Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sceptic-eng on 19/02/2018 07:33:53
-
Physics and cosmology are at odds as both the above statements are correct but contradictory. The reason for the difficulty is that both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations but these balancing electric forces are not included in the base equations above are they?
Newton never said that gravity was the only accelerating force in space and Einstein never said that electric forces did not exist in space.
We want the truth about balancing the universe not mumbo-jumbo theories about dark energy/matter or multi-universes. Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there. ACSINUK
-
There is no contradiction.
As an everyday instance in medical physics, the annihilation of an electron-positron pair produces two photons whose energy can be calculated from the Einstein equation and measured by the Planck equation. To nobody's surprise, the results are identical.
Or you can make very precise measurements at lower energies by using the Mossbauer effect.
-
The reason for the difficulty is that both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations but these balancing electric forces are not included in the base equations above are they?
This is true of many formulae and measurements. The force on a mass determines its acceleration, but i can offer a formula or measurement for that acceleration that uses neither force nor mass
Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there. ACSINUK
This seems to be a common theme of yours. If you have any evidence or a coherent hypothesis please post it in New Theories.
-
Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there.
Because gravity is always attractive, while electrostatic forces can be attractive or repulsive.
IF the observation of galaxy rotation curves suggested that there was less attractive mass in the galaxy than the visible stars, then you might imagine that there is a very slight excess of one charge in the galaxy (or the universe), leading to this anomalous rotation curve. Effectively, this slight charge would offset gravitational attraction, and still obey the inverse square law needed for stable orbits.
HOWEVER, the observation of galaxy rotation curves suggests that there is more gravitational attraction present than can be accounted for by the visible mass. And this is a problem for this alternative hypothesis, because the only way you can have an attractive force with electrostatics is if you have regions of opposite charges within the galaxy. Within each region, the opposite charges will repel each other, and not achieve the extra attraction that you are looking for. The extreme strength of these electrostatic forces will result in rapid neutralisation of any local excess charge.
I'm afraid that dipole electromagnetic fields can't act like monopole gravitational fields.
Dark matter is still safe - but still just as mysterious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_hypotheses
-
You haven't discovered a ground-breaking idea. You need to study physics in more depth.
-
Physics and cosmology are at odds as both the above statements are correct but contradictory. The reason for the difficulty is that both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations but these balancing electric forces are not included in the base equations above are they?
Newton never said that gravity was the only accelerating force in space and Einstein never said that electric forces did not exist in space.
We want the truth about balancing the universe not mumbo-jumbo theories about dark energy/matter or multi-universes. Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there. ACSINUK
Sorry but I'll be a bit critic about you statements.
First, equations in Physics means nothing if decontextualized: which is the system/s on which you are applying those equations? Wich is the environment with which it exchanges energy and/or others?
Second, physics and cosmology can't be in contrast since cosmological models are made using current physics.
Third, the sentence "both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations" means absolutely nothing said in this way. If it means something, you have to specify exactly and in detail what you are talking about (maybe you are referring to something you have discussed recently with someone in this forum, which I'm not aware of, I don't know).
Fourth, you talk of "these balancing electric forces are not included in the base equations above" but the "equations above" give the energy, not the force.
Fifth, I have totally no idea of what you mean with "We want the truth about balancing the universe".
Sixth, which are the: "Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there"?
On which popular book did you find these (incorrect) things?
--
lightarrow
-
Louis de broglie noticed that E was both mC^2 and hf
So he asserted that hf = mC^2, rearranged it a bit and got a Nobel prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#The_de_Broglie_hypothesis
-
Lightarrow " "both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations"". Let me try to explain. The hadron collider uses umteen megaWatt hours [V*I*Cos thi*T} of fundamental energy per second to accelerate or force a particle around a magnetic circle. YES, but how does that energy vibration transfer into the nucleas of the molecule?? Is it just increasing the magnetic momentum of the particles spin or speeding up the proton charge radial velocity within the electron enclosure which remains the same shape [what shape?] without bursting. We need to know the equations of transfer please.
-
It is simple. The equation γλ = h/(m0v) says it all. If we view a moving frame from our inertial position the characteristics of an oscillator change without the need for a change in momentum. If you do not see how this squares with time dilation and length contraction then you need to study more.
-
Lightarrow " "both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations"". Let me try to explain. The hadron collider uses umteen
Sorry, don't know what is "umteen".
megaWatt hours [V*I*Cos thi*T} of fundamental energy
What do you mean with "fundamental energy" here? per second to accelerate or force a particle around a magnetic circle. YES, but how does that energy vibration
what do you mean with energy "vibration" here? transfer into the nucleas of the molecule?? Is it just increasing the magnetic momentum of the particles spin
If you want to use these terms, please at least use them correctly: "the particle's magnetic momentum associated to its spin".
