Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 22/09/2015 17:13:29
-
In the unobservable of the Universe, remains unanswered questions of the things we can not visual observe, what is energy? what is the nature of light? what is the gravity mechanism?
Questions with no definite answer, presumptions and theory trying to explain the unobserved.
What if we could define energy itself? This would lead to new understandings.
What is energy? Energy is a specific unified point in space , a point of existence where there is something of a positive nature rather than something of negative. Could we perceive this singular point is of a single entity no dissimilar to Quanta. Could we perceive Quanta , was pure energy itself, how would we ever know?
All matter in the Universe is submerged in Quanta, stars releasing Quanta in an isotropic ''stream'', no spacing between Quanta creating an illusion of a wave and a speed, where as the speed is the rate of output of a star forcing the constant flow.
The Quanta in space has no net charge and only when the Quanta flow becomes pressured by an opposing force, does a net charge occur , a bottlenecking of Quanta, that creates a temporal variable synchronisation of the constant which we know as spectral content.
All mass being submerged in the constant flow creating observer effect of the constant.
Quanta passes through air, air does not obstruct the Quanta allowing the flow rate to remain constant. Quanta does not reveal frequency whilst passing through air. Quanta is equal to sight and observably clear whilst in space at its constant flow.
If a single Quanta becomes separated from the Quanta flow, it will become at rest where eventually the dormant charge will dissipate leaving behind rest mass .
The Quanta flow defends all mass, pushing back the negativeness of dark space beyond our visual boundaries of observation.
-
Please learn what you are talking about before making such grandiose and demonstrably wrong claims about the universe.
Energy, while a tricky subject to grasp completely, is easily defined, predicted, measured and accounted for. There are many excellent resources that give definitions, explanations, derivations, theory and history of the subject. Use the internet for 60 seconds, and you can probably find 3 good leads.
A few tips:
1) energy could not possibly be a point, or anything pointlike.
2) learn about positive and negative charge, you keep misusing them and confusing everyone including yourself
3) Avoid big words until you've learned the little ones. Statements like this are meaningless: "The Quanta in space has no net charge and only when the Quanta flow becomes pressured by an opposing force, does a net charge occur , a bottlenecking of Quanta, that creates a temporal variable synchronisation of the constant which we know as spectral content."
-
Never assume that some one doesn't know what energy is, for matter is in the constant act of expanding and contracting or contracting and expanding, there is no exception to this rule. We see energy as both motion and mass, there is a great illusion here because mentally we can not separate mass from motion. Motion can not exist but it does exist!
-
Please learn what you are talking about before making such grandiose and demonstrably wrong claims about the universe.
Energy, while a tricky subject to grasp completely, is easily defined, predicted, measured and accounted for. There are many excellent resources that give definitions, explanations, derivations, theory and history of the subject. Use the internet for 60 seconds, and you can probably find 3 good leads.
A few tips:
1) energy could not possibly be a point, or anything pointlike.
2) learn about positive and negative charge, you keep misusing them and confusing everyone including yourself
3) Avoid big words until you've learned the little ones. Statements like this are meaningless: "The Quanta in space has no net charge and only when the Quanta flow becomes pressured by an opposing force, does a net charge occur , a bottlenecking of Quanta, that creates a temporal variable synchronisation of the constant which we know as spectral content."
I understand every big word I used lol, you mistake what i mean to point like, consider a particle smaller than a particle occupying a specific point of space. Without energy there can be no positive action only negative action.
These point ''particles'' denote all that is energy, exchanging quanta from one object to the next.
-
When you talk about a point in space as being of a "positive nature" rather than something of a "negative", this would say to me that this is potential energy. If this point in space is kinetic energy ( motion or in the act ) then you would have both positive and negative force at the same time. This is important because when we perceive matter in it's self as not being in the constant act of motion, we will say it's potential energy, everything is always in the constant act of moving, the positive nature of a point in space you refer to is the organizing and collecting mass at this point in space, it's the smaller mass creating a larger mass.
-
Any individual particle in rotation creates an individual wormhole of way of it's own output of electro-magnetic wave.
creating centripetal force denoted by its own efficiency.
-
In the unobservable of the Universe, remains unanswered questions of the things we can not visual observe, what is energy?
I already addressed that question: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm
The term energy cannot be defined. Didn't you read that page?
what is the nature of light?
You're not being very clear about what you want to know when you ask vague questions like that. I'm going to assume that by that question you want to know all the properties of light. If so then see: http://physics.info/light/ - The Nature of Light.
what is the gravity mechanism?
You've been told on multiple occasions that the mechanism of gravity is unknown as of yet.
What if we could define energy itself? This would lead to new understandings.
No it wouldn't. We know everything there is to know about energy. The reason that there's no definition is because its a basic property and as such there is nothing to define it in terms of.
What is energy?
You're repeating yourself, again!
Energy is a specific unified point in space ...
No it isn't. That's the worst way to even approach a definition for energy because that notion is completely foreign to the concept of energy.
, a point of existence where there is something of a positive nature rather than something of negative.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? The concept of negative energy is well-known in physics and appears in various places such as in the gravitational field of a negatively charged particles or in the gravitational field of a point object with finite mass.
Could we perceive Quanta , was pure energy itself, how would we ever know?
There's no such thing as "pure energy" because such a thing is meaningless. Watch the
-
Start with the mechanism by design and function.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-make-perfect-perpetual-copier-daniel-baxter?trk=mp-reader-card
Two hyperbolic manifold's, in a inverse direction formation, around a rotating sphere, forming a pseudosphere, as two directional forces meet,,and then produce outbound flow. The temperate difference in regards to the matter in containment of it's rotation, force, the temperate repulsion, keeps it from coming within.
Forming the mechanism. Which turn into two tubular formation's,, encircling, each manifold,, and then allowing the cycle of function for the mechanism.
-
http://physics.info/light/
''Light is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans. ''
Light can not be seen by humans it can be detected by a humans remote sensors that is interpreted by the brain as light. Only light of a spectral frequency can you observe, light in air or space is not observed and is ''clear'' a frequency of zero with no net charge because there is no interference causing the speed to change to create a wave, a particle will remain at a linear velocity unless there is an external force applied on the particle.
I do not wish to know the nature of light, I am the one explaining it because I truly understand light's behaviour.
I understand that sight is evolution adjustment to the constant allowing a visual ''transparency'' of all of space, light allows sight to penetrate space.
A force can only be a force if there is an opposing body to make that force, space has no mechanism to compress light, allowing the ''alpha'' particle(quanta), to travel at c unaltered as the constant, and spectral frequencies are an offset to the constant, temporal subset constants of the constant.
Zero point space is the minimum limit of everything, energy is this small. Mass cannot exist without energy , energy came first.
-
Light can not be seen by humans it can be detected by a humans remote sensors that is interpreted by the brain as light.
The process of "light entering the eye and falling on the retina where its translated into signals which are sent to and interpreted by the brain" is what is known as "seeing". That's why your claim that light can not be seen is wrong.
Only light of a spectral frequency can you observe,
Humans can see the entire range of light waves. When we see something that's red such as the spot that a He-Ne laser produces on a white wall we're seeing pure red.
-
Humans can see the entire range of light waves. When we see something that's red such as the spot that a He-Ne laser produces on a white wall we're seeing pure red.
Pete observe the space between your eyes and an object
what do you see in that space ignoring the object?
Do you see Quanta ?
I think not.
Do you see a constant clarity?
I think so
Now Pete observe the object,
do you see Quanta interacting with the object ?
a spectral constant, different to the constant clarity,
The frequency of ''white light'' is at an equilibrium to sight, the clarity you see through and are submerged in, is a constant speed and a constant clarity. Yes you observe spectral content, all the wavelengths, wavelengths that is only there by interaction.
