1
New Theories / Re: On The Structure of Matter
« on: 23/03/2021 17:58:28 »
Thanks for your opinions. You both believe in the concept of charge and I don't. It is clear that we are not going to agree. QED
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Re: On the Structure of Light
« Reply #2 on: 17/10/2019 20:07:24 »
Quote from: RTCPhysics on 17/10/2019 16:36:02
Move your eyes and the picture is rebuilt in your brain at the speed of light.
No.
It takes about 0.04 to 0.06 seconds to process the image.
That's why video and movie film work
Reply 1
Interesting but pedantic. Ignore.
Quote from: RTCPhysics on 17/10/2019 16:36:02
This built-in detector for visible light, has led to the general use of the word light
Not really.
Outside the IR to the UV it's seldom called light.
And even UV "light" is often written with quote marks.
Reply 2
Agreed. The Spectrum of Radiant Energy can be split into multiple band-widths which includes visible, but the band widths can be re-defined over time as required.
Quote from: RTCPhysics on 17/10/2019 16:36:02
kinetic energy
Nope.
Nothing there is shown to be moving.
The fact that you generally get a better image of the field lines when you tap the paper suggests that the field lines themselves don't move. If they were already moving, you wouldn't need to move the paper.
Reply 3
There is friction between the iron filings and the paper. Moving the paper helps to overcome this and speeds up the process of ring formation. But you do not need to move the paper. The particles of kinetic energy will eventually do the job.
TQuote from: RTCPhysics on 17/10/2019 16:36:02
The presence of kinetic energy in every magnetic ring, implies that each magnetic ring is created by a tiny circling particle in its own right.
And that's the point where you start leaving science behind.
You are relying on movement, but thee is no reason to suppose that such movement exists and, as I pointed out there is good reason to suppose that it does not
In short, you are just making stuff up.
Reply 4 I suspect that you would have made the same comment to Einstein about his "Thought experiments"! All physics theories come from new ideas, which are tested by experimenters, written up by others and read by the rest.
Quote from: RTCPhysics on 17/10/2019 16:36:02
One of the characteristics of a magnetic field, is that its influence only extends as far as its outermost ring, which gives it a ‘finite’ size.
Again, that's at odds with observed fact, the effect of a magnetic field from a magnet falls according to an inverse cube law. That's fact.
Its range is infinite.
Reply 5 The earth's magnetic field rings circles through the atmosphere and returns to the earth's centre. It is finite not infinite. Infinity is a mathematical concept, with no physical reality.
Quote from: RTCPhysics on 17/10/2019 16:36:02
Two particles with a magnetic field around them will not attract or repel each other, until their outermost rings touch together.
Again, that's just not true. Even at the largest distances there is still a force- albeit a very small one.
Since you clearly don't know much about magnetism I strongly suggest that you go and learn
Try the Khan Academy
You are not going to change the current understanding of science by getting things wrong.
Reply 6 You have clearly learnt your physics from text books and thought no further. It exllains your choice of title.