Anyway the answer is not: the magnetic momentum has nothing to do with it; LHC or other similar devices can only accelerate charged particles and even the force which curves them is due to its electric charge:
F = qE + qv x B
(Lorentz' force).
F = resultant force on the particle;
q = particle's electric charge;
E = electric field applied to the particle by the apparatus;
v = particle's velocity;
B = magnetic field applied to the particle by the apparatus;
In bold the vectorial quantities.
the symbol "x" means "vectorial product".
or speeding up the proton charge radial velocity within the electron enclosure which remains the same shape [what shape?] without bursting. .
Just meaningless word salad...
--
lightarrow
-
Yes, the voltage force to acceleration the particle is of course in the forward direction which I am going to designate the z direction. Now to stop the neutron from hitting the outside wall you will have to increase the magnetic complex current/flux force around the cross section in the x,y direction and therefore the increase in particle energy will be a 3 dimensional increase dont you think? and without increasing the volume?
-
Physics and cosmology are at odds as both the above statements are correct but contradictory. The reason for the difficulty is that both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations but these balancing electric forces are not included in the base equations above are they?
Newton never said that gravity was the only accelerating force in space and Einstein never said that electric forces did not exist in space.
We want the truth about balancing the universe not mumbo-jumbo theories about dark energy/matter or multi-universes. Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there. ACSINUK
Einstein's equation is accurate for mass objects in relative motion, and the Planck scale proposes a sub-level connection that is used to explain the wave and particle ambiguities of light, which we then aim to use as a scale to understand the stars.
Forming a theory of light we see from the greater sphere that surrounds us (sky), in trying not to be esoteric....understanding the atom and then pre-supposing what we know on the stellar level requires the atom to be "in between" a greater outer sphere of stars and an inner, as we call it, Plank level. It at least asks us where the gold standard of "laws" of space and time lie, ideally "our" reference; those laws if comprehensible would have to "lie" on our reference, otherwise they would be hard to digest, if not incomprehensible.
Yet in saying that, the Planck scale offers energies that when relate to the outer Universe request concepts such as dark matter and dark energy in an ever expanding, it seems, universe.....apparently accelerating (and has been for a long time, which as any object under acceleration realises gets fast).......a feature we as humans appear to be shielded from.......yet features that try to accommodate for some type of relative stability, right, and not gross runaway acceleration?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Einstein's equation is accurate for mass objects in relative motion, and the Planck scale proposes a sub-level connection that is used to explain the wave and particle ambiguities of light, which we then aim to use as a scale to understand the stars.
If you start with piffle, you will end up with garbage.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. Einstein's equation calculates what happens when you convert mass into energy or vice versa, and Planck's equation relates the frequency or wavelength of a photon to its energy. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Planck scale expresses the region in which the predictions of the Standard Model of quantum field theory and of general relativity are no longer reconcilable, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate.
KISS, my friend. It's the door to understanding.
-
I've tried to explain an idea that is just that, yet what's you're point? I offer an idea, but is there an actual criticism to the DNA of my points.
Forgive me, but what's "KISS"?
If I can re-iterate, the Planck scale does, "does" aim to resolve particle and wave issues of light. That's why we still use the Planck scale in such equations. Ww use the idea of quanta on the Planck scale, and we also convert that idea to a gravitational constant on the Planck scale. Even though we can't actually "prove" that, the equation is there to herald the idea.
Einstein didn't develop a formula for swiss cheese, he developed a formula for mass-objects in relative motion, even though its become swiss cheese.
Indeed, the Planck scale expresses a "limit", but that's what a limit does, it holds all above or below that scale as a singularity. Now convert that to the stars, the big bang idea, and then we need to resolve that with the ideas of dark matter and dark energy.
Surely I'm not being piffle here?
-
Physics and cosmology are at odds as both the above statements are correct but contradictory. The reason for the difficulty is that both need the electromagnetic current or flux and electrostatic charge voltages for their derivations but these balancing electric forces are not included in the base equations above are they?
Newton never said that gravity was the only accelerating force in space and Einstein never said that electric forces did not exist in space.
We want the truth about balancing the universe not mumbo-jumbo theories about dark energy/matter or multi-universes. Why not just balance the galaxies using the electromagnetic forces that must be there. ACSINUK
pE = hf
-
pE = hf
Too much p
-
KISS is "keep it simple stupid" by applying Occams razor. But as matter is made up of electric charges and magnetic momentum with enclosure shells that obey Pauli exclusion principle without quarks, then the simplist way to deal with matter is acknowledge the basic facts and agree we live in an electromagnetized magnoflux 3D universe; a new theory indeed.
-
I agree, give Newton a chance.
Using relativistic equations of light to explain mass, that's not KISS right?
Using relativity to explain mass is like asking a bird in flight to design a formula one car.