No opposing force there is no net charge, radiation is harmless unless it makes contact with matter. Light is flat line in space and not a wave . It only waves when it becomes compressed.
Energy is quanta, quanta is exchanged from mass to mass, quanta is a dot of dormant +. 1 quanta does not = E, 1 quanta impacting m=E
-
the box - When you have some serious questions to ask me other than silly word games let me know. What you posted in that last post isn't worth the effort to respond to them. Please get serious and stop with the word games. Start by reading a physics text. Not having time is not a valid excuse since you have time to post in forums which you could better use that time in a real study of physics, after which you'll be able to come back with serious questions and no more word games and playing with semantics. I'm real tired of it and won't ever comment on that kind of nonsense.
-
the box - When you have some serious questions to ask me other than silly word games let me know. What you posted in that last post isn't worth the effort to respond to them. Please get serious and stop with the word games. Start by reading a physics text. Not having time is not a valid excuse since you have time to post in forums which you could better use that time in a real study of physics, after which you'll be able to come back with serious questions and no more word games and playing with semantics. I'm real tired of it and won't ever comment on that kind of nonsense.
Hmmm, it is a serious question Pete, one that all science sidetracks and keep ignoring because they know I am very well correct.
Like yourself can not answer because you know your answer will agree with me.
-
Energy or photons move at the speed of light, which is the same in all references, however photons also have wavelength and frequency which can be different in different references. We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, which never stops moving at the speed of light. This tells me that energy has two legs or aspects, one leg is always connected to a speed of light reference, and the other leg is connected to inertial reference.
Say you were to sit on a photon to view the universe from its speed of light reference. The inertial universe would appear to be a point in size according to special relativity. What that means is any wavelength less than infinite would be smaller than your point reference and therefore cannot be seen, since less than a point cannot exist by definition. The speed of light is color blind.
If we could slow from the speed of light reference, the universe will appear to expand from the point-instant into finite size. Finite size perception allows more wavelengths to appear, albeit, very large wavelengths at first. As we slow more and more and the universe appears to be getting larger and larger, all wavelengths can be seen. If we keep one foot planted at C and allow the other leg to slow from C to a critical point, we get the bets of both world; energy.
-
Energy or photons move at the speed of light, which is the same in all references, however photons also have wavelength and frequency which can be different in different references. We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, which never stops moving at the speed of light. This tells me that energy has two legs or aspects, one leg is always connected to a speed of light reference, and the other leg is connected to inertial reference.
Say you were to sit on a photon to view the universe from its speed of light reference. The inertial universe would appear to be a point in size according to special relativity. What that means is any wavelength less than infinite would be smaller than your point reference and therefore cannot be seen, since less than a point cannot exist by definition. The speed of light is color blind.
If we could slow from the speed of light reference, the universe will appear to expand from the point-instant into finite size. Finite size perception allows more wavelengths to appear, albeit, very large wavelengths at first. As we slow more and more and the universe appears to be getting larger and larger, all wavelengths can be seen. If we keep one foot planted at C and allow the other leg to slow from C to a critical point, we get the bets of both world; energy.
The redshift you refer to is simply because the matter is moving away from the light and the radiation pressure on the surface of the matter is being lessened by lessened force of the light by the matter travelling the same direction has the light causing the compression of the light to decompress. Blue shift is the opposite to this, the radiation pressure is increased by travelling into the light creating a greater force and greater radiation pressure, causing the linearity of the flow to compress. The sky is blue because we are being pulled towards the sun, the compression we see of the light is a blue wave, the magnetic field , electrons, repelling the suns magnetic field , electrons.
When the sun angles towards the earth at specific times we see a red sky in the morning or at night, this is because the light is being stretched and at this point the earth is trying to pull away from the sun, releasing the radiation pressure allowing the light flow to flow more freely.
Protons emit electrons and at the same time attract electrons, this is mistakenly taken for an electron attached to a proton. The interaction of matter and light is an electron-electron reaction. An isotropic electrical emitted field holding back the electron field of space.
Gravity mechanism is simply protons attracted to protons, but at the same time electrons repelling electrons, and 3 quarks are enough to generate enough strength field to ensure this.
Negative is attractive to negative, positive repels positive.
Positive is the disruption of space.
the speed of light is an escape velocity of emittance into space from rate of emittance, the speed of light is actually zero.
The total sum of negativeness of earth , is attracted to the total sum of negativeness of the sun, and the total positiveness of earth is repelled by the total positiveness of the sun.
The expansion is polarisation, entropy changing back and forth due to thermodynamics.
-
The sky is blue because we are being pulled towards the sun, the compression we see of the light is a blue wave, the magnetic field , electrons, repelling the suns magnetic field , electrons.
When the sun angles towards the earth at specific times we see a red sky in the morning or at night, this is because the light is being stretched and at this point the earth is trying to pull away from the sun, releasing the radiation pressure allowing the light flow to flow more freely.
Not. Even. Close. You are worse than Calvin's dad in Calvin and Hobbes--making explanations up on the fly and trying to pass them off as knowledge. If the blue shift was responsible for the color of the sky, why is the sun yellow? The color of the sky from sunrise to sunset is all easily explained by the constant spectral emission of the sun, and the properties of our atmosphere (mostly scattering and refraction).
The Earth is always falling towards the Sun, but moving to fast to hit it (some people call this "orbiting"). The sun looks like it moves through the sky because the Earth is spinning on an axis, and this has nothing to do with the orbit. There is always a sunset and a sunrise and a high noon, and everything in between happening simultaneously across the Earth. The only difference is the relative angle of the sun in the sky from the various points--the overall relationship between the Earth and the Sun is essentially constant, and certainly couldn't be changing "at sunset."
-
Energy or photons move at the speed of light, ...
Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device which is a constant of motion. It has neither a position nor a speed. What has a position and/or speed is the thing which has energy. Light has energy and light has a speed. However a bullet has energy and a bullet has speed. But that speed most certainty doesn't move at the speed of light.
We see red shifted energy from distance galaxies, ...
That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.
Say you were to sit on a photon to view the universe from its speed of light reference.
That is physically impossible so any thought experiments which uses such an idea is incorrect.
-
That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.
Incorrect, the Quanta is energy, you see the quanta flow being stretched, the differential is observable to the constant of clarity. Quanta has no net charge when in constant flow.
''Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device''
Energy is Quanta, Quanta is passed between all matter, force is a passing of quanta.
-
That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.
Incorrect, the Quanta is energy, you see the quanta flow being stretched, the differential is observable to the constant of clarity. Quanta has no net charge when in constant flow.
''Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device''
Energy is Quanta, Quanta is passed between all matter, force is a passing of quanta.
Wrong!! You're confusing the fact that the energy of subatomic particles are quantized in some instances with all energy being defined as "quanta" which is quite wrong. Light quanta, i.e. photons, have a quantized amount of energy. That energy has a specific amount which depends on the wavelength of the photon but can take on any value depending on what the wavelength is. If an electron is moving in an electric field where there is a relative minimum, i.e. the second derivative is positive in a specific region, then the energy of the electron is quantized when the energy is less than a particular value. E.g. the energy of an electron in an atom is quantized when the energy is negative and not quantized when its no longer in the potential, i.e. when its free.
However, that said, energy itself is not "quanta." In quantum mechanics there are times when the energy comes in discrete amounts. In classical mechanics that's not true. The kinetic energy of an object is not quantized. Therefore you can't claim that energy "is" quanta. That's a very false assumption.
