1

New Theories / Re: The N-field

« on: 27/02/2018 22:31:45 »

I cannot think of any experiment that does show electrons are composed of multipoints, however that being said...

Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points?

Yes. That is called the "preon model".

If so, how would that be either tested, or expounded upon?

Scattering experiments. If electrons are made up of three preons, then sufficiently energetic collider experiments would demonstrate that there are three objects that other particles are scattering off of in electrons instead of just one. That is how we experimentally determined that protons are composed of quarks. So far, no evidence for scattering due to preons has showed up.

It does not need an experiment , a point is 0 dimension, so for something to exist and have dimension, it has to be surrounding points of a point.

0 point + 0 point = r=1x

4/3π(1x)³ = 3d

What experiment demonstrated that electrons have dimension?

2

New Theories / Re: The N-field

« on: 27/02/2018 22:19:03 »

It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.

What experiment has demonstrated that electrons are composed of multiple points?

3

New Theories / Re: The N-field

« on: 27/02/2018 22:12:44 »

Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.

How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the truth about tachyons, baryonic string theory, and quantum mechanics?

« on: 25/02/2018 03:33:00 »

entangled photons ... tachyons

These are quite different concepts, and unrelated (as far as I know).
- Tachyons are hypothetical particles that only travel faster than light
- Photons are real particles which always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum
- Entangled photons have been demonstrated in the laboratory, but cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light (as far as we know)
- Other types of particles can also be entangled (eg electrons)

when an electron can exceed light speed in that medium

This is a real effect, seen in the blue glow around a nuclear reactor.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

quantum mechanics?

Quantum mechanics is a well-proven technique applied to photons, electrons, atoms and molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

The Standard Model extends this to all known subatomic particles and has been quite solid since the presumed Higgs Boson was confirmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

There are experiments underway at the LHC to see if the Standard Model can be extended to new particles (eg super-symmetric partners to known particles), but there is no solid evidence for these hypothetical extensions at this point in time.

baryonic string theory

String Theory at present is only a hypothesis, which  has so far been quite unsuccessful at describing subatomic particles. This is apart from the graviton, where it has done ok - but not really any better than General Relativity (which is not a quantum theory at all).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the truth about tachyons, baryonic string theory, and quantum mechanics?

« on: 25/02/2018 02:23:31 »

Just because mathematics may contain a negative time element does not necessarily indicate physical particles traveling back in time.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the truth about tachyons, baryonic string theory, and quantum mechanics?

« on: 24/02/2018 18:00:03 »

I’m certainly no expert, but here are some thoughts about the tachyon, just to set the ball rolling.

The tachyon is a theoretical particle that always travels faster than light.  It is never accelerated from subluminal to superluminal speed, so it doesn’t contravene the rules of SR, but it does travel backwards through time, relative to us, which raises some interesting thoughts.

You may have seen the quote from John Gribbin at:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72229.0

“So if a tachyon were created in some violent event in space, it would radiate energy away furiously…..and go faster and faster, until it had zero energy ……and was travelling at infinite speed”.

To detect a tachyon, one would have to look for an event, the cause of which had not yet happened.

The prospect of looking for something that may be travelling at infinite speed, may be undetectable and, in any case, has not been formed yet, does seem to be quite a daunting task. 

7

Just Chat! / Re: Re: What was the first form of written language?

« on: 24/02/2018 13:08:08 »

Adam and Eve had two sons, Abel and Cain. This symbolism gives further insight into the dawn of modern human consciousness as it is transmitted to the next generation. Abel was a herder of animals and Cain was the tiller of the soil. Cain becomes jealous of Abel and kills him. When Cain kills Abel, this symbolism is about farming superseding herding; civilization begins. There are other subtle insights.

In terms of math and written language skills, these were far more intensive in farming, compared to herding. Herding was around even before written language. Farming was a new invention and was more complicated, requiring more math and procedural interaction. Math was needed for spacing crops, buying seeds, collecting products from each plant, the amount of water needed per row, manpower for harvesting, the timing of planting, processing materials to make flour, calculate loss, set price, give to the Gods, etc.,

The net affect was Cain, was far more involved with written language, than Abel, because of farming. Cain had become more repressed and impulsive, due to the dual memory storage of business and social law; sales and deeds. His jealousy was a calculation of value, with his impulse to act, a way to even the score; neutralize the divide. This impulse was from the repressed dark side of law. 

