun disappeared, what would happen to the planets?

« on: 23/04/2016 14:28:48 »

Until they encountered a deeper well of gravity, then they would either orbit or collide or perhaps both.

Would the Earth and the Moon remain paired up???  It would make a bit of difference where the moon was in orbital relation to the Earth when the gravity wave passes.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 23/04/2016 14:11:29 »

My query is if this is the case why are certain galaxies colliding?

It does seem odd that it would be possible if everything is expanding, how do some collide.  Cosmologists have picked Dark Matter (unseen mass) as the culprit for pulling galaxies together.  If you see the superstructure of the universe, its like filaments of galaxies being drawn together in a web like structure.

They theorize that there's enough dark mass left over from the big bang in regions where galaxies collect &/or collide that it keeps pulling more in.

Personally, I find it a bit frustrating.  There's a lot we don't know about space and gravity in specific.  While those theories are reasonable, based on what we do understand...  They use General Relativity as a basis for understanding the Universe.  General Relativity isn't complete.  It's the best standing description of gravity, to date, but Einstein knew it wasn't complete and unfortunately he passed before completing a grand unified theory.

A truly unified theory would help explain a lot of what we don't understand, unfortunately, not too many ppl grasp GR and what it actually describes.   Quantum Mechanics describes a lot of stuff that GR doesn't address.  A unified theory of everything would make a lot of things easier to understand.  But...  Such a theory isn't easy to develop.

I think I have a clue, but...  There's a lot of stuff I've theorized that goes against a lot of presently accepted science...  My not being a "physicist" really doesn't qualify me for asserting things are different than others believe. 

I cannot back up my assertion that Black Hole formation causes pressure change in the Universe, with math...  This pressure change is the likely cause of unpredicted shift.  That's frustrating to me.  If found some math that would lead toward evidence, but its not my own.  A grand unified theory will likely be necessary for me to complete my assertion.  Argh...  Don't know if I'm up for the task.

If you're familiar with Mandelbrot fractals...  A unified theory should produce the superstructure of galaxies like Mandelbrot's  a fractal universe.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we know the Universe is expanding, and expanding into nothing?

« on: 23/04/2016 13:54:02 »

Sorry it just came to me, the red shift is evidence that the visual universe is expanding ?

That was the first thought Sir Edwin Hubble put forth.  He knew about doppler shift and calculated that most galaxies are headed away from us, like we got the plague or something else...  Cosmologists and Lambda-CDM models have taken into account for Einstein shift with more accurate measurements for distances. 

Hubble didn't know about Einstein shift, AFAIK.  Einstein had predicted (einstein/)gravity-shift but it was verified during his lifetime.  He may have told Hubble about it, but there's no record indicating such conversation had occurred.  Seems Einstein didn't think about gravity shift either, because he choose to add the Lambda constant (his termed blunder) to General Relativity to account for the doppler effect they perceived at the time.

After taking into account doppler effects to plot comoving galaxies and einstein shift for differing weight of galaxies & stars, there's still a little shift that's unaccounted for, which is termed Dark Energy.

So yeah, it's like redshift, because that's the direction the shift is headed.  Doppler & Gravity shift are essentially the same, only difference is observers relative perspective.

So there's a third or more shift, Einstein didn't predict, based on cosmological measurements.  Dark Energy is the term used because we don't know what's causing it.  It appears stronger closer to home than in the distant past.  Which makes it even more perplexing.  Its like the Universe is gaining momentum of some sort.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: In what form is matter inside the black hole

« on: 22/04/2016 17:03:45 »

Neutron stars are formed by some of the same processes as create black holes - just in less massive stars.
Young Neutron stars have a temperature around 1 million degrees (and billions at first formation). They are not formed by a blob of cold sinking to the center of the star!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Mass_and_temperature

We have no means to "know" what's going on inside such massive objects.  Comparing Quantum Mechanics which works on pressures we experience on Earth is a long shot.  Quantum Gravity isn't well understood. 
If heat rises from the depths of pressure, how can we know they're not cold inside?

The difference with a black hole is that the gravity is so intense that even the light and heat from the initial fireball can't escape from the black hole.

I did state my opinion as mine alone. We don't know much of a thing about black holes except that they seem to exist.  Our mathematical models are broken with the event horizon.  QM views/analysis are mere possibilities, until we understand the "force of gravity" well, these models are prone to error.

The periodic table of elements is quite limited and atomic decay, occurs for all elements heavier than lead at increasing rates the heavier the element is...  This is all highly dependent on the pressures we experience.   

Inside stars, there is likely a lot more pressure than we're accustom.  The heavy elements may last a lot longer.  Lead is the most stable heavy element on our charts.  Inside a star...  Atomic weight is probably stable at higher values.  A neutron star might be made of a few very massive atoms.  We surely don't know...  I've been thinking there is probability we're off by a few factors.

The exterior of quiescent black holes do have a temperature, due to Hawking radiation, but for stellar-mass black holes it is incredibly close to absolute zero (nanoKelvins). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview

Hawking did a good job working with QM and probabilities.  His postulation isn't testable, so that kinda makes it hard to agree as to right or wrong.

Photons most likely cool on approach to a hole, due to the density of space.  We don't have a testable theory for the composition of space, other that postulating gravity is space density.  If a photon slows toward stopping with space-time/gravity density, it's likely also cooling (my assertion, not science).  If it's cool enough it will likely be able to enter the hole, if not, it will likely reflect.  That's the hypothesis I've been working on.

GR doesn't account for heat of a photon...  It makes assertions that speed C is constant, but we know C isn't quite constant, depending on medium thru which a photon travels.  Until we define space as a medium for which we know EM disturbances propagate, we are left with a wealth of ignorance about space...  That needs to change, IMO.