301

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 19/06/2022 22:21:55 »

really?

krrr..Rrrrrr  i am in a tunnel. kkkkkkrrrrrr
Connection lost.
SYNTAX ERROR LINE 42

302

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 19/06/2022 21:58:47 »

Good for you, but somewhere else, please.

Ok... I just realized you are some bot coming from the twilight zone.
So, by chance and as a man in black i do not need to complain or argue,

303

New Theories / Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 19/06/2022 21:41:39 »

White holes are like the white rabbit a young fox has never meet.

They could exist, but nobody has ever seen one.

In general relativity, a white hole is a theoretical region of spacetime and singularity that cannot be entered from the outside, although energy-matter, light and information can escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can be entered only from the outside and from which energy-matter, light and information cannot escape. White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past.[1] This region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, however, nor are there any observed physical processes through which a white hole could be formed.

Supermassive black holes (SBHs) are theoretically predicted to be at the center of every galaxy and that possibly, a galaxy cannot form without one. Stephen Hawking[2] and others have proposed that these supermassive black holes spawn a supermassive white hole.[3]

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

But perhaps we see white holes everyday and we dont realize they are some.
Could it be possible that, as you enter a black hole, saying you reach the schwarzchild radius (i would not recommend this experience and i will explain why further), you would arrive in some special place where... :
If you look back, you see a star ! Instead of the walls of the black hole "like you should observe in a classical 3D hole".
What a surprise ! You realize that in a 4D spacetime, the inside of a hole is indeed  a sphere (like a star)
So you can go around the sphere (orbiting around the star) and in fact you are just orbiting inside, close to the walls of the black hole.

The interresting thing is that Stephen Hawking hypothetised that there could be some "Fire Wall" (this is why i do not recommend to travel trought the black hole) that is very dangerous for the matter.

So if you look at the Sun (yes our sun in our solar system) is it possible that this object is instead of what we think as  "a star" ,the walls seen from the inside of a black hole ?
And this is what we can call a White hole ?

The fire wall could be responsible of the strange behavior of the Sun corona.

Burning questions about the sun’s atmosphere

The visible surface of the sun, or the photosphere, is around 6,000 degrees Celsius (11,000 degrees Fahrenheit). But a few thousand kilometers above it – a small distance when we consider the size of the sun – the solar atmosphere, also called the corona, is hundreds of times hotter. The corona reaches a million degrees C or higher (over 1.8 million degrees F).

This spike in temperature, despite the increased distance from the sun’s main energy source, has been observed in most stars. It represents a fundamental puzzle that astrophysicists have mulled over for decades.

https://earthsky.org/sun/why-suns-atmosphere-hotter-than-its-surface/
 
Some possibility we have to verify this hypothesis could be to measure the gravity close around the sun.
Normaly, like for the earth, if we have what we call a classic star, we should have some slight difference in gravity.
But if it is some quantum object, (so a white hole) the hole should behave like one single object with no "details".
This could help Mercury to orbit so close around the sun.

Furthermore if you fall into a black hole, instead of "falling" toward the center (the singularity) you only enter using your inertia and then you are attracted by the "walls" of the hole if you cant escape the attraction of "the Sun".

What do you think about this ?






 

304

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 19/06/2022 20:54:35 »

Trolling?

Why trolling ?

305

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 19/06/2022 20:41:57 »

What fang essay ?

306

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 19/06/2022 18:20:19 »

Are there any peer-reviewed articles written about these experiments?

I dont know, but it looks like you have acces to theirs studies (and some other scientist is working "anonymous" in Brazil, anonymous because you know... we are here dealing with magic...)
If nobody accept their studies, it only means that actual science is ill (or for other reason but we dont know).



 

307

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 19/06/2022 18:12:04 »

What are you talking about? 

I say that you are talking about "magic" like if this would disqualify this sort of phenomenon to be studied by scientists.
Every phenomenon is some kind of magic before science deal with it !
Until some rational explaination occur.

A lot of things look like magic (actualy the QM is some kind of magic because the underlying cause remain a mystery).
You can observe that this kind of "magic" is fully accepted by modern scientists.

Why then do you want to discard an other "magical event", not even really understand, occuring in QM, just because the human observer is in that case specificaly involved ? (the scientists think that it is the humain consciousness that is responsible of the collapse... not sure but experiences can be done to demonstrate this fact or not) .
 
So, you can say  : It is magic (i dont think magic exists, only miracles but it is some particular phenomenon) or you agree that the fact is real (scientists have discovered something) or... you state that those scientists are crooks.
 
I dont think these scientists are crooks (they act like real scientists in my opinion)
You can have some other opinion too and of course i respect your point of view.