Abel who was favored by God, was far less repressed, since he followed the age old traditions of the pre-humans, which could be accomplished with only spoken language. The symbolism of Cain and Abel suggests  that the change in consciousness, that had occurred in Adam and Eve, was not transmitted biologically, to Cain or Abel. Rather it was a product of learning, free will and choice. Cain was born natural.

This is consistent with the warning to Adam and Eve, if you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; learn the written law, you shall die; you will lose your instincts. Cain, by the necessity of his occupation, needed to eat of the tree of knowledge. Cain loses his instinctive connection. One can see a similar affect, even in modern times, where different siblings have different political views of civil right and wrong. They may become distant and can lose their instincts for each other, as family. Abel's brain was not consciously wired for jealousy, which is why he had favor with God.

Cain's crime is discovered by God and Cain is sent away. When Cain gets his punishment, he becomes afraid and complains to God, whomever shall come upon him, shall kill him. So God gives him a sign for protection.

The question becomes, who are these whomever, if Adam and Eve are the first two humans and Cain is now the only son? Cain's fear suggests that there are other humans out there, whom he fears will get even with him for killing Abel; the other herders.

These others, were the pre-humans, evolving slowly by DNA as science suggests. They had not yet eaten of the written language of law. They were still natural and a continuation of the old ways of instinctive humans. The story of Adam and Eve is not about the biological evolution of humans. The beginning of Adam and Eve, is anything by normal biology. It was about the evolution of new type of man, who will stemmed from natural man. The change was based on learning, which would alter the mind and brain, so free will appears.

God gives Cain a sign for protection. Cain's fear was actually a projection. Cain was aware of right and wrong, due his knowledge of the written law. He felt self conscious of his actions due to his guilt. Guilt is taught by the law. Natural man; whom he felt would kill him, were still morally neutral, since they had yet to learn written law. They lived in harmony with nature in the outskirts, outside the settlement.

The sign given by God, was more to make Cain feel comfortable, so he would stop projecting his guilt to those, who do not judge right and wrong. Brothers fight and accidents happen. In tradition, Cain marries and he has children. His prodigy would play key roles helping to form some of the adjacent civilizations; This symbolism suggests that Cain taught his prehuman children, the new invention, in a more practical way. Cain learned his lesson.

Adam and Eve, then have a third son, Seth. Seth symbolized a better balance being struck between the needs of natural instinct and the needs of the modern human required for civilization. Cain and Abel were polarized; all or nothing. The polarization of Cain and Abel, suggests that Abel was much closer to Eve, and Cain much closer to Adam.  Eve was stressing natural instinct for her son, Abel, in response to her own guilt for willpower and choice. Cain learns from Adam, the ways of math, science and written invention. However, Cain is not close enough to God, to be on guard of the pitfalls. He is young and has to learn the hard way. After losing their two children, Seth becomes the son that both Adam and Eve will love, with Seth taught to strike a balance. The symbolism shows humans learning from mistakes how  find the sweet spot between willpower and instinct; secular and religion.

Sacrifices to the gods were a way to humble the ego and cut it down to size. The ego has plans and fears, so having to throw value away into the fire, messes with the ego. The ego see its things as an extension of itself. However, this is the way back to instinct. Instinct does not such plans or fears, but has trust in in nature to provide as it has done for eons of time. The rest of Genesis is about the pendulum swinging too far to willower and repression, where unnatural choices are made, compelled by Satan; subroutine stemming from collective laws.

In modern times, the left likes to male laws. In the US the left adds written law at a very high rate. If law causes the polarization of memory, instinctive repression, and unconscious compulsion from the dark side, one would expect the left to be more impulsive and more unnatural. Turning boys into girls is not natural. This is based on law and willpower and will not happen naturally. Humans should be reducing law to reduce the repression and compulsion, aiming for a smaller set of objective laws.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 23/02/2018 16:08:40 »

Correct on all points Sir.

A Big Bang must originate wherever one is, the proof of that is teleporting yourself to the origin of first light, then look back at the place you 'just left' :) It will now become your 'new' origin of 'first light'.

=

Is there a global setting for turning of those idiotic yellow half moons, once and for all?
Sorry, meant just moons, don't know why I thought of it as 'half moons'?
Poor eyesight?

9

Just Chat! / Re: Re: What was the first form of written language?

« on: 23/02/2018 12:48:56 »

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is symbolically connected to a special aspect of written language; law. Law specifies and divides behavior into what is socially acceptable and what is not acceptable; good and evil. It also specifics the rewards and consequences; reward for conformity and punishment for violation. Like a tree, law begins with a basic premise; we need clean water. It then branches out from this trunk as new conditions appear and new violations become manifest. The tax law may have begun with a single page, and is now a giant red wood tree with 70,000 pages all connected to a revenue trunk.

