0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Because of time constraints I’ll try to answer some of your questions in a brief manner, not a thorough manner. You’ll have to read most of this up. I understand a Lattice design of atoms in matter solids and what I call an ''electro-plasmic residue'', the whitish colour bonding between atoms which I do not know the correct name of.What whitish colour bonding, why do you call it ''electro-plasmic residue'' ? . White is due to reflection of all the light frequencies in the visible spectrum, not every solid looks white. Are you confusing with atomic bonding? This does not have a colour. You mention dust particles in air that reflect the light, this still does not explain why billions of protons in air itself are not seen like in a solid object.If you think dust particles are small, protons and neutrons are small beyond belief. Even electron microscopes or the xray equivalents cannot see individual atoms. Look up scanning tunneling microscope.I understand atoms are tiny, but lots of tiny particles in any space should make a visual haze?In fact we do get this ‘haze’. If we measure the amount of light falling on the outer atmosphere compared to earth’s surface, a lot has been scattered. In fact we see a blue sky rather than a black or white one because of this scattering.Air has a net charge?Not unless something charges itit rises when charged?Not unless something above it is charged opposite
What about if the air becomes the same charged as something under it?
Quote from: Thebox on 16/03/2015 22:04:29What about if the air becomes the same charged as something under it?QuoteThat would work as well. Worth thinking about why in some instances you get attraction and others discharge eg sheet lighting.OK, again quick answers rather than full as I am on a deadline over here.Quote from: boxFor some reason I thought I had seen a molecule picture somewhere and there was a white bonding between each atom and this was like an electrical residue, my mistakes sorry.QuoteGraphics can be confusing. However, think about why you called it ''electro-plasmic residue''. What led you think there was a plasma in there, or a residue? Much better to ask someone "what does this mean" rather than give it a rather strange and somewhat meaningless name. As PmbPhy say, don't change the name of something just for the sake of it. You will appear confused to us if you do.Maybe I should just forget this for now and not push it.Quote from: boxI understand atoms are really small and I have viewed scanning tunnelling before.I do know we can not observe a single atom directly .QuoteSo why did you ask the question, because you have the answer in front of you.Confirmation.Quote from: boxI would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.I understand the Rayleigh scattering and science thoughts on this.A red sky at night and a red sky in the morning being caused by angular of the the light and light skipping the magnetic field rather than direct.QuoteIt seems to me that you are trying to devise a complete alternative science. If so you are going to have to do a lot more work on this and provide evidence of what you are saying. You are about to write the equivalent of a number of textbooks (a large number).I do not wish to re-write science , I try to avoid interference of maths, Quote from: boxFor example:I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.QuoteYou need to define what you mean by F=f and how you derive this plus any experimental evidence. If you believe it is a magnetic effect rather than Rayleigh scattering you will have to explain why, although there are magnetic hotspots, the effect does not appear to be dependant on magnetic field strength. There are some other things you'll have to explain as well, but that will make a good start.A life's work at least, you gonna be busy. But don't give up the day job []I'm not going to go back and answer all your posts as life is too short compared to what I want to achieve. However, just one example:Quote from: boxWhy would a linear moving anything wave unless by interference, a river does not really wave until it hits a rock.I do a lot of sailing, so I know water. Your statement is incorrect for water and waves in general. You need to understand a lot more 'established science' before you can start to oppose it. There is no point in making basic mistakes of fact, it just reduces your credibility in areas where you might be correct.I'm going to give this a rest for a while. Do read more standard physics.Yes I probably should just drop this. F=f was force=frequency for the record, force creating a pressure.P.s very interesting radio show.
That would work as well. Worth thinking about why in some instances you get attraction and others discharge eg sheet lighting.OK, again quick answers rather than full as I am on a deadline over here.
For some reason I thought I had seen a molecule picture somewhere and there was a white bonding between each atom and this was like an electrical residue, my mistakes sorry.
Graphics can be confusing. However, think about why you called it ''electro-plasmic residue''. What led you think there was a plasma in there, or a residue? Much better to ask someone "what does this mean" rather than give it a rather strange and somewhat meaningless name. As PmbPhy say, don't change the name of something just for the sake of it. You will appear confused to us if you do.
I understand atoms are really small and I have viewed scanning tunnelling before.I do know we can not observe a single atom directly .
So why did you ask the question, because you have the answer in front of you.
I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.I understand the Rayleigh scattering and science thoughts on this.A red sky at night and a red sky in the morning being caused by angular of the the light and light skipping the magnetic field rather than direct.
It seems to me that you are trying to devise a complete alternative science. If so you are going to have to do a lot more work on this and provide evidence of what you are saying. You are about to write the equivalent of a number of textbooks (a large number).
For example:I would also argue that the blue sky is F=f a propagation by resistance of the magnetic field causing a blue spectral wave.