308

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 19/06/2022 17:39:04 »

This whole game is built on artificial respiration. The same processes that makes us survive today destroying our future. Without artificial fertilizers approximately 50% of humanity will starve to death, in reality a lot more. Global food stores that at best count in a few months. There's a lot of examples of our folly in this essay.

You mean that if you cant eat meat every (or even cant eat meat at all) you will starve ?
No. You will suffer because you dont want to become a vegetarian.
Also, everybody is saying : Oh my god how can we do ? We really need to stop using the plane 3 times a year, eat meat, using cars to do vacancies ?  (the list of futile things is very long actually). But this is not possible ! We are sentenced to death !
Very funny in fact.

309

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 19/06/2022 17:26:24 »

And the physical phenomenon that is involved is some double slit experience (or one slit experience and it works as well).

I need to correct what i have writen.
This is not a one slit experience but one photon double slit experience, or course.

This is incorrect.  What you are describing is magic and magic is not real.

So every time we discover some new thing using some exprimental method, it must be incorrect,
And because you dont want to admit the fact it is magic ?

This is just decoherence, the effect of which travels at a good percentage of light speed. If it was 'caused' by some specific distant guy thinking about it, then they must have been able to show that the same system would remain in superposition (not collapsed) indefinitely if this one distant guy was not thinking about it. They've demonstrated no such thing.

I think you say this because you have not see the video.
They have taken in account this kind of artefact (and a lot more. If you watch the video you will see).
Per example, they have used some "robots", doing the same as the human (so there is no robot at all... but no human also). Here, no collapse.
And, they have done some random start of the experience, to avoid some cyclic occurence of some unknown phenomenon.

There are plenty of examples of systems actually kept in superposition for extended times, despite the system being thought about continuously by the people setting up the experiments.

You are right.
Therefore, here, there must be something else to be taken in account... because it act differently.

In my opinion, it is very surprising that we had to wait around 100 years (double slit experience, with collapse when an observer retrieve the information where the photon pass by) to do such very basic experience.
 

No, I have not watched the video. You-tube videos are not evidence of anything. If you haven't posted the actual claim here, then it isn't important enough to discuss.

This is not only a "youtube video".
It is some video made by the scientists (center for consiousness studies) who are experimenting since 8 years at the University of Arizona.

310

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does the IVO thruster violate Newton's third law?

« on: 19/06/2022 13:09:49 »

So where did that watt come from?

It came from some electrical source.
But perhaps you asked : Where dit that thrust come from ?

Nobody know exactly if there is really some thrust, but the latest experiences done in Germany stated that the thrust (very small) observed with the previous model of the EmDrive by the NASA is due to experimental errors.
They were able (they say) to "kill the thrust"  when they corrected those errors around year 2020.

Using a new measuring scale and different suspension points of the same engine, the TU Dresden scientists “were able to reproduce apparent thrust forces similar to those measured by the NASA team, but also to make them disappear by means of a point suspension,” researcher Martin Tajmar told the German site GreWi.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/

311

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 18/06/2022 15:42:42 »

It must be correct because this is what the experiences they did have shown.
If you dont agree with this, this is perhaps because you dident even watch the video.

Now, concerning the cause and the experiences they should do to confirm some or other hypothesis, this need some further questioning.
Per example, the peoples who are "at any distance" from the double slit experience receive (almost) real time feedback from the experience and therefore they know if they succeed or not at every moment.
So you probably dont be able to interact with some distant phenomenon... if you dont have some feedback. And this is what some further experience should investigate.

312

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 18/06/2022 15:03:55 »

yes, but you omit to specify the detail of the experience.

People who where acting upon some physical pheomenon could be any where on earth.
There is no change with distance.
And the physical phenomenon that is involved is some double slit experience (or one slit experience and it works as well).
This mean, the people can change the result of the quantic experiment (making the wave function collapse !), only by thinking about it, elsewere on earth, as if some experimentator would direct interact with the phenomenon at the place of the experience.
 

313

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 18/06/2022 13:31:06 »

Temperature exists because we can do some measurement.

It could also "exists " because it is the not measured part of some physic formula (like if you add some black energy to confirm some formula), but by chance we can measure it.
Therefore (because it be can measured) because there are multiple possibilies to measure it, for every temperature we are talking about, we need to explain how we are able to give its value (or temperature become senseless).

Temperature is some kind of concept like we have with time.
"Temp" if you refer to latin is somewhat refering to time..

314

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 18/06/2022 13:14:26 »

You are weird. A theory is a well confirmed explanation for observed facts, and a New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter.