Natural instinct is morally neutral. Before written language, law was moldable, since it was not carved into stone. Law would be subject to misunderstanding, debate, forgetfulness and then forgotten, due to the inertia of instinct. Once the main pusher of a law, died, so might the law, in its old form. Once law was written down, and cast into stone for all to see, a repression of natural instinct would start to occur. Without written language ,the IRS tax code would never have gotten larger than a few pages of oral text due to the limits of memory. This was better for instinct while also allowing a modern system of organics rules to appear.

When memory is created, in general terms, an emotional tag is added to the sensory input, by the hypocampus. The hypocampus is a small region in the center of the brain connected to limbic system. The limbic system helps regulate emotions. The result is our oldest and strongest memories will have a strong emotional valance, due to this writing process.

Written law is unique with respect to the memory writing process, because law is binary and needs to be defined by the brain as two opposing emotions at the same time. Law tells us the good path that brings the feelings of satisfaction and peace. It also defines the bad path which brings the feelings of wrath, fear and pain. The net effect is the hypocampus divides law memories into two opposing emotional states, and stores each in different places. If law was stored as one averaging conflicting emotion, it would be hard to differentiate right and wrong; morally neutral. 

As an example, try to remember your favorite gal (guy) and your least favorite gal (guy) from dating years. Next, picture if your least favorite was also your most favorite. This paradox; was the best of times and worse of times, plays with the mind, differently.  Your mind would be trying to average the good with the bad; back to neutral. Before written language this was the end game for law; by the mind; neutral, due to neutral instinct. After written language, distinctions became clear and lasting, which was not natural.

The symbolism of the tree of knowledge, contains the serpent, Satan. A snake is phallic symbol; male creative principle,  and is also an animal that hugs the earth. Satan the snake symbolizes impulses of instinct; male is the dynamic principle. The conscious mind can only focus on one of the two aspects of law, at a time. Using the gal or guy example, say that person was both the best and the worse, we will remember the best times or the worse of times. It is not normal to superimpose the best and worse and remember the person that conflicting way. For example, she had the nicest smile, as she hit you on the head with an ashtray. If you remembered that way it would not be good for survival or good for enjoying beauty since each will extreme will be cancelled. The brain will separate this into two separate things to help keep each distinct.

Since law is divided into two memory locations and the conscious mind will try to think of one at a time, to maintain differentiation; left brain, the unconscious mind will take over the other side of law memory. Satan symbolizes the counter point of the unconscious mind, when mixed feelings become divided into two separated memory stacks. The result is the dark side of law, can take on a type of autonomy; Satan, as we consciously try to do good. Prohibition will create temptation due to the instinctive consolidation of the dark side of law.

In terms of a summary, a person learns the law, the brain divides this memory into two emotional places. The conscious mind will fixate on the good path to help maintain the needed distinctions for good social behavior. The bad side of the law is still part of the memory, but is now unconscious since we avoid evil. It also acts; one law, via repressed instinctive impulse. The temptation in an attempt to resolve the lack of neutrality. Written language was very useful for evolving modern consciousness; differentiate the universe. 

Adam and Eve, were trying to do good, but the repression of instinct and the unconscious autonomy of the dark side of law; part of one law, caused their dark side to act; temptation, in an attempt to restored instinctive neutrality, But writing made this impossible. Paradise is lost and a wall appears connected to law.

Tree of life is different. Life is morally neutral. It acts based on the laws of science, which are not dividing into good and evil, but rather divided based on cause and affect. The electron is not evil and the proton is not good. Both are part of the same atom which allows chemistry to appear. Merging cause with affect, does not change the emotions with respecting to keeping each separate. Moral and civil law created a  wall with objectivity. If Adam and Eve had also eating of the tree of tree, moral law would have been created that was very objective and scientific, which would made it last forever; bad for natural instinct. Instead the wall appears until law evolves to objectivity, while also allowing natural instinct. Even today law is not quite there, so paradise; natural  instinct, is closed or out of phase.

10

General Science / Re: Would a study of poetry aid in a better understanding of mathematics?

« on: 21/02/2018 23:58:53 »

Dodgson/Carroll's less-known work "Sylvie and Bruno" is sprinkled with mathematical puzzles and he wrote some papers on symbolic logic that almost turned me off mathematics by the age of 16. "Through the Looking Glass" has more than a whiff of relativity. Nowadays his friendship with Alice Liddell would probably be regarded as suspicious if not disgraceful by those of less talent, and none of his work would be published. O tempora, o mores.