You need to define what you mean by F=f and how you derive this plus any experimental evidence. If you believe it is a magnetic effect rather than Rayleigh scattering you will have to explain why, although there are magnetic hotspots, the effect does not appear to be dependant on magnetic field strength. There are some other things you'll have to explain as well, but that will make a good start.A life's work at least, you gonna be busy. But don't give up the day job []I'm not going to go back and answer all your posts as life is too short compared to what I want to achieve. However, just one example:Quote from: boxWhy would a linear moving anything wave unless by interference, a river does not really wave until it hits a rock.I do a lot of sailing, so I know water. Your statement is incorrect for water and waves in general. You need to understand a lot more 'established science' before you can start to oppose it. There is no point in making basic mistakes of fact, it just reduces your credibility in areas where you might be correct.I'm going to give this a rest for a while. Do read more standard physics.
Why would a linear moving anything wave unless by interference, a river does not really wave until it hits a rock.
What is time?
Quote from: Thebox on 17/03/2015 19:06:41Time does not exist and has no use, timing exists and has lots of uses. What is time? time is Universal timing.You're wasting your time here with ideas like that. Not knowing what you're talking about means that you can't see how useless your ideas are. Physics can't even be done or talked about without the concept of time. Reading a few books for the laymen having never formally studied physics is a far cry from having sufficient education to understand why everything you posted in this forum is wrong, if not simply nonsense. I'm not trying to insult you mind you. I'm simply stating the facts.
Time does not exist and has no use, timing exists and has lots of uses. What is time? time is Universal timing.
Quote from: Thebox on 17/03/2015 19:06:41 What is time? The interval that lies between separate events.I can watch someone fire a pistol and also observe the bullet hit the target. The intervening moments between both of these events can be measured. We give these moments a universal value called seconds, milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, so and so forth. Time and these changing events give meaning to the word existence, without time or change, existence would be a meaningless word. Consider the TIME you spent reading these words. Had nothing to do with distance did it? Time and distance are only related when determining rate or speed. Distance or measure of length has little to do with time unless we want to determine acceleration or velocity.
Quote from: TheboxNice attempt at a flame but with no prevail. I know very well what I am talking about. I am simply stating your facts that show my ideas to be true.This is one of your problems. You're taking criticism as insults. I never flamed you and have no wish to do so. I'm merely explaining to you why you're so wrong in all these claims of yours. And it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. But your inability to see that is a combination of ignorance and arrogance and closed mindedness. It's why I have no wish to help you since its a futile effort since you can't learn. You simply claim that you're right and ignore what we're saying. That's not science at all. Then the second serious problem is the fact that you think you can prove your theories right by changing the definitions to everything. Its for all these reasons that you got onto the crackpot list.
Nice attempt at a flame but with no prevail. I know very well what I am talking about. I am simply stating your facts that show my ideas to be true.
Crack pots make stupid ideas such as giant lizards outside of our Universe.
Quote from: Thebox on 17/03/2015 23:01:10Crack pots make stupid ideas such as giant lizards outside of our Universe.One doesn't need to believe in giant lizards to be a crack-pot. All that's required is for them to ignore good science, and you my friend, are doing just that.
Quote from: TheboxNeither the bullet or the target has any impact on your dependent time observing, wasting your time.It's comments like this that made me say that you don't understand many of the concepts you've been talking about here. First of all this sentence is so unclear that it's almost gibberish. What in the world does "impact on your dependent time observing" have to do with anything? The role that time plays here is that it separates "fast" from "slow" and therefore from "high kinetic energy" from "low kinetic energy" respectively. These are important concepts in physics. The problem with claims like yours is that all you have to do is make a claim that time is useless and sit back and claim that every use we show you of it is useless. That's an opinion and not a fact. You haven't been talking about facts in this or any other thread but merely your opinions and those aren't worth the paper you wrote them on.Another one of your problems is the level of arrogance that you've been demonstrating here. How dare you claim thatQuote from: TheboxNo insult to you, you do not have my wavelength of thought and the ability to think deeper than deep.People who make this claim, such as yourself, haven't actually done a lot of deep thinking. All they've done has to spent a lot of time doing so. Neither I nor anybody in this thread has seen any sign of your deep thinking.
Neither the bullet or the target has any impact on your dependent time observing, wasting your time.
No insult to you, you do not have my wavelength of thought and the ability to think deeper than deep.