Thank you for your link to the video of the conference where the experimental team explain how they have prooved (many years of very impressiv tests) that someone can act on some quantum phenomenon if he try do do so..
I was already aware of this fact, but it is great to know that this could be prooved using real science.

Now, in my opinion, this do not exactly mean that some "consciousness" is involved in the process.
First we dont really know what consciousness is, so using it (this concept) as if it would be the cause of the action seems not to be very accurate.
Perhaps, if some person is not conscious he can change some physical phenomenon too.

So... this could perhaps be some good start to understand what conciousness could be.

315

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 18/06/2022 12:57:42 »

A wavefunction can also be considered to generate a probability.
- If you completely surround a single-photon source with perfect detectors, there is a 100% chance that you will detect the photon at far distance d.
- But if you use a detector with an area of only 1 m2, the probability of detection at distance d is much smaller: call it p1=1/4πd2
       - Since 4πd2 m2 is the surface area of a sphere, if d is measured in meters
- Now if you move your 1 m2 detector twice as far away (2d), the probability that you will detect it has dropped to 25%
p2 = 1/4π(2d)2 = p1/4

So the inverse square law for radiation still holds for a single photon; the probability of detecting 1 photon can become arbitrarily low if you make your detector smaller, or put it farther away from the source.

I totaly agree with your demonstration.
I just dont give the exact value , so i do not use the Pi or other constants, because this can be discarded when we speak in term of proportionality.
If you want to be very precise the only thing is that you consider that you dont know where the photon will strike.
This is somewhat wrong when you consider some big source of photon.
For a single atom emiting a photon i admit we know it can strike everywhere around the atome.
But for some spherical clusters of atoms, the atome can only be emited in the opposite direction of the cluster starting from his surface, with some angle around the vertical of the surface of the sphere (or it will be absorbed by the cluster shortly after it has been emited).

But why did i speak of this phenomenon ?
Because it can help you to understand that the mathematical point of view permit to consider infinitesimal volumes of space you can add or divide as you want, but in reality the photon, like perhaps the GFP (or not and this is some interresting question) need to be considered as "something" that CANT be divided.
The statistical value (a mathematical consideration) can not be considered to be like the real phenomenon,

316

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 18/06/2022 11:43:09 »

There is a huge difference between a photon and a virtual photon.  Photons emitted by stars are not virtual photons.

I dont speak about what we name in physic "virtual photons", i say that the photon, by essence, is a quantic particle that expand in the space within some volume BUT if until you interact with it, the photon is like if there was nothing.
The only moment when you know THERE WAS a photon, is when you have destroyed it. So it is VIRTUAL.
The action of the photon (he give his energy) is localised exactly WHERE you interact with it altought it occupy a bigger volume.

None of this has anything to do with the 1/r^2 relation ship because you are talking about 1 photon.  As I said before the relationship is due to the geometry of a point source.

And the intensity (or number of photons) follows 1/r^2 relationship.

Ok, i see you dident understand what i tried to explain.
I do not blame you because i was thinking like you 3 months ago, before i finaly understood that i was tricked by the mathematical aspect of the 1/r^2 relationship and dident try to understand enought the physicaly phenomenon behind this law.

So, no problem, lets try some other explaination that can eventualy permit you to gain some new insight you can develop by yourself.

First we have to be aware that we dont really know the phenomenon underlying the gravity field.
The GR theory is some mathematical description like the SR theory but we dont really know the detail that lead to the fact we are describing.
Newton was a mathematician too and his law is based on mathematical tought guided by some mystical tought (Newton was also an alchemist).
So, are there some gravitons ? Some paquets of curved space, dark matter, "something" ? etc
SR and GR dont care and you have to guess.

Now, lets try some "GedankenExperiment" to see clearer.
Let us Imagine a massive object apppearing suddenly in some flat space.
Lets say there is something in the space toward infinity around this mass that can interact with light, some very dense fog of some kind.
When "light", or better said "a photon" hit a fog particle, it disappear.
The disappearance has to be regarded as some transformation (or LOSS if we consider it as a part of the total emited energy by the mass in term of photons) of the energy emited by the mass.
Because energy if we want to do physic should be something that should remain (this is some principia, like Newton could have say using his mystical tought) we can also, like Eternal Student dit, talk about transformation and not of loss. But it is the same, it just depend wich system we consider (the total or the part of).
So, what would we see as an external observator when the photons are emited during time ?
I will not explain this because this is very obvious and we can (and if i would so i dont want to talk so long about, my messages are already very long) do many interesting conclusions in the ways the photons will spread among space.