11

General Science / Re: Would a study of poetry aid in a better understanding of mathematics?

« on: 21/02/2018 19:57:07 »

Incidentally, it amazes me that he was able to graduate #1 from his high-school, and then with honors from VaTech - in mathematics - and NEVER took a trigonometry class.  What is this world coming to?

Not the entire world, but a nation whose president thinks 2 + 2 = 5, at least three states have determined the value of π by legislation, and more people have been shot by 5-year-olds than by terrorists. God help America.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why must c be an absolute "speed limit"?

« on: 21/02/2018 14:31:32 »

Just to be absolutely, unequivocally clear. There is a mass/energy equivalence and not a matter/energy equivalence. Puppypower is posting nonsense.

I’ve removed the offending post to new theories

13

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 17.10.29 - Is it safe to be in a car during a thunderstorm?

« on: 21/02/2018 00:30:58 »

No, the rubber makes no significant difference- if you think about it the lightning has jumped kilometres down from the sky a few inches of rubber aren't going to do much!

Incidentally, although the car is highly protective, and the metalwork attracts the lightning and will nearly always save you in a direct strike, I believe there have been cases where the lightning has gone in through a window and still struck somebody. A perfect shield would need much smaller holes. Winding up windows is certainly advisable, since glass is an insulator, but probably even that isn't a total guarantee.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would a Hohmann Transfer be more fuel efficient to attain lunar orbit?

« on: 20/02/2018 22:49:50 »

OK, hardcore orbital mechanics follows, you have been warned.

First, it's not true that Hohmann is necessary minimal (bielliptic transfers can be lower delta-v). To be accurate you can't even use a Hohmann transfer to get to the moon, because a Hohmann transfer only works between two circular orbits around a single central gravitating body. But with the moon there, there's a second body. It turns out though that that's a good thing.

The Apollo transfer uses less fuel than a Hohmann transfer would because it uses Oberth effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

In other words as the vehicle falls into the lunar gravitational field it speeds up. But rockets work better at high speed/lower altitude, so it can do a small burn at the closest point and enter an orbit around the moon. That also means that the closer the orbit is to the moon when you do the braking burn, the more efficient the trip is. If you did a normal Hohmann at lunar orbital radius, but away from the moon, the vehicle would be at very high altitude above the Earth and the vehicle would be moving very slowly, and so during the circularising burn (to oversimplify slightly) the exhaust would end up moving very fast, and waste lots of energy and fuel.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would a Hohmann Transfer be more fuel efficient to attain lunar orbit?

« on: 20/02/2018 21:27:44 »

To achieve lunar orbit would it be more fuel efficient to utilize a Hohmann Transfer, rather than a "direct" approach, as the Apollo program used?

Yes, the Hohmann transfer orbit is the most fuel-efficient, if all other things were unchanged - but they aren't.

The Hohmann transfer orbit uses just two (quite intense) engine burns.
But it takes about half an orbit between the two engine burns - in the case of an Earth to Moon transfer, that is 2 weeks, compared to about 3 days for the Apollo approach.

That means 4 times as much food, oxygen and muscle cramps, which means more mass, and more fuel.

In the case of Apollo 13, when their oxygen tank exploded, depriving them of electrical power and heating, they continued on their orbit around the Moon, and back to Earth after about 5 days. If they had been on a Hohmann transfer orbit, it would have taken about 4 weeks to return to Earth orbit - and they would have died.

A Hohmann transfer orbit from LEO to Moon orbit only takes 10 days total.  What Apollo 13 used was a  circumlunar free return trajectory.   This basically means that you can whip around the Moon and use its gravity to  return you to LEO.  However, in this case it required a corrective burn using the LEM to accomplish.  Unlike Apollos 8, 10 and 11 which were put directly into circumlunar free return trajectories , Apollo 13 was initially put into a highly elliptical orbit  which fell well short of the Moon, which would return them to the Earth. Then after a docking with the LEM and a system check out, this was changed to  a non-return trans-lunar trajectory.  The accident occurred after this course correction, which required the LEM burn to put them into that circumlunar return trajectory (they could have done a direct abort by using the Service Module engines, but were worried that the explosion may have compromised the SM's structural integrity).

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would a Hohmann Transfer be more fuel efficient to attain lunar orbit?

« on: 20/02/2018 20:37:24 »

To achieve lunar orbit would it be more fuel efficient to utilize a Hohmann Transfer, rather than a "direct" approach, as the Apollo program used?