I've already described energy to you. Obviously you didn't get it the first time around. You need to read this http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm again. This time read it more carefully.
-
That is incorrect. You see only red shifted photons which have energy.
Incorrect, the Quanta is energy, you see the quanta flow being stretched, the differential is observable to the constant of clarity. Quanta has no net charge when in constant flow.
''Energy is an abstract quantity which is merely a bookkeeping device''
Energy is Quanta, Quanta is passed between all matter, force is a passing of quanta.
Wrong!! You're confusing the fact that the energy of subatomic particles are quantized in some instances with all energy being defined as "quanta" which is quite wrong. Light quanta, i.e. photons, have a quantized amount of energy. That energy has a specific amount which depends on the wavelength of the photon but can take on any value depending on what the wavelength is. If an electron is moving in an electric field where there is a relative minimum, i.e. the second derivative is positive in a specific region, then the energy of the electron is quantized when the energy is less than a particular value. E.g. the energy of an electron in an atom is quantized when the energy is negative and not quantized when its no longer in the potential, i.e. when its free.
However, that said, energy itself is not "quanta." In quantum mechanics there are times when the energy comes in discrete amounts. In classical mechanics that's not true. The kinetic energy of an object is not quantized. Therefore you can't claim that energy "is" quanta. That's a very false assumption.
I've already described energy to you. Obviously you didn't get it the first time around. You need to read this http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm again. This time read it more carefully.
You are not considering that protons absorb quanta and release quanta at the same rate, the entropy tries to remain at an equilibrium, you do not detect an electron shell, you detect the quanta being released but are observing it by different means.
The electron is Quanta.
We can compress Quanta and run it through a wire to an element, the Quanta then decompresses when it is released.
-
You are not considering that protons absorb quanta ...
That's incorrect. A proton cannot absorb any energy whatsoever because that would require the proton's proper mass to increase and that's not possible.
The electron is Quanta.
That is quite incorrect. The term quanta is the plural for quantum. Please see; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quanta
The electron is a quantum of charge.
You still have a major misunderstanding of energy. Take my word for it. You don't know what it is. You need to keep searching the internet for definitions which you'll understand and are reliable sources.
-
That's incorrect. A proton cannot absorb any energy whatsoever because that would require the proton's proper mass to increase and that's not possible.
A proton is not exclusive it absorbs emr like everything else, that is why things increase in temperature, protons have a capacitance, and once full they release the charge in the form of emr.
-
Mr Box: please refrain from promulgating meaningless drivel in a science forum. Science is about what actually happens, described in words and formulae with precise meanings.
-
Mr Box: please refrain from promulgating meaningless drivel in a science forum. Science is about what actually happens, described in words and formulae with precise meanings.
Would you really understand E=E
-
That at least makes sense, but it's too obvious to interest anyone but a philosopher, who would ask "what do you mean by "="?
-
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.
-
I will try to explain something that is probably beyond imagination, but here goes,
Imagine an infinite void , our first thought is empty space and nothing exists, this thought is not quite valid, imagine the infinite void space is negative, and all this negative holds together without physical body.
Now imagine a singular point in the center of an infinite volume, a single point where all negative meets, at this point the negative makes a positive, the universe is born.
Sort of negative space collapsing into itself. Now if you consider quanta to be positive and also without physical body, then the negative nothing becomes possible because we have a positive nothing. If something was only made of protons, the something would also want to implode, there would be no equal and opposing force.
The Sun maintains its shape because it has equal negative and positive, where as the earth is not equal and positive because the core is equal positive and negative but the ground is more negative, air becomes polarised, ice is attracted to air that is why it floats.
Imagine negative and positive to be a thing rather than an abstract, then imagine the air, imagine the air when it falls to be a more negative, imagine the air when it rises to be more a positive, imagine this compared to the cores positive output.
-³=+
x=1 quark
x³=quantum implode.
atoms- [ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.
And there you would be wrong. Energy is a conserved parameter, not an entity.
Imagine anything you like, but don't confuse imagination with science. Negative and positive are adjectives, not nouns. People who confuse adjectives with nouns end up with all sorts of problems, including religion.
-
I would mean equal to , I would mean that energy is an entity and does not need any other process to exist.
And there you would be wrong. Energy is a conserved parameter, not an entity.
Imagine anything you like, but don't confuse imagination with science. Negative and positive are adjectives, not nouns. People who confuse adjectives with nouns end up with all sorts of problems, including religion.
Something that absorbs and emits at the same rate will remain at a constant quantity overall. Without energy matter could not exist, energy certainly exists with out process.
-
"=" It is constant.
-
"=" It is constant.
also immortal.
-
This discussion reminds me of a practical experiment my physics teacher used to teach..
Imagine a cheese sandwich
now imagine you eat the cheese sandwich
Now are you hungry? or do you need to imagine another cheese sandwich.
Thinking you can assign a charge or energy where you have none is like eating an imaginary sandwich, you can do it all you like but it wont get you anywhere other than more hungry.
I particularly like the 'ice is attracted to air that is why it floats'... this will keep me laughing for weeks..
But I hope you remain positive with your theories and avoid all those negative comments.. but they do seem to attract each other!
-
This discussion reminds me of a practical experiment my physics teacher used to teach..
Imagine a cheese sandwich
now imagine you eat the cheese sandwich
Now are you hungry? or do you need to imagine another cheese sandwich.
Thinking you can assign a charge or energy where you have none is like eating an imaginary sandwich, you can do it all you like but it wont get you anywhere other than more hungry.
I particularly like the 'ice is attracted to air that is why it floats'... this will keep me laughing for weeks..
But I hope you remain positive with your theories and avoid all those negative comments.. but they do seem to attract each other!
I am glad you are amused but if you considered it , it is not much different to the moon creating a bulge of the oceans, the ocean is attracted to the moon so why can't the ice be attracted to air when air has mass no dissimilar to that of the moon?
-
We chose to be amused rather than frustrated, although sometimes it is difficult.
Given some consideration........................the moon is very different from our air!
Please pardon my amusement. [:P]
-
A proton is not exclusive it absorbs emr like everything else, that is why things increase in temperature, protons have a capacitance, and once full they release the charge in the form of emr.
You are 100% wrong. This is yet another result of you refusal to learn physics. Why not do everyone in all forums you go to a favor and read this book: http://bookos-z1.org/s/?q=energy+the+subtle+concept&t=0
You'll then have a solid idea of what energy is. Right now you're totally clueless. Please stop acting like you know what you're talking about. It's offensive to the senses.
Protons are elementary particle made of quarks. A proton cannot absorb or emit energy. The reason why things such as solids, liquids an gases increase in temperature when they absorb heat is that the kinetic energy of the particles which make up the matter increases. If it was merely a change in internal energy then that wouldn't cause the temperature to increase. Protons do NOT have capacitance.
-
This is yet another result of you refusal to learn physics.
Incorrect , this is another result of me not accepting the physics I am learning. You say a Proton does not absorb energy, poppy cock, you have no evidence that a proton does not absorb and emit energy,
It is not my fault that science fails to convince me by poor definition and explanation.
Energy is a set that contains subsets, energy comes in different forms, elastic energy , kinetic energy , blah blah, this is what you want me to mimic, I am not a robot and have a mind of my own thank you.
Energy may or may not have sub sets, but in the end it comes down to one thing. A single entity that is energy.
You talk about the kinetic excitement of atoms, this generates energy. What polarity is the kinetic excitement energy output?
+++++++++++
there is nothing negative about energy.
E=E
Energy is massless particles, a pure ''spirit '' without physical body that lays dormant with no net charge unless being opposed or applied. And science does not exactly split an atom does it to get energy.
