[thebrain13 (OP)]

It is my STRONG opinion that my concept for a snowflake was not even remotely addressed based on what I wrote. To me it looked like an intellectual, let's call it measuring contest based purely on semantics. Unless you are trying to tell me snowflakes have 3 and a smidge sides or they don't have repetitive shapes, you have no point.

Again the whole premise is that if the same shape that a feedback pattern can emerge within the bonds. Being the "same" does not mean in every sense of the word "same". It can simply mean two bonds near each other have the same nanometer length repeated a number of times, doesn't even have to be every time. DNA and snowflakes DEFINITELY qualify as such.

If you have the same quantum length or shape, then a runaway feedback pattern can emerge creating dynamic patterns. You can not figure out everything about the shape of a snowflake with aerodynamics, temperature etc. Nonsense. Maybe you can find correlations but definitely not everything.

[Origin]

Unless you are trying to tell me snowflakes have 3 and a smidge sides or they don't have repetitive shapes.

No, I am just saying that your explanation didn't make sense and the mainstream explanation does make sense.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home.

That is not a theory that is a conjecture.  Heat is bits of fields floating around?  That makes no sense.

When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field.

That doesn't make any sense based on what we currently understand.  How could a particle "suck up a field", what does that even mean?

Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home.

That is not a theory that is a conjecture.  Heat is bits of fields floating around?  That makes no sense.

When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field.

That doesn't make any sense based on what we currently understand.  How could a particle "suck up a field", what does that even mean?

I'm WELL aware of the fact that the mental machinery in ones mind is particles zooming around. It's easy to get people to think that even as kids, and it mimics our math the best, it's the collective bias of the average thinker/student/professor. It turns out saying the stupidest thing in the world in math looks smarter than the smartest thing said in plain simple english. I'm telling you though, when it comes to the true greats there is a whole other level of thinking that is not particles driven and Einstein was the original master of it. I also swear by it because of how effective it's been for creating and understanding new concepts.

Let's be real hear, do you think any of you could come up with a plausible sounding new concept for anything somebody asks you? Do you have any idea what it actually takes to be able to do that?

"oh but it's not proven dee...dee...dee...dee"

Okay, let's see you come up with a "novel" theory for anything people know about in simple words that doesn't seem ten times more ridiculous or circular than what I did. That's probably just as hard as coming up with a real theory!

Lastly this is very important. Yes people have a knee jerk reaction if they are forced to go against what they have "learned" that particles are the fundamental underpinnings of everything, but the counter theory to particles is fields. fields are a spread out swamp of energy/mass that comes together and forms a particle.

Here is an excerpt from Einstein in the book the Evolution of Physics. page 242.

-Einstein- "We cannot build physics on the basis of the matter-concept alone. But the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created. Its final aim would be the explanation of all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere. A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone. There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and matter, field being the only reality. This new view is suggested by the great achievements  of field physics, by our success in expressing the laws of electricity, magnetism, gravitation in the form of structure laws, and finally by the equivalence of mass and energy. Our ultimate problem would be to modify our field laws in such a way that they would not break down for regions in which the energy is enormously concentrated."

This is what I mean and Einstein means by a field, its just spread out energy/mass. Whatever it is. It's okay to consider that there are things smaller than atoms. Whenever the field leaves mass, we simply call it energy. But you must recognize, Einstein has a visual just like I do that we use over and over and over and over. I continually did this over decades. The proof is simple, ask me anything and I'll put together a whole new concept for it.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Unless you are trying to tell me snowflakes have 3 and a smidge sides or they don't have repetitive shapes.

No, I am just saying that your explanation didn't make sense and the mainstream explanation does make sense.

There is no mainstream interpretation of how a snowflake works. There is a mainstream political and social belief that scientists "know" everything though. Why doesn't my explanation make sense to you, seriously? Is it because you don't believe fields exist?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

why nuclear is so powerful as it's changing distances on the scale of the nucleus which mathematically should be much greater than changing larger distances like in the case of chemical bonds.

I don't know how to interpret the phrase I put in bold above. 

The concept for how much heat is created could be best approximated by how gravity changes with proximity to mass. As gravity follows the inverse square law the magnitude of heat can change the same way with proximity.

For instance, let's say an object releases a certain amount of heat as it travels a mile towards the center of the earth on the surface. Say it is 1 joule. If you squished the earth to half its radius, and then traversed a mile it would be 4 joules.

