Total Members Voted: 6
Voting closed: 16/02/2021 12:16:31
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
These words "Matter" and "Space" sound profound and impressive. More so than "Stuff" and "Gaps" would.
The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.
these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/01/2021 02:17:00The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.Are you aware of the Sun?Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/01/2021 02:17:00these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity. Got any evidence?This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.
Got any evidence?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/01/2021 08:47:35Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/01/2021 02:17:00The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.Are you aware of the Sun?Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/01/2021 02:17:00these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity. Got any evidence?This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.The irony is this topic is consistent with the way main stream physics has to deal with the universal data. This data is primarily based on energy emissions, which are composed of wavelength and frequency; distance and time or space-time. The matter of the universe has to be inferred from the energy emissions connected to only distance and time. In a conceptual sense, matter is made; has to be inferred, from observations of space-time events. This is the wave model of the universe with matter and black holes, nodal and node of an interference grid. Let me go back to a simple thought example I have done before. Say we have a train moving toward the station, and a man sitting and waiting for the train at the station. If we only use visual evidence it is possible for the man to pretend he is moving with relative velocity V, with the train, since to the eyes motion is relative. In this case, the assumption that man is moving, although consistent with the eyes and the space-time nature of relative motion, it will cause the real energy balance to get messed up, since a moving train has way more kinetic energy for the same relative velocity. The eyes cannot see this, and since everything is derived from the eye relative data, this absolute energy is not something you can see, but would need to infer. Say we added another sense, beyond the eyes, that is more appropriate for ascertaining absolute motion, such as the sense of touch; ability to feel motion through motion sensors in the body. A train in motion will not be traveling over an ideal rail system on an absolute flat plane. Instead the imperfections in movement in lateral and vertical directions, will allow us to feel accelerations as the train sways as it travels. The man does not feel this. This extra sense of touch, for mass and inertia, would not allow the visually induced assumption of relative motion, except as a hypothetical example. In the case of physics, the hypothetical is presented as the real, since all we have are our eyes and this is what that exclusive eye data says. In terms of the universe the visual only approach has led to conflicting observations that appear to contain more energy, than inferred from the original relative reference assumption. We have had to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which has even been seen in the lab. This are needed for more energy, due to competing visual evidence. If you look at a concepts like center of gravity, which is mass centric, the universe should have a center of gravity for all the matter of the universe. This may be a moving target. There should be a center of gravity or center to the universe. But gravity is something that is more easily felt by the body. But visual evidence, only, does not allow for any center of the universe since mass is tertiary behind distance and time. The sense of sight, creates a house of mirrors with no center. This is real to the mind, since it is derived from the majority of the data which is only visual data.
If matter is not made of spacetime, you sit with the problem of how matter communicates with spacetime to warp it.
The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.
They are both made of spacetime events.
My model explains this.
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates?
You don't even know what matter is.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/01/2021 15:24:25The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.They are both made of spacetime events.Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates? You don't even know what matter is.My model explains this.
There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates?Gravity.Quote from: talanum1 on 11/01/2021 15:39:07You don't even know what matter is.From Dictionary.com: "(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy."
I'm asking if you have the actual cogs and gears of how it happens.
You don't know what matter is made of.
Subatomic particles.
It's not like you have it either.
space communicates with space
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 11/01/2021 02:17:00There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energyI see nothing at the quote that excludes my model.
What are the subatomic particles made of?
I don't need to: it is conceivable that space communicates with space by just touching.