-
We chose to be amused rather than frustrated, although sometimes it is difficult.
Given some consideration........................the moon is very different from our air!
Please pardon my amusement. [:P]
You can be amused , no worries, I think you miss the point air and the moon is made of atoms.
I may just give up in trying, the evidence you already have shows most of what I say to be true about most of what I say.
Im going bed I will leave you with this note,
The aether of space you are looking for is of a magnetic field and not like a medium. Your plasma physics and magnetic bottling show you this, empty vacuum, magnetic field ''medium'' that confines the plasma but allows light to pass through. An ''aether'' energy field needs no physical body for the propagation of light.
-
Incorrect , this is another result of me not accepting the physics I am learning.
Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.
However I've had a change of mind regarding protons. Protons are made of quarks which can emit and absorb gluons which carry energy and momentum.
However I checked with a particle physicist I know who informed me that the proton is the lowest energy state of 2 u's and a d quark. They could absorb energy and go into an excited state. But in particle physics that's just a new particle, its no longer a proton.
You say a Proton does not absorb energy, poppy cock, you have no evidence that a proton does not absorb and emit energy, ...
You're quite wrong. There is ample evidence that it doesn't. Again, you just don't know it so you don't think it exists. Merely go to the CERN website or the FERMI lab website and ask one of the particle physicists there and they'll explain to you in detail why you're wrong.
But you're not basing your assertions on any kind of logic but merely claiming that because of your (quite erroneous) belief that its not been proven that they can't absorb energy then the opposite has to be true. That's a logical fallacy.
You've once again reverted to being very arrogant and think you know everything so I see no reason to try to reason with you since you're far too unreasonable.
Goodbye. This is my last post to you since I will NEVER try to explain physics to you again. You just don't have the mind for it and are way too arrogant to learn it.
-
I am glad you are amused but if you considered it , it is not much different to the moon creating a bulge of the oceans, the ocean is attracted to the moon so why can't the ice be attracted to air when air has mass no dissimilar to that of the moon?
I do consider it, there is little doubt by any theory, law or hypothesis that mass does have an attractive force on other masses through gravtiational attraction.. However, 14.7 pounds of air per square inch does not even slightly approach the massive 74 million million million tonnes worth of rock orbiting the earth.
This may help to why ice floats though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
OK.. in your defense, I have heard once, that there was a theory, that there was a negative gravitational force.. I heard it when there was a theory about strong gravitational forces and weak gravitational forces.. I am unaware if this is current belief or not.. and I think distance had something to do with it.. maybe do a bit of swatting up on these things to help you with your theory and separate understood physics from the theoretical physics..
I have spent far too long floating about on the water in massive tin cans to know that floating has nothing to do with how much air or moon there is above me..
-
Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.
I am impressed Pete really, how you assert all the time about people , and not just on this forum. You presume a lot, tell people they are practically stupid and insist they have not learnt , do you think you can see people beyond the internet Pete, some sort of physic power that allows you to assume all these things about a person?
I honestly bang my head against a wall, you are in a new theories section preaching old theories back to me that everyone knows because it is on wiki. In a new theory section you should not be trying to teach anyone anything, it is their theory not yours, so why do you do it?
You are the one playing make believe you are not even a scientist and have a science forum of your own where you have the power to claim you are this science god who knows everything. so what if the ice part is far fetched the rest of my idea is good logic.
-
OK.. in your defense, I have heard once, that there was a theory, that there was a negative gravitational force..
That can happen using general relativity. There's something in cosmology referred to as a vacuum domain wall. It has a negative effective active gravitational mass density. Dark energy also behaves as if there is an negative effective active gravitational mass density.
-
I am impressed Pete really, how you assert all the time about people , and not just on this forum. You presume a lot, tell people they are practically stupid and insist they have not learnt , do you think you can see people beyond the internet Pete, some sort of physic power that allows you to assume all these things about a person?
You are a liar. I don't call people stupid or make any comments about people's IQ except for david waite. But he's been stalking me for over 15 years now. He's an evil little shiit.
I honestly bang my head against a wall, you are in a new theories section preaching old theories back to me that everyone knows because it is on wiki.
You have a very twisted view of science. The theories you mention are not old theories. They're current theories. I talk about them because they are correct. There is no evidence which even hints otherwise. I come here because the other forums are dead and to correct flawed reasoning when I see it. I recently realized that you're not interested in learning the truth. You're only interested in pushing all the nonsense you dream up and I'm not interested in your nonsense.
In a new theory section you should not be trying to teach anyone anything, it is their theory not yours, so why do you do it?
Why do you think people post in this forum? Do you think they all do it so everybody will pat them on the back and say "Gee. What a nifty idea." and then make sure that you don't post any flaws in their reasoning? No. Only you behave like that. That's why I will never try to help you ever again.
And you're quite wrong. I never call people stupid. You're confusing being stupid with being ignorant. They're quite different. You're ignorant. I have no idea what your IQ is and I'm not interested in finding out since its of no use to anybody. We try to help people here get rid of their ignorance. In your case you thought that you could actually redefine what energy is not knowing that definitions are not up for change. If you try to do it your wasting everybody's time. You should give what you have in mind another name.
If you took that time to learn physics then things might be a great deal different. But your claims about me are all nonsense. You're exaggerating about me to and I don't appreciate that. It's a terrible thing to do with someone. E.g. you talk about all the forums I go to and you've only seen me discuss physics in two of them, this one and physforum. The people at physforum are extremely rude. They jump at any chance they can get to insult people.
-
You have a very twisted view of science.
No I do not, I use the appropriate forum section , present facts belong in the main section of the forum, this section is for discussing new ideas, the new idea does not really get discussed, this can be said for all forums. Instantly replies ''you are wrong'' because the good book says this , this is not discussion and comes across as preaching.
You say theory is correct, that is incorrect theory is theory and not fact.
I learnt science Pete, and this is what science has told me, I am not making things up, I am going off your science .
Science logic is flawed in definition, I observe this.
Science says that all things are made of atoms, try to apply the use of this and science says you are wrong. Hilarious.
Tell me this Pete, according to science everything of matter is made of atoms, atoms have a positive and a negative aurora , we know negative is attracted to positive, we know matter contains nothing else, so we know gravity is this and there is nothing else in matter that is capable of causing gravity other than electrostatic forces and opposite polarities attract.
There is no weakness in that logic Pete.
Science said to me, matter is made of atoms, atoms are made up of protons and electrons, (and neutrons), electrons are connected to a proton by an electrostatic coupling.
Electrons are attracted to protons.
So they also in essence said the earth's protons are attracted to the suns electrons and vice versus. Negative and positive mass.
-
Mr Box
If you want to communicate with the natives, it's a good idea to learn their language. This is particularly the case in science where every word has a precise meaning, and every statement can be challenged by experiment.
Mass is not charge. Charge is not mass. Mass has no polarity.
atoms have a positive and a negative aurora
Think what you like. Some people believe in all sorts of nonsense - churches of all denominations are full of them. But don't kid yourself it has anything to do with science.
-
[img=PmbPhy]http://Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.[/img]
Photons?
Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest. While the relationship to mass might be a different perspective neither can physically describe the gluon. So can we dispense with the "wrong " when we do not really know the right?
[img=PmbPhy]http://However I've had a change of mind regarding protons. Protons are made of quarks which can emit and absorb gluons which carry energy and momentum.[/img]
Lets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?
[img=PmbPhy]http://However I checked with a particle physicist I know who informed me that the proton is the lowest energy state of 2 u's and a d quark. They could absorb energy and go into an excited state. But in particle physics that's just a new particle, its no longer a proton.[/img]
No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.