I'm not interested in formalizing math here but simply explaining the concept. The point here is that there must be some "hidden variable(s)" that causes a limit to how dense a field can be packed into a particle or else particles wouldn't have quantized mass.

This leads to the reasonable hypothesis that some type of force may cause mass to be ejected in close proximity to other mass. I pointed this out in many ways by showing that what creates or uses can be approximated just by asking if things get further or closer.

I didn't explain previously but we could further the connection by showing that for the most part most objects expand in the presence of heat, electrons jump orbitals etc.

Another way to look at it would be that if you had enough power and squished a proton together with another forcing them to have the same space that as the denominator in distance goes to zero the release of mass is infinite, but obviously limited to the amount of energy of one of the protons.

I'm not saying we have examples of that, but that is the concept.

Nuclear fission does not violate the rule if the nucleus is proportionate to nuclear binding energy. Even if something is moving away, it can be over powered by the individual groups condensing. Same could be said for a ice. The ice as a whole may become larger but the individual atoms may be closer due to the individual contributions of the nearest molecules they are binding to. Long story short changes in distance that are closer overpower changes that happen further away.

[Origin]

Let's be real hear, do you think any of you could come up with a plausible sounding new concept for anything somebody asks you? Do you have any idea what it actually takes to be able to do that?

"oh but it's not proven dee...dee...dee...dee"

I think it is easy to make stuff up.  I'm sure your ideas make perfect sense to you, but that is because your ideas are based on your level of understanding of physics.

[Origin]

There is no mainstream interpretation of how a snowflake works.

That is false.

There is a mainstream political and social belief that scientists "know" everything though.

I am not aware of anyone who thinks that.

Why doesn't my explanation make sense to you, seriously? Is it because you don't believe fields exist?

Actually, I agree with Quantum Field Theory, what I don't agree with is your ideas of how fields operate.  Your statement that temperature is bits of fields or something is absurd.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Let's be real hear, do you think any of you could come up with a plausible sounding new concept for anything somebody asks you? Do you have any idea what it actually takes to be able to do that?

"oh but it's not proven dee...dee...dee...dee"

I think it is easy to make stuff up.  I'm sure your ideas make perfect sense to you, but that is because your ideas are based on your level of understanding of physics.

It's so easy right to come up with new theories? Just like you said.

I formally challenge you Origin to my own "easy" game.

Why does time dilation exist?

Make sure it's in plain simple English, and make sure it seems like it makes sense in spite of saying only a unique concept. Expect follow up questions to your answers.

I'll even make it easier on you, I won't use semantics, and ill try to understand you, and your not even being held to using only three ideas to do it, like me, you can just do whatever you want.

I could give you a hint, you don't have to use any math, just talk us through time and velocity and gravity logically. But if you wanted an edgier simpler math equation you can use this one. The derivative of arc sin expressed from 0 to the speed of light in the correct interval equals time dilation due to velocity, and the derivative of arc sin expressed from 0 to the escape velocity of light equals the gravitational time dilation. Of course, those are my equations designed only for "my level" of understanding. It's clear "your level" of understanding is much greater and this should be easy like you said. No need for math though.

[alancalverd]

An exploding grenade is exothermic. But the cause of its explosion and the release of heat is molecules bonding together.

Let's consider the explosion of TNT
2 C ₇ H ₅ N ₃ O ₆ → 3 N ₂ + 5 H ₂ + 12 CO + 2 C
Looks very much a molecule coming apart, to me. We start with two molecules of a solid and end up with 22 gas molecules plus a lot of heat. And the "two solids" isn't an essential "coming together", it's just a mathematical convention to avoid having 1.5 nitrogen molecules on the other side.

It is true that  most of the endothermic processes demonstrated in school laboratories  involve the dispersion of crystalline salts (e.g. NH₄Cl) in a solvent (H₂O) but doing the same thing with NaOH is exothermic.

[alancalverd]

Why does time dilation exist?

According to Einstein, simply because c is a constant. I'm sure you have read the book.

[Origin]

It's so easy right to come up with new theories? Just like you said.

I formally challenge you Origin to my own "easy" game.

Why does time dilation exist?

Make sure it's in plain simple English, and #make sure it seems like it makes sense in spite of saying only a unique concept.

That's the problem right there.  Your unique concept doesn't make sense.  Time dilation has a robust theory, if I make something up it will be as nonsensical as yours. 