Yes, the Hohmann transfer orbit is the most fuel-efficient, if all other things were unchanged - but they aren't.

The Hohmann transfer orbit uses just two (quite intense) engine burns.
But it takes about half an orbit between the two engine burns - in the case of an Earth to Moon transfer, that is 2 weeks, compared to about 3 days for the Apollo approach.

That means 4 times as much food, oxygen and muscle cramps, which means more mass, and more fuel.

In the case of Apollo 13, when their oxygen tank exploded, depriving them of electrical power and heating, they continued on their orbit around the Moon, and back to Earth after about 5 days. If they had been on a Hohmann transfer orbit, it would have taken about 4 weeks to return to Earth orbit - and they would have died.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

And, for that matter, are HTs used to translate satellites into higher orbits?

With a chemical rocket, you can achieve the very intense burn to kick a satellite into a Hohmann transfer orbit - and the second intense burn to keep it there once it reaches the farthest point in the orbit. However, these chemical rockets are not very efficient.

See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_Upper_Stage

Many of today's geosynchronous satellites have ion thrusters, which are very efficient, but can't achieve a very intense burn. So these satellites reach geosynchronous orbit by doing a number of low-thrust burns on successive orbits. This takes longer to reach geosynchronous orbit, but by carrying less fuel, they can carry more payload (communications antennas, transmitter channels, etc).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit#Low-thrust_transfer

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why must c be an absolute "speed limit"?

« on: 20/02/2018 18:36:15 »

I have heard the fact that there is a "speed limit" invoked as evidence supporting the Simulated Universe theory (the idea that are universe is actually a complex simulation--I am not a big fan of this idea, because I am not sure if it is falsifiable, but at any rate, I don't think we have any evidence either way, so I am willing to entertain the notion periodically...)

If I were the Programmer, I would probably have (or need) a maximum speed at which simulated information could move about. That the universe appears to expanding at superluminal speeds at the edges of our observable universe could also be a nice trick invoked to prevent the Processor from needing to crunch infinitely many operations per unit time (of course, once we start thinking about the universe in which our universe exists, who knows if "time" is meaningful.)

Problems with this theory include, "well this doesn't answer anything, it just puts the 'real' universe beyond our observation," and "wouldn't a Simulator need some sort of universal frame of reference?"

(these are the sorts of ridiculous answers that can come up when "why" questions are posed)

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why must c be an absolute "speed limit"?

« on: 20/02/2018 17:43:13 »

I have a simple, and yet nagging question...

Why must the speed of light, c, be an absolute "speed limit"?

Why can't something, anything exceed 299,792,458 m/s?  Why can something go 299,792,459 m/s?

It boils down to the nature of time and space and their interrelationship to each other.   The speed of c plays an important part of that relationship.      It is the invariant speed for the Universe (the speed everyone measures as having the same value with respect to themselves) Newtonian physics also can be said to have an invariant speed, but it is infinite in value.   c is finite.
Once you have a finite invariant speed, it automatically falls out that it becomes the universal speed limit. 

If you are asking why the universe has an finite invariant speed, then the best I can say is that you should be glad that it does.  Many of the fundamental interactions that allow complex structures, from subatomic particles on up, to even exist rely on Relativity and the fact that this finite invariant speed exists.    In other words, it might not even be possible for a universe without it to have the type of complexity needed for beings capable of asking the question to form in the first place.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why must c be an absolute "speed limit"?

« on: 20/02/2018 16:53:08 »

Can the question also be asked "Why is there any maximum speed limit?"

As far as I  have understood , there must be a maximum speed limit and  it looks like c is it since it lies at the heart of all processes that have been observed .

It is the fastest that any object has been observed to go  and since there must be a maximum speed  of some kind the c is the obvious candidate.

I have also understood that c is a function of both the permittivity and the permeability of a vacuum.

So if these observed values were different ,c would also have a different value.

But there would still be a maximum speed limit.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why must c be an absolute "speed limit"?

« on: 20/02/2018 15:42:17 »

Objects are held together by electrostatic forces, which are mediated by photons that travel at the speed of light. That means if you wobble an electron it takes a tiny moment for the forces on the proton to respond; and also when an object moves the electric field is no longer spherically symmetric, it becomes ellipsoid.

It takes an infinite amount of energy to make an object go faster than light, but if somehow an object found itself going faster than light, the electric fields wouldn't keep up with the electrons and protons, so they would no longer be bound together as atoms and molecules and the object would fall to pieces.