[img=PmbPhy]http://You're quite wrong. There is ample evidence that it doesn't. Again, you just don't know it so you don't think it exists. Merely go to the CERN website or the FERMI lab website and ask one of the particle physicists there and they'll explain to you in detail why you're wrong.[/img]
Not a proton. Any takers? The claim that one is wrong suggests they know the physical makeup mechanically of the photon and the not a photon. Please temper your use of wrong or describe the gluon physical cause of transfer mechanism.
[img=PmbPhy]http://But you're not basing your assertions on any kind of logic but merely claiming that because of your (quite erroneous) belief that its not been proven that they can't absorb energy then the opposite has to be true. That's a logical fallacy.[/img]
What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?
[img=PmbPhy]http://You've once again reverted to being very arrogant and think you know everything so I see no reason to try to reason with you since you're far too unreasonable.[/img]
I do not totally agree with him either but when does having a different perspective cause arrogance? Jealous protection of your understanding might be considered arrogance. This is new theories and ideas create new theories. Correct or incorrect ideas make us think and there is no better job for science than to make one think.
[img=PmbPhy]http://Goodbye. This is my last post to you since I will NEVER try to explain physics to you again. You just don't have the mind for it and are way too arrogant to learn it.[/img]
Main stream echo?
Not all new theories can remain in the box of terms used or their meaning.
Modified
-
Mr Box
If you want to communicate with the natives, it's a good idea to learn their language. This is particularly the case in science where every word has a precise meaning, and every statement can be challenged by experiment.
Mass is not charge. Charge is not mass. Mass has no polarity.
atoms have a positive and a negative aurora
Think what you like. Some people believe in all sorts of nonsense - churches of all denominations are full of them. But don't kid yourself it has anything to do with science.
I will agree with you if you can tell me what mass is?
If you can not tell me what mass is ,that is similar to saying there is a god in my opinion.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FWrong.+You%26%23039%3Bre+not+accepting+it+because+you+don%26%23039%3Bt+understand+it+at+all.+Every+single+one+of+your+posts+proves+that+you+don%26%23039%3Bt+understand+the+subject+that+you%26%23039%3Bre+talking+about.+There%26%23039%3Bs+no+evidence+at+all+that+you+know+the+subject+or+ever+learned+anything+about+it.+You+erroneous+assertions+about+protons+is+proof+of+that.&hash=681ed4bb1c9df770cff27f0618c3bba6)
Photons?
Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest. While the relationship to mass might be a different perspective neither can physically describe the gluon. So can we dispense with the "wrong " when we do not really know the right?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FHowever+I%26%23039%3Bve+had+a+change+of+mind+regarding+protons.+Protons+are+made+of+quarks+which+can+emit+and+absorb+gluons+which+carry+energy+and+momentum.&hash=dc6ee8abb7393e27dd17a187c12ab35f)
Lets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FHowever+I+checked+with+a+particle+physicist+I+know+who+informed+me+that+the+proton+is+the+lowest+energy+state+of+2+u%26%23039%3Bs+and+a+d+quark.%26nbsp%3B+They+could+absorb+energy+and+go+into+an+excited+state.%26nbsp%3B+But+in+particle+physics+that%26%23039%3Bs+just+a+new+particle%2C+its+no+longer+a+proton.&hash=f47edbc8e52d6af64c4ae6e3f25b46b7)
No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FYou%26%23039%3Bre+quite+wrong.+There+is+ample+evidence+that+it+doesn%26%23039%3Bt.+Again%2C+you+just+don%26%23039%3Bt+know+it+so+you+don%26%23039%3Bt+think+it+exists.+Merely+go+to+the+CERN+website+or+the+FERMI+lab+website+and+ask+one+of+the+particle+physicists+there+and+they%26%23039%3Bll+explain+to+you+in+detail+why+you%26%23039%3Bre+wrong.&hash=75db44330025a3477dc4bc54447e32e7)
Not a proton. Any takers? The claim that one is wrong suggests they know the physical makeup mechanically of the photon and the not a photon. Please temper your use of wrong or describe the gluon physical cause of transfer mechanism.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FBut+you%26%23039%3Bre+not+basing+your+assertions+on+any+kind+of+logic+but+merely+claiming+that+because+of+your+%28quite+erroneous%29+belief+that+its+not+been+proven+that+they+can%26%23039%3Bt+absorb+energy+then+the+opposite+has+to+be+true.+That%26%23039%3Bs+a+logical+fallacy.&hash=88b32db87761b61c9b2d9560db1cf366)
What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FYou%26%23039%3Bve+once+again+reverted+to+being+very+arrogant+and+think+you+know+everything+so+I+see+no+reason+to+try+to+reason+with+you+since+you%26%23039%3Bre+far+too+unreasonable.&hash=572052f9943e4331a0e5df5625919326)
I do not totally agree with him either but when does having a different perspective cause arrogance? Jealous protection of your understanding might be considered arrogance. This is new theories and ideas create new theories. Correct or incorrect ideas make us think and there is no better job for science than to make one think.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FGoodbye.+This+is+my+last+post+to+you+since+I+will+NEVER+try+to+explain+physics+to+you+again.+You+just+don%26%23039%3Bt+have+the+mind+for+it+and+are+way+too+arrogant+to+learn+it.&hash=49d315fc19dbaed3e0b08c1a83118df7)
Main stream echo?
well said, I will have to look up a gluon , I have not come across that term before.
-
''Gluons /ˈɡluːɒnz/ are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.''
What exactly is an exchange particle? is a gluon even a particle?
why does science de-construct things down to a near zero point?
(a)/2^? How far do you go, is it even negligible?
We can hardly observe atoms, surely point zero should start at atoms, Protons and Electrons, and everything else is negligible?
-
It was a name waiting to be observed for holding mass together by some process. While collision energies have increased to a point where one of the products of a collision claims the gluon particle found at that energy. like blowing a car up and saying there goes the ignition key. And the crowd repeats the ignition key.
-
It was a name waiting to be observed for holding mass together by some process. While collision energies have increased to a point where one of the products of a collision claims the gluon particle found at that energy. like blowing a car up and saying there goes the ignition key. And the crowd repeats the ignition key.
Arrghh I see, I did have a joke with my friend as well about sticking some glue on him, and calling that a gluon him, I did realise what a gluon was but had a dull moment.
So a Gluon is a theoretical ''particle'' that glues all matter together?
Why particle and not an energy field?
Why not a negative energy wave which explains why science can not detect it because it is a ''flat line''?
I have an object in my hand now, there is a force between the object and the ground , the force is the negative of the object being attracted to the greater positive of the ground , the force is a linearity, not centripetal, the negative wave has no net charge so is undetectable. why not? why is this not plausible?
Consider a theoretical object (a) with a mono-pole emitting force in a vacuum, then consider several other objects (b) with a dipole field that were of equal quantities of + and - that were subjective to variance by thermodynamics process and electrodynamic process.
Consider that (b) can never come into contact with (a) has long as (b) remains a variant of equal proportion of - and + to oppose (a) by + being the same pole as (a).
-
So a Gluon is a theoretical ''particle'' that glues all matter together?
Why particle and not an energy field?
My understanding is that a gluon is a virtual particle, and as such is a way of describing a field. (Just as electric fields can be described by virtual photons)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations
-
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.
-
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.
Who are you asking the question to?
They are the same thing, virtual,because when observation reaches it's limits , imagination creates virtual things and theories about these virtual things that do not exist in reality of observation. Real fact is observation, anything else is just hearsay and speculation. A comparison to after the creation part in religion, the imagination ran riot .
