[guest39538]

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.

[GoC]

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.

[guest39538]

Ok so far I have wrote this

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/?p=371&preview=true&preview_id=371

do you understand this?

[Colin2B]

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 []

[guest39538]

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.

[chiralSPO]

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.

[GoC]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

[PmbPhy]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[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. 

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.

[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).

[GoC]

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[GoC]

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.

[guest39538]

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