Now, let change and say the photons are now instead some "gravitational field particle" (GFP), that the mass is emitting like previously we did with the photon at the same constant flux rate, and that the fog is "the not curvatured spacetime".
The curvatured spacetime will not interact anymore with the GFP etc.

Good, you say, we have some similar behavior.

Wrong... because the theory (i dont say the theory is right...) say that the expansion of the gravitational field can not be shielded (mass dont hinder the propagation) nor be lowered because its meet some not curvatured space.
Therefore there is some questioning about WHY the GFP should behavior differently of the photon and be able to curve spacetime without not being "discarded" ("loss" of energy of the total emitted energy of the mass).

If you consider the energy you can use to curve the spacetime from GFP at some position d, behavior like those of the photon (... without the fog) you are not consistent.

This is why i mentionned this because it confirm the questioning of Dave Lev.
Why should there be some new law for the Gravitational force that matches the equilibrum of the galaxys and so forth ?
No, you can have this behavior if you consider that there is something (GFP) emited that (like the photon in the fog) disapear when it bends spacetime.
Therefore the impossibility to have a 1/d^2 law, unless there is "no fog" (already some curvature at the same value of the flux).
The energy by surface you can obtain from a constant emitted source of photon into some fog at some distance is not a fixed value. It depends of the anihilation of the fog, so it change during time when the fog progressivly disapear.

I hope it is more clear with this explaination.


 



 

317

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 18/06/2022 10:00:29 »

    There isn't any reason to consider the curvature of spacetime as a store of energy.

    Under General Relativity,  spacetime curvature is a consequence of energy being located at a place in space.

I agree.

  It is not a form of energy or a store of energy.

You just sayed that spacetime curvature is a consequence of energy being located at a place and then you say that there is no energy needed to create this curvature ?
This is a total paradox.
You state that graviton (or whatever it is, black matter perhaps) do not contain energy but because of its energy it will permanently curve the spacetime while going around without loosing any energy.
But you are perhaps right and GR say this kind of thing, i am not a specialist.

   For example, there is no process or piece of equipment that will allow you to straighten out spacetime curvature and charge a battery up while you are doing that.    If there was some process to convert spacetime curvature into another known form of energy then you could have one increase while the other decreases - but that doesn't happen.   Exactly the opposite seems to happen:   Increase the total energy of known forms at a place and the curvature also increases at that place.

Of course there is.
There is a force wich appears, capable of pulling some mass toward an other, so you can have movement at the place where there was no movement at all before the action of the gravitational field. Therefore you create Work. Work is the transfert of energy.
 

318

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 17/06/2022 23:57:50 »

It seems that the 1/r^2 law for gravity makes perfect sense, as it directly follows from the geometry of a point source.
Why would this contradict the conservation of energy?

It is complicated to explain shortly, but i will try my best.

So yes, you are right. If the gravity field would behaviour like the electromagnetic field you should have a 1/d^2 law for the gravitational field.
But first you need to really understand why there can be a 1/d^2 law in the intensity at some distant point for the electromagnetic field.
Lets begin with a source of photons that emit only 1 single photon.
This photon start form the point source and then advance toward infinity.
There is a problem if you want to receive this single photon, especialy if you are at a very long distance because if you consider the photon will spread as a cylinder (like a laser beam would do), the 1/d^2 law intensity would not apply everytime.
By chance, the photon spread as a cone, and you can intercept it much easyer.
So a single photon at a distance d can be received within a large surface onto the sphere wich has the radius d.
Whats the intensity law for this single photon ?
1/d^2 ? No, if you get the photon that is actualy present (because the duality particle wave) you got the full energy of this photon.And very important, if you get the photon within this surface, the photon disappear instantly (so far as we know) preventing anyone to receive the photon at the same time at an other position (the wave function is destroyed).
Now, if you consider a source that emit a tremedous quantity of photons, every second, like a star would do, the intensity of the source can be seen as if it would be distributed onto the surface of a sphere of radius d.
You can divide the intensity by d*d because you are in fact dividing the number of the photons you can intercept on the surface of the sphere.You are not dividing the intensity of the photon (you can not it is a particle), but their number.
It seems obvious at first, but there is something very interresting you need to understand there : As soon as you have interacted with the photon, it stop his travel and disappear and before you interact with it, it is like it is not here (it does nothing).
So : The intensity 1/d^2 can be obtained because of the large number of photons (they are well repartited) BUT you can ONLY obtain this intensity 1 time.
The maximum you can do is receiving all photons emited and you will have the same intensity as that of the star.
Saying you have a pulse of light (it is better to understand) 1/d^2 is proportional with the surface d^d  of the sphere of radius d. Here we dont have a problem with the energy.