People defend things that are virtual as if these things are actual fact. Beyond observation is imagination, imagination is not fact.
-
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.
-
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.
Virtual particles aren't really particles. They're simply mathematical gizmos to make things work right. That's what a particle physicist told me.
-
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.
You know a lot of things who are you?
A virtual particle, can I name it the Negatron for the purpose of my topic?
The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?
The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge .
A combination of Negatrons and Positrons denoting a virtual ''elastic like'' coupling of matter to matter by sending a Negatron virtual carrier signal through the constant conduit of light, and light is plasmorphic when it interacts with matter by temporal shift of the constant.
to far?
You can argue gravity still exists in the dark, but I will argue that the darkness is not without light, the light is just undetectable to human vision, cbmr remains to be the conduit for the negatron linearity. Simply consider space is Neutral always, 0 frequency of light, O net charge, O interaction , we send charge as waves through the constant that is why they are detectable.
-
You know a lot of things who are you?
No one. I know nothing but I suspect many things.
A virtual particle, can I name it the Negatron for the purpose of my topic?
Why not. Its as good as simply mathematical gizmos.
The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?
Virtual flow is as bad as virtual particle. Describe what flows.
The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge
What is a linearity with no net charge? What is the flow of negatrons? Describe the negatrons with how and why they flow.
A combination of Negatrons and Positrons denoting a virtual ''elastic like'' coupling of matter to matter by sending a Negatron virtual carrier signal
What is a virtual carrier signal? What are the mechanics?
through the constant conduit of light
Describe the conduit of light.
light is plasmorphic when it interacts with matter by temporal shift of the constant.
We can get to that question after you describe the conduit for light.
to far?
That depends on the substance in your answers. If you cannot show the mechanics of your words we are left with a virtual theory. Follow a process from the beginning to the end. Cause and effect.
You can argue gravity still exists in the dark, but I will argue that the darkness is not without light
I can not argue either point gravity exists.
Simply consider space is Neutral always, 0 frequency of light, O net charge, O interaction , we send charge as waves through the constant that is why they are detectable.
Describe the formation and form of a charge through space. Also describe plasma.
-
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.
My understanding (similar to what pmb has heard, it appears) is that virtual particles are just a tricky way of modeling a field. I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist. A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.
Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.
Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors. They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction, so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious. This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.
-
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference.
This tells us photons have two connected, but separate aspects, one which connects them to a speed of light reference, and the other connects to inertial reference. Energy appears to be a bridge between matter and a speed of light reference, because it can go both ways at the same time.
If we take extreme energy photons these can split into matter and antimatter. Once this happens, this will do is disconnect the photon from its speed of light aspect, since matter and antimatter cannot move at C. Inertial forms at less than C.
If we remove the anti-matter, so there is an excess of matter, what you end up with continues to exist at the potential of extreme energy photons (1/2 potential), yet it can't directly convert back to directly to energy due to loss of antimatter. Instead matter is stuck at extreme potential, and needs to find others path back to energy.
If you look at gravity, this causes matter to attract and get denser, causing space-time to contract. If you look closely, mass and gravity causes the reference to contract and therefore move in the general direction of the speed of light; space-time contracts to a point. Gravity is just matter trying to return to energy to lower the potential. Blackholes allow matter to get close to C reference. while stars approach this limit, but fall short. Instead they use fusion for partial mass burn back into energy.
-
The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?
Virtual flow is as bad as virtual particle. Describe what flows.space
The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge
What is a linearity with no net charge? What is the flow of negatrons? Describe the negatrons with how and why they flow.space
I will answer in parts, I will consider how I am going to write this.
-
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference.
Photons are invisible to sight in space, this is constant to all observers in all reference frames. We see through the light and do not actually see photons until they interact with something.
-
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.
Then why mention them if they do not exist?
A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--
Ok, What is the physical make up of a field then.
--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.
Either way particle or field what is the field constructed from?
Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.
What is the photon constructed from?
Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors.
How are they different from Mathematical gizmo's, virtual particles and fictitious forces?
They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction
But now they need correction?
so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious.
Understanding is always a worthwhile endeavor.
This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.
If we are all in the box of respect for the standard model and the mysteries are outside of the respected box will we ever have a chance for understanding? I am not against the standard model but I am against all fudge terms that bring more questions than they answer. I am not happy with someone throwing fairy dust on me while I try to climb the tree of knowledge.
-
Ok so far I have wrote this
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/?p=371&preview=true&preview_id=371
do you understand this?
-
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.
Then why mention them if they do not exist?
I remember a professor of particle physics saying we should forget we ever saw the word “particle” in virtual particle. It is not a particle at all but a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own and is caused by the presence of other particles or fields.
Probably not a good analogy, but I think of 2 ships passing, their bow waves hit each other and cause both to rock, we might say they have exchanged a virtual particle. Don't know if that helps or hinders [:)]
-
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.
Then why mention them if they do not exist?
I remember a professor of particle physics saying we should forget we ever saw the word “particle” in virtual particle. It is not a particle at all but a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own and is caused by the presence of other particles or fields.
Probably not a good analogy, but I think of 2 ships passing, their bow waves hit each other and cause both to rock, we might say they have exchanged a virtual particle. Don't know if that helps or hinders [:)]
No the wave is particles and applies a force, both boats rock because the plane they were travelling on has become unbalanced.
-
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.
Then why mention them if they do not exist?
Because they make it easier to talk about and think about what's going on. Imaginary numbers don't "exist." Neither do electron orbitals, trajectories or coordinate systems. But, just because they have no physical, corporeal essence doesn't mean we can't talk about them, or even make good use of the concepts.
A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--
Ok, What is the physical make up of a field then.
--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.
Either way particle or field what is the field constructed from?
The field is the same as the particle. It is constructed of anything, it is just a way of explaining what happens. What is an orbit made of? Can you describe how a planet and its moon interact without talking about an orbit? (yes it's possible, but how easy is it?)
Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.
What is the photon constructed from?
I don't know if a photon is made of anything smaller. My understanding is that they are currently viewed as indivisible elementary particles. They are made of photons.
Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors.
How are they different from Mathematical gizmo's, virtual particles and fictitious forces?
They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction
But now they need correction?
so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious.
Understanding is always a worthwhile endeavor.
This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.
If we are all in the box of respect for the standard model and the mysteries are outside of the respected box will we ever have a chance for understanding? I am not against the standard model but I am against all fudge terms that bring more questions than they answer. I am not happy with someone throwing fairy dust on me while I try to climb the tree of knowledge.
I think you might be misunderstanding my intended meaning. Models are ALL wrong. There is nothing we can do about that. However, if we can generate a model that allows us to predict something accurately, it is useful. If it only makes predictions that agree with what is observed, and there are never any contradictions found, models can turn into accepted theories or even laws.
Models can be amended to include extra terms or factors, such as going from the ideal gas law (which works very well for light gases at high temperatures and low pressures, but cannot predict condensation, and generally fails with polyatomic and polar gases) to the van der Waals equation, which has added fudge factors to account for the fact that molecules actually do interact with each other and have non-zero volume. In many situations the predictions of the two models are insignificantly different, and it is much easier to use the ideal gas law, but when accuracy really matters, or when considering gases under conditions where they are far from ideal, the more complex model is superior.
Models can also be amended to include limitations, such acknowledging that Newtonian mechanics breaks down when we consider very small things, very high velocities, or very massive things. There is more going on than the simple picture painted in classical mechanics, but I have never known a civil engineer worry about quantum or relativistic corrections to the equations they use when building a dam.
