1

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/05/2017 18:30:42 »

This is a very good page to use when playing around with the numbers.
https://rechneronline.de/spectrum/

2

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 01/04/2017 03:53:14 »

I have indeed read the other posts and I realize this discussion has devolved into speculation about the nature of time and and absolute reference frames. My point is that the answer to the question posed in the title is trivial and the real question is how do my seconds differ from yours. SR answers that question, but it doesn't address the question of why. You can speculate all day about that and believe what you like. Maybe it's turtles all the way down. It won't make a shred of difference because it won't change any of the observables or the manner in which they are related.
Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.
I might add that any serious discussion about the nature of time must address the relationship between entropy and the arrow of time. Sean Carroll does a bang up job of that in his book From Eternity to Here.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?

« on: 20/11/2016 09:13:57 »

You are almost absolutely correct. To be pedantic, the photon is blue shifted "from", not "at" the top of the tower.

The stuff you say you never read, is nonsense, which is why you never read it.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the big bang be in an infinite repeating cycle?

« on: 16/11/2016 13:53:43 »

E = mc^2!

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are black holes shaped by the momentum of what falls into them?

« on: 04/11/2016 22:21:24 »

The point might be that I actually agree with Ethos. Not that I like 'dimensions' specifically, but I do like the idea of reducing the ones we measure. On the other tentacle a fifth 'dimension' could be seen as 'one dimension¨' too, depending on your mathematics. But it wasn't what I got frustrated on in this case. It was the idea of telling me that someone 'knew' what a Black hole 'means'.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the acceleration of gravity be described like this?

« on: 01/11/2016 18:44:39 »

Syhprum - If it were a counter directional gravitational time dilation of empty space that caused the acceleration, the value of gravitational attraction, ie: the gravitational constant could be a lot less than currently thought.  The gravitational coupling constant could be a possibility here.  This would change the outlook somewhat.

(Please note: this concept can only be valid mechanically in a contracting universe)

Alan - as Ethos said.

7

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' it?

« on: 06/07/2016 15:41:44 »

Like normal when the questions get tricky rather than dealing with them the thread is removed like the one just from main that as been locked.

No, it's when they get to the point of being ridiculous.
Behave like a troll, get treated like a troll.

8

New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation

« on: 25/06/2016 11:20:37 »

Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.

9

New Theories / Re: Is the length of space between an object and the eye light or dark?

« on: 03/03/2016 15:29:39 »

NO we don't, nobody observes single photons making contact with the retina, that is of the imagination, stop lying

Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.

10

New Theories / Re: The Theory of realistic!

« on: 03/03/2016 13:56:55 »

Definitions update



Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer

Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer

Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting  point sources.

2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.

Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space

Visual Universe - a finite observed length  within a Universe

Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space

Energy - A group category for various types of power.

Power - The ability to do work : the generation of electrical energy  at an atomic level

Objects - matter existing in bonded clusters.

mass -The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.

Motion - the  continuous displacement of matter in space

Dimensions- The measurement of a physical object :  the measurement of a volume of space

Gravity -  the property of matter that has directly proportionate  attractive ability.

Force -  1. The exchange of energy to create work
2. The inertia existing between two bodies at relative rest mass to each other.

Your definitions are ALL wrong. I would provide correct ones or links to them, but it wouldn't help. So instead I made up a few more to add to your list:

couch A four-legged mammal that creates dust in people's living rooms.

music An N-dimensional arrangement of sonic energy.

sonic energy A forceful noise.

food A collection of tasty particles bound together by the goodness of nutrition.

nutrition Pizza, mostly.

light Opposite of heavy.

heavy Dark, apparently.

time The distance between hands on a clock.

axiom That which is true because TheBox said so.

amirite?

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: TheBox on black holes

« on: 01/03/2016 16:28:25 »

Second of all, look up "binding energy." When a photon is absorbed by an atom, its energy becomes mass, plain and simple.

A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c². The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass.

Third of all, mass/energy "equivalence" means exactly that. Mass can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to mass. They are the same thing in different states.

Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another. For starters mass and energy are properties and properties can't be in states. Beyond that we know that photons have a mass associated with their energy content it simply isn't an invariant mass.

Did you know that when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, you get energy? Sounds to me like "matter" is probably made of energy ...

When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons.

So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.

Except you are not saying the same thing at all.

Electrons don't flow. They oscillate. It's the energy that travels. A good mechanical analogy is dominoes. Stand them up in a row next to each other. Push the first one over, and they all fall down one by one, but it is the energy that travels from domino to domino. No dominoes actually travel from one end of the line to the other. They stay in a row, in order, as the energy travels from one to the next. Another example would be one of those desktop kinetic sculptures with a row of suspended stainless steel balls, bounce one at the end, and the two end balls bounce while the ones in the middle stay in place.

In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy. Electrons do scatter in most metals but they scatter off impurities, phonons, grain boundaries, imperfections, etc. Electrons in a metal do not in general scatter off other electrons. I know it sounds weird but basically all of our current scientific understanding of metals relies on single particle approximations that treat the electrons as moving in an average field created by all the other electrons in the metal and hence no electron-electron scattering. They certainly do not oscillate unless driven by an AC current. When you move to superconductors the electrons just don't scatter at all which is why the resistance is zero.

A photon is a carrier of the electromagnetic force. When a photon is absorbed, its electric and magnetic components tell the particle that absorbed it to oscillate faster. There is no "flow" of electrons.

Electrons in atoms do not oscillate in the manner in which you believe they do. The charge distribution around an atom is static before the interaction with the photon and then static again after the interaction with the photon. There is no faster oscillation in the atom after the absorption of the photon. There is no time varying electric or magnetic fields in the atom after the absorption. Further, this is a clear misunderstanding of how solar cells work. In a solar cell an electron in a solid is promoted from what is generally called the valence band to what is generally called the conduction band. Then clever engineering causes that electron in the conduction band to leave the solid and enter a wire where it can do work. Thus there most certainly is a flow of electrons. There is also a flow of things called holes which are basically the absence of an electron that should be in the valence band from the valence band. These holes behave a lot like the antiparticles of electrons. The holes are made to flow the opposite direction. The net effect is a current through the solar cell and an outside circuit. Both the conduction and valence bands are special bands of states that exist only in the solid and are delocalized (that is to say they don't belong to any one atom).

Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of light squared. When a photon is absorbed, it stops travelling at the speed of light and contributes a tiny amount of mass to the system that absorbed it.

When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period.

12

Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Re: Why do dogs turn in circles before lying down?

« on: 25/02/2016 10:43:11 »

Excellent point and one I had overlooked. I'll certainly add that to my answer bank!

13

New Theories / Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?

« on: 17/02/2016 13:52:06 »

But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...

This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??

14

New Theories / Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?

« on: 07/02/2016 00:36:25 »

Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.