Now, if you consider the gravitational field.
Let assume we have, like for the electromagnetic field, "something" that is spreading from the source (the same star as before per example). We dont need really, for the explaination here, to know what this "something" is (some graviton or whatever). But what we know, and it is was distinguish the behaviour of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field; is that the photon is VIRTUAL (it exists virtualy in the space and has no effect unlike you receive it, and if it interact it disapear) and that the "something" who is responsible for the curvature of space-time is ACTUAL (it has a PERMANENT and real effect, everywhere where it travel).
Therefore, if you consider that it can curve the space-time (and this can be assimilated as some local energy change) everywhere he pass by, you will understand that you could theoritically do the sum of the energy change of the spheres with radius between 0 and the infinity.
Because the "graviton" or whatever it is, change actually the curvature of space-time, this would lead to an infinite energy gain because the radius will become bigger an bigger.
An if you want to interact with it like the photon, it must occupy a large amount of space, bigger and bigger as you go away from the source.
The photon can because it only occupy space without interact with it, but the "graviton" can not (or it is some big mystery) because it is actualy changing the curvature within the space-bigger and bigger it occupy. .

Therefore, my opinion is : The best, and i will finish briefly here, is to consider the "graviton" (or whatever it is) like some fluid that is occupying the area around the star.
The intensity of the fluid production is extremly strong, so the filling around the star is "like if" the "fluid balloon" extend around speed of light, but soon you go further, and because of the constant (proportional to mass) production of this fluid the "balloon" growing rate decrease.
The intensity around the star is proportional to 1/d^2 but soon you go further away the density of this fluid become less than 1/d^2... until some time when the area is well filled and so forth.
More interresting, with this model, you dont only say : What is the intensity of the gravitational field at distance d, but you also need to say WHEN do i consider this intensity..
Older structures, like for the galaxys, have more of this "fluid" then young galaxys.
And when the star is loosing mass... the gravitational effect remain somewhere.

 

319

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 17/06/2022 20:21:25 »

5. What kind of force could set those special dark matter densities at any different radius/sphere?

Gravity.
But in my opinion we should before understand how gravity work.
The problem is that we have only some theorical understanding of gravitation, and the observation do not match exactly with the theory. (Per example the Mond theory could be more relevant for big distance or we have to suppose there is some "dark matter" somewhere).

First, there is often a misunderstanding (i suppose not all scientists do the confusion) between the gravitational wave and the gravity field.
The gravitationnal wave is known to travel at light speed (we have received almost simulaneously gravitational waves and light waves coming from some collapsing black holes).
But the gravitationnal wave have no gravitational effect on things they encounter.
They only shortly and temporaly change the length of those things.

So, what about the gravitational field (the one that is curving the space-time) ?
Do the field really expand at light speed ?
Do the field really have the intensity it should have (1/d*d) at some distance d ?
Perhaps this is thrue for short distances (the solar system scale can be considered as a short distance) and false when the distance become bigger.
In my opinion we can not have a law that say the intensity of gravity field is 1/(d*d).
This would contradict (i will not try to develop this idea here because it need a lot of explaination) the energy conservation law (if any).

Therefore i am very puzzled when i see some universe simulation showing that with the actual knowledge we end up with the universe we have actualy (so the simulation show the BB theory and so on is very accurate).

Now, why are there some galaxy with big BH at the begining of the BB ?
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the gravity question.
It has something to do with the interpretation of what we see in the universe.
We have an observation and we have an interpretation of it.
But is the interpretation right ?

320

General Science / Re: Absolute Zero. How Do We Know It's Temperature If It's Impossible To Reach ?

« on: 15/06/2022 18:31:19 »

You can reach lower than 0 Kelvin temperature.

A temperature below absolute zero: Atoms at negative absolute temperature are the hottest systems in the world

Date:
    January 4, 2013
Source:
    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Summary:
    On the absolute temperature scale, which is used by physicists and is also called the Kelvin scale, it is not possible to go below zero – at least not in the sense of getting colder than zero kelvin. According to the physical meaning of temperature, the temperature of a gas is determined by the chaotic movement of its particles – the colder the gas, the slower the particles. At zero kelvin (minus 273 degrees Celsius) the particles stop moving and all disorder disappears. Thus, nothing can be colder than absolute zero on the Kelvin scale. Physicists have now created an atomic gas in the laboratory that nonetheless has negative Kelvin values. These negative absolute temperatures have several apparently absurd consequences: although the atoms in the gas attract each other and give rise to a negative pressure, the gas does not collapse – a behavior that is also postulated for dark energy in cosmology.