Models can also be discarded and replaced with a fundamentally different type of model. For instance, the geocentric model of astronomy worked quite well for some things. The ancient Greeks and Mayans could have (and may have) predicted the lunar eclipse we just had, probably down to the day. But at a certain point, the Greeks realized that their models did not predict all that they observed. They tweaked the model and added another parameter (epicycles) that made their model agree nearly perfectly with all of their observations. But, many centuries later, it was shown that, actually a heliocentric model was simpler, more accurate, and ultimately a better model of how things actually work.
There are countless other examples of these types of shifts. The question I meant to raise earlier is: do we just need to add in the fudge factors that make the models work on cosmic scales and then figure out what is means (like molecules have non-zero volume), or do we need to scrap our current model completely and adopt a different world-view (like heliocentric vs geocentric models). I don't know what the answer is, no one does now, but with more data collected and more theorists working on the problems, I think we may be able to move forward on this problem.
-
or does the existence of a background radiation provide the answer to this?
Does the light not pass through the background radiation on its journey as obviously the background radiation is in the light’s path?
Could the background radiation be the light?
-
or does the existence of a background radiation provide the answer to this?
Does the light not pass through the background radiation on its journey as obviously the background radiation is in the light’s path?
Could the background radiation be the light?
Back ground radiation is light in respect to observation by device, the intensity of CBMR is to low to visually observe by eye any significant change of a dark room without the aid of a light source to increase the intensity present in the space of the room.
Talking openly, I see CBMR as ember like that has lost most of its energy, but keeps on burning because fuel is added, i see electricity compressed running through a wire into a light bulb element where the electricity is then decompressed and ''diluted'' by the volume of space, the solution. I see the compressed spectral colour on my screen right now that decompresses when leaving my screen into space.
added- the speed of light is a rate , denoted by emittance magnitude and the transference of energy through the CBMR. An emission rate similar to using cgi and a particle emitter. I suppose I am saying Luminous CBMR constant, the quotient of the luminous flux of a radiation and its corresponding radiant flux K.
Would CBMR be efficacious to my idea?
-
Photons?
No. Protons. He thought that protons can emit or absorb energy. They can't
Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct.
That too is incorrect. There are things which are 100% correct by definition such as what energy is. In the present case the box thought he could define energy to the way he thought it was and in that case he's just plain wrong. Definitions are not up for change in any new theory.
Although energy can't strictly be defined it can be adequately described so that there's little or no uncertainty in what it is. Also what is known is the current theories which are extremely accurate in that they predict and describe nature to something like 10 decimal places.
If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.
I don't discuss such things. I have no interest at all whether someone believes there is an aether or not. That's there problem, not mine.
By the way: to make sure what I said about protons I contacted an acquaintance of mine, a nuclear physicists at Stanford, and he confirmed for me that protons do not change their proper mass and can neither absorb or emit photons. Those are experimental facts.
Lets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?
What's so hard about that? It's off topic for this thread and as such I won't go there.
-
Imaginary numbers don't "exist."
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)
-
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference.
Photons are invisible to sight in space, this is constant to all observers in all reference frames. We see through the light and do not actually see photons until they interact with something.
Photons are invisible because they are in the speed of light reference. These two things are connected invisible and speed of light both being seen the same in all inertial references. Matter cannot move at he speed of light and therefore cannot see energy directly. At the speed of light the universe appears as a point-instant; all things in the inertial universe appear to occur at the same time and place. What we see, is by affect, connected to the second aspect of energy; inertial wavelength and frequency; bridge to inertial.
Say we go back in time to time zero before the BB. Next, say we only have extreme energy photons, but before they begin to split into matter and anti-matter. There is no inertial material yet in existence for this energy to make itself known. It appears invisible in any reference, since there is nothing yet for it to interact with and make itself known. From inertial reference the universe appears void, since we cant see C and all photons appear invisible until they can interact to produce affect.
When these photons finally begins to split into matter and antimatter, then energy becomes visible, because it now has inertial based material to make itself known by affect. Matter and anti-matter can't move C, so inertial interaction makes the second leg of energy appear as a bridge between C and less than C; inertial. It is the appearance of matter/antimatter that will "let there be light"; becomes affect becomes possible; a bridge is formed so energy as we know it, appears.
-
Imaginary numbers don't "exist."
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)
I mean that they do not exist as physical entities (which is also true of any other numbers, all of which are concepts).
-
Quote from: GoC
Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct.
That too is incorrect. There are things which are 100% correct by definition such as what energy is. In the present case the box thought he could define energy to the way he thought it was and in that case he's just plain wrong. Definitions are not up for change in any new theory.
Although energy can't strictly be defined it can be adequately described so that there's little or no uncertainty in what it is. Also what is known is the current theories which are extremely accurate in that they predict and describe nature to something like 10 decimal places.
Are you confining energy into your understanding?
In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed.
A wiki reference. I think the box is suggesting the transfer mechanism in his negative and positive references. Lets take gravity for instance. There is kinetic and potential energy depending on position in the gravity well. Why is there a potential? Apparently the potential can be turned into kinetic. So where is the potential energy sitting? Within mass? How is it connected to the attraction point of gravity?
Quote from: GoC
If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.
I don't discuss such things. I have no interest at all whether someone believes there is an aether or not. That's there problem, not mine.
What is your interest in new theories if it is their problem and not yours?
They are interested in their theories not the standard model theory.
By the way: to make sure what I said about protons I contacted an acquaintance of mine, a nuclear physicists at Stanford, and he confirmed for me that protons do not change their proper mass and can neither absorb or emit photons. Those are experimental facts.
Of course its a fact. Photons are only virtual and protons do not lose mass. So magic must be a fact?
Quote from: GoC
Lets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?
What's so hard about that? It's off topic for this thread and as such I won't go there.
If a gluon is the energy that keeps an atom together it can be part of the discussion.
I understand your need to have strict definitions to maintain the standard model. New theories is not about the standard model. Definitions can be expanded when looking for a cause for postulates. The standard model is a closed interpretation as is your potential incites for new models. I know nothing. I read and data mine. I hope logic rules the day. I do not understand the cause of the relativity postulates. I am underwhelmed by the standard model and looking for a footing that explains the postulates. An atom does not lose mass or gain mass except by math relative to the photon creation. How does the electron create an energy transfer?
Quote from: PmbPhy on Today at 07:52:36
Quote from: chiralSPO
Imaginary numbers don't "exist."
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)
I mean that they do not exist as physical entities (which is also true of any other numbers, all of which are concepts).
Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?
-
Photons are invisible because they are in the speed of light reference. These two things are connected invisible and speed of light both being seen the same in all inertial references. Matter cannot move at he speed of light and therefore cannot see energy directly. At the speed of light the universe appears as a point-instant; all things in the inertial universe appear to occur at the same time and place. What we see, is by affect, connected to the second aspect of energy; inertial wavelength and frequency; bridge to inertial.
Say we go back in time to time zero before the BB. Next, say we only have extreme energy photons, but before they begin to split into matter and anti-matter. There is no inertial material yet in existence for this energy to make itself known. It appears invisible in any reference, since there is nothing yet for it to interact with and make itself known. From inertial reference the universe appears void, since we cant see C and all photons appear invisible until they can interact to produce affect.
When these photons finally begins to split into matter and antimatter, then energy becomes visible, because it now has inertial based material to make itself known by affect. Matter and anti-matter can't move C, so inertial interaction makes the second leg of energy appear as a bridge between C and less than C; inertial. It is the appearance of matter/antimatter that will "let there be light"; becomes affect becomes possible; a bridge is formed so energy as we know it, appears.
Sounds about right to me.
-
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. :)
Your a mathematician and you do not even understand what Maths is?