Quote from: Thebox on 16/03/2015 11:22:00Quote from: PmbPhy on 16/03/2015 06:06:46Quote from: TheboxI hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.Don't give up. All you need to do is study harder. It takes an enormous amount of work/study to become a scientist and for a physicist that includes a ton of advanced mathematics. If you have a love of physics then I suggest that you really get into it. That means learning advanced math and studying real college level calculus based physics texts.You will never be taken seriously to change something in physics if you don't have a good understanding of what it is that you propose to change. And talking down to us won't help either. Some of us have been physicists for decades. What ever gave you the idea that you're the only one who has challenged ideas in physics when in my experience that's part of learning the subject in the first place. We don't merely learn my memorizing but by challenging what is presented to us. We accept it temporarily when we are unable to break it. And that's true for all physicists.Thank you for the kind words, yes in learning I question everything, my ideas came from this. I have learnt some of the maths, I tried to learn more maths on my last forum, they banned me from learning and practising maths on there, they were not happy when I re-wrote some maths to show maths was an invention made to fit the process and the process comes first before the maths is made to fit the process.I changed my mind because I've gotten to know you a bit more since I said that and from that I can see that you'll never be able to stop being arrogant which means that you'll never be able to learn since you think you know everything. You really should quit science.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 16/03/2015 06:06:46Quote from: TheboxI hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.Don't give up. All you need to do is study harder. It takes an enormous amount of work/study to become a scientist and for a physicist that includes a ton of advanced mathematics. If you have a love of physics then I suggest that you really get into it. That means learning advanced math and studying real college level calculus based physics texts.You will never be taken seriously to change something in physics if you don't have a good understanding of what it is that you propose to change. And talking down to us won't help either. Some of us have been physicists for decades. What ever gave you the idea that you're the only one who has challenged ideas in physics when in my experience that's part of learning the subject in the first place. We don't merely learn my memorizing but by challenging what is presented to us. We accept it temporarily when we are unable to break it. And that's true for all physicists.Thank you for the kind words, yes in learning I question everything, my ideas came from this. I have learnt some of the maths, I tried to learn more maths on my last forum, they banned me from learning and practising maths on there, they were not happy when I re-wrote some maths to show maths was an invention made to fit the process and the process comes first before the maths is made to fit the process.
Quote from: TheboxI hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.Don't give up. All you need to do is study harder. It takes an enormous amount of work/study to become a scientist and for a physicist that includes a ton of advanced mathematics. If you have a love of physics then I suggest that you really get into it. That means learning advanced math and studying real college level calculus based physics texts.You will never be taken seriously to change something in physics if you don't have a good understanding of what it is that you propose to change. And talking down to us won't help either. Some of us have been physicists for decades. What ever gave you the idea that you're the only one who has challenged ideas in physics when in my experience that's part of learning the subject in the first place. We don't merely learn my memorizing but by challenging what is presented to us. We accept it temporarily when we are unable to break it. And that's true for all physicists.
I hope this answers you, I am giving up soon on science.
Quote from: TheboxWhat ever Dy....Yep. That's the kind of attitude that makes everyone dislike you. That and your refusal to prove your claims.
What ever Dy....
I make a proposal and theory that space-time is not independent of the observer or an object but instead dependent to the observer or object.We do not observe the time of an object or observer travelling towards us or away from us, we observe our own dependent time viewing the object or observer.Time dilation shows a dilation of dependent time of the observer or object and not a dilation of an independent time to the observer or object.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/03/2015 10:03:43I make a proposal and theory that space-time is not independent of the observer or an object but instead dependent to the observer or object.We do not observe the time of an object or observer travelling towards us or away from us, we observe our own dependent time viewing the object or observer.Time dilation shows a dilation of dependent time of the observer or object and not a dilation of an independent time to the observer or object.Hi - I don't see what the new part of this is. Can you elaborate?
Quote from: TheboxRefusal to prove my claims?Yep. That's right sonny.Quote from: TheboxI think all I have said is blatantly obvious and axioms.Nothing you've ever said is blatantly obvious and the axioms are all total garbage. You simply aren't smart enough to understand it.Quote from: TheboxMatter and time are woven into a single dependent manifold.So what? Minkowski defined this as a spacetime manifold long before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye.Quote from: TheboxYour time is only relative to you, my time is independent of your time.What the hell are you saying "my time"/"your time". Define these terms clearly or don't use them. They don't belong in relativity, that's for sure. You might legitimately refer to the reading of a clock on a wall or your wristwatch but if so then you need to make that clear. But the two times certainly aren't independent (more nonsense coming from your ignorance) since they're related by a Lorentz transformation.Quote from: TheboxI occupy a different dimension of space.Wow!! That's a totally new level of rubbish. Every object in this universe occupies three dimensional space. No object occupies any other dimension of space, namely because there aren't any. Occupying a different dimension of space is just plain nonsense. However this is the kind of nonsense that we've all come to expect from you.Quote from: TheboxMy space-time is dependent on how long I live, ...More rubbish. No object with a finite existence resides in a spacetime that exists only as long as the object does. Claiming otherwise is, once more, nonsense. If you knew relativity then you'd know that.I can't believe the level of crap that you post in this forum while you believe that you know what you're talking about and that you've read the Feynman Lectures. You're just plain full of it. Will you ever stop wasting space on this forum with the kind of things that I just explained is total garbage?Well folks, I have to admit: I'm stumped. Question: Why on Earth do we still bother explaining to this total idiot how stupid he is and what total sheet his assertions are? I've never seen such stupid posts since I've been posting on the internet - all from a child who thinks that he's right and its the world that's wrong. Lol!
Refusal to prove my claims?
I think all I have said is blatantly obvious and axioms.
Matter and time are woven into a single dependent manifold.
Your time is only relative to you, my time is independent of your time.
I occupy a different dimension of space.
My space-time is dependent on how long I live, ...
I am more IQ in my little toe than your entire body.