[PmbPhy]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[GoC]

[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

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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?



Lets physically describe the gluon.  Any takers?



No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.



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.



What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?



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.



Main stream echo?

well said, I will have to look up a gluon , I have not come across that term before.

[guest39538]

''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?

[GoC]

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.

[guest39538]

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).

[chiralSPO]

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

[GoC]

Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.

[guest39538]

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.

[GoC]

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.   

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[GoC]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

[guest39538]

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.