Maths is a language no different from English, that describes processes and actions. Numbers do not exist , numbers never came into existence that would should suggest materialised.
Numbers are virtual representations.
-
Your a mathematician and you do not even understand what Maths is?
Silly vague comments like this are why I won't converse with you again.
Maths is a language no different from English, that describes processes and actions. Numbers do not exist , numbers never came into existence that would should suggest materialised.
Numbers are virtual representations.
Ignorant statement.
-
Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?
A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
-
Ignorant statement.
You will not converge with me because you can not hold a thinking conversation Pete, there is nothing ignorant in my statement it is fact Pete, you seem to think numbers are real .
It is rather funny that if the earth in the origin was rotating at half the speed, 1hr would be 2 hours but still called one hour.
In self learning and discoursing the science, there was nobody telling me I had to accept this or fail my grades, no forced discipline Pete, that is why I can clearly see the clinical errors of science definition.
1. Change ''time'' dilation to timing dilation or gravitational timing dilation error fixed.
2. Change space time to virtual space time , error fixed
3. matter- xyz
4.space -virtual xyz
5.time-the timing and synchronisation of our every day existence relative to each other.
6.Photons-a dormant massless physical presence energy looking for an activator.
I could go on for a while.
-
Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?
A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
I do not think you understood the point of a circle. 3d is point to point and never a curve. In a 3d universe a pure circle is not possible. While points can become closer together by being smaller and smaller but never form a perfect circle. A pure circle cannot be expressed in math.
-
A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
I do not think you understood the point of a circle. 3d is point to point and never a curve. In a 3d universe a pure circle is not possible. While points can become closer together by being smaller and smaller but never form a perfect circle. A pure circle cannot be expressed in math.
[/quote]
a circle is 3d not 2d, consider 3 observers of the circle, one observer one face, one observer the opposite face, and one observer with a flat looking side view.
3 points of focus.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
In total I have 25 dimensions of space.
8*3=24+1=25
[ Invalid Attachment ]
ignore the keating part
-
There is an abstract point about a 3d universe that has not registered. Only lines and points can be real. Curves and circles like computer representations can only make points smaller to create images. The line to create a circle is a gross interpretation of many points. One point side by side is still a straight line not a curve to infinity.
On the second issue of time verses timing What is your definition of time?
All frames measure the distance of a light second ~300,000 km's in length. Not all frames have the same tick rate. So not all frames measure the same distance for a km. It would appear to me that time dilation in the form of distance measured is a reality. Do you disagree?
-
On the second issue of time verses timing What is your definition of time?
My definition of time is of three subsets,
1. being an arbitrary creation by humans to synchronise our everyday existence by timing device.
2.a virtual representation of velocity and space
3.a state of decay and gravitational influence on matter(real time of existence)
I agree that 3 happens but does not have any effect on 1 and 2, 3 being dependent to the observer , while 1 and 2 is independent of 3 and universal for all.
''It would appear to me that time dilation in the form of distance measured is a reality.''
Time is a rate of decay of an observer dependent to that observer, distance is not even in the concept of real time, if you would like to discuss that 1.s is presently equal to approx 0.0288 mile , I will discuss that one. Science presently has timing rate and an increment of distance being the same thing.
24902/86400=0.28821759259mile= 9,192,631,770cycles =1.s and have modelled speed and the entire universe on this.
In simple terms mostly all of science is relative to the earth's spin rate,
added - just a thought before I forget it, it just popped into my head,reminder - gravity curves time.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Some can look at a point and understand the Universe. Others can look at the universe and not understand the point. You point me to the universe to understand a circle. I find no pure circles in the universe.
The most distance that can be covered in a second is ~300,000 km's. That is a constant in our Universe. We can only measure the speed of light in a vacuum in any frame to be ~300,000 km's/s. So when our clock tick rate changes so does our measurements for distance. So when a clock's tick rate is slower by 10% then the measured distance has to be 330,000 km's. That is a curve in two dimensions but a sphere (dilation) in three dimensions. This suggests dilated measurements for a slower tick rate. So the distance for the photon remains constant in space but the measurement becomes longer with dilation. Does the energy in a tick change or does the distance the electron period duration has to travel for the tick rate change?
-
Some can look at a point and understand the Universe. Others can look at the universe and not understand the point. You point me to the universe to understand a circle. I find no pure circles in the universe.
The most distance that can be covered in a second is ~300,000 km's. That is a constant in our Universe. We can only measure the speed of light in a vacuum in any frame to be ~300,000 km's/s. So when our clock tick rate changes so does our measurements for distance. So when a clock's tick rate is slower by 10% then the measured distance has to be 330,000 km's. That is a curve in two dimensions but a sphere (dilation) in three dimensions. This suggests dilated measurements for a slower tick rate. So the distance for the photon remains constant in space but the measurement becomes longer with dilation. Does the energy in a tick change or does the distance the electron period duration has to travel for the tick rate change?
I think you may be referring to some sort of length contraction of space. I personally do not think science perceives the atomic clock and what it is doing correctly.
Decrease the force strength of a gravity field or increase the positive mass of matter, the rate of negatron ''extraction'' slows down, the object is in effect ''lighter'', to say the ground sucks the life out of you is not so far fetched.
The differential is a change of rate by a decreased force in gravity.
I am uncertain of your question, I have no idea of why distance is being related to a ''time'' dilation. Distance radius yes , and extra distance on a curvature path yes.
What I do know is this
[a]24902
b]86400
[c]0.28821759259mile
[d] 9,192,631,770cycles
[e] 1.s
b] is derived by motion of [a], both are equal to [c] and [e]
[d] was derived from [e] and only while [d] is equal to [c],b],[a] is [e] equal to [d]
added - gravity is stretched by the angular of horizontal motion disrupting the vertical Negatron flow.
-
There is a difference between an attraction force and tick rate of a clock. On the surface of the moon a clock experiences attraction to the center of the moon and feels what we describe as weight. In the center of the moon the clock would feel no weight but the clock would tick slower. So gravity itself (attraction to the center) is not what slows a clocks tick rate. Your basically weightless in the center of the moon.
In the center of the moon your clock tick rate is slower because of the more dilated space. A dilated measuring stick (lengthened) is needed to measure the speed of light the same as on the surface where the clock ticks faster.
I suspect length contraction in GR coincides with less mass not more mass. An increase in mass increases the dilation of space ad mass.
-
On the surface of the moon a clock experiences attraction to the center of the moon and feels what we describe as weight. In the center of the moon the clock would feel no weight but the clock would tick slower.
You just said it , consider your words, Newtons is the extraction, no weight no extraction, motion bends the pull angular. The emission rate slows down because the force of extraction is lessened. It takes more time to extract something of curvature.
an aeroplane makes an arch like a rainbow.
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/the-continuity-of-a-continuous-area-or-expanse-which-is-free-available-or-unoccupied-part-2/
[ Invalid Attachment ]
added- and back to perfect circles, have a pole centralised with equal lengths of rope hanging from the top. rotate the pole at high speed so the ropes become propeller like, look from above I think you will see a perfect circle.
-
Ok
-
Ok, moving on, back to the nature of energy,
energy is a thing that exists in space but is not seen....
So we have light seen as invisible in space f=0
cbmr that is seen as invisible in space, f=0
energy that is seen as invisible in space J=0
gravity that is invisible in space, F=0
∑(space)=0
Space seemingly has a continuity when comparing to matter and the values of matter, matter is much more of a variate where energy is concerned.
I do not think energy is abstract, I think energy is ''alive'' and ''dead'' at the same time.
E=-or²
-or²=E
activate + -or²