[thebrain13 (OP)]

It's so easy right to come up with new theories? Just like you said.

I formally challenge you Origin to my own "easy" game.

Why does time dilation exist?

Make sure it's in plain simple English, and #make sure it seems like it makes sense in spite of saying only a unique concept.

That's the problem right there.  Your unique concept doesn't make sense.  Time dilation has a robust theory, if I make something up it will be as nonsensical as yours. 

Or just admit you can't do it. I can do it

[alancalverd]

Most of us know the technical definition of heat as the average kinetic energy.

A sad reflection on the general quality of physics teaching, but certainly a common misconception.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

An exploding grenade is exothermic. But the cause of its explosion and the release of heat is molecules bonding together.

Let's consider the explosion of TNT
2 C ₇ H ₅ N ₃ O ₆ → 3 N ₂ + 5 H ₂ + 12 CO + 2 C
Looks very much a molecule coming apart, to me. We start with two molecules of a solid and end up with 22 gas molecules plus a lot of heat. And the "two solids" isn't an essential "coming together", it's just a mathematical convention to avoid having 1.5 nitrogen molecules on the other side.

It is true that  most of the endothermic processes demonstrated in school laboratories  involve the dispersion of crystalline salts (e.g. NH₄Cl) in a solvent (H₂O) but doing the same thing with NaOH is exothermic.

If you think about the concept of the theory, a complex chemical reaction will bias exothermic. Imagine  a negatively charged ball, with positive charged balls stuck to it in a large space. If you switch the charge it flies everywhere. If you switch it back it does not return as easily. This is just a cuter example of the same thing I've already said multiple times. Stronger bonds can over power weaker one especially in the exothermic direction.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

There is no mainstream interpretation of how a snowflake works.

That is false.

There is a mainstream political and social belief that scientists "know" everything though.

I am not aware of anyone who thinks that.

Why doesn't my explanation make sense to you, seriously? Is it because you don't believe fields exist?

Actually, I agree with Quantum Field Theory, what I don't agree with is your ideas of how fields operate.  Your statement that temperature is bits of fields or something is absurd.

The fact that you don't think anybody has political and social biases in science, tells me everything I need to know about your ability to criticize science, not that I couldn't already deduce it myself.

Let's talk about this "absurd" notion of heat as a fluid like field substance. Just a non-sensical idea.

Let's quote the absurd concepts of heat as fluid from the non-sensical looney theorist Albert Einstein. Page 77 of the same book, the evolution of physics by Einstein under the chapter decline of the mechanical view where he makes an analogy between the "flow" of heat and the "flow" of electric charge.

He writes
 "Electric Potential>>>>Temperature
 Electric charge>>>>Heat"

"Two conductors, for example two spheres of different size, may have the same electric charge, that is the same excess of one electric fluid, but the potential will be different in the two cases, being higher for the smaller and lower for the larger sphere. The electric fluid will have greater density and thus be more compressed on the small conductor. Since the repulsive forces must increase with the density, the tendency of the charge to escape will be greater in the case of the smaller sphere than in that of the larger."

(Funny, that sounds like my non-sensical concept, an inner force from the charge increases when you shrink the size of the container, increasing its tendency to escape. And might I remind you electric charge is being compared to heat, heat escapes more when the container is shrunk.)

He continues the analogy....

"This tendency of charge to escape from a conductor is a direct measure of its potential. In order to show clearly the difference between charge and potential we shall formulate a few sentences describing the behavior of heated bodies, and the corresponding sentences concerning charged conductors. "

From here he has two columns directly comparing Electricity and Heat.

"Heat: Two bodies, initially at different temperatures, reach the same temperature after some time if brought into contact.
Electricity: Two insulated conductors initially at different electric potentials, very quickly reach the same potential if brought into contact.
Heat: Equal quantities of heat produce different changes of temperature in two bodies if their heat capacities are different.
Electricity: Equal amounts of electric charge produce different changes of electric potential in two bodies if their electrical capacities are different.
Heat: A thermometer in contact with a body indicates by the length of its own mercury column its own temperature therefore the temperature of the body.
Electricity: An electroscope in contact with a conductor indicates by the separation of the gold leaves its own electric potential and therefore the electric potential of the conductor."

I guess its cool if Einstein says it, but if I do its just nonsense? I said the same things. Heat flowing from body to body from something analogous to charge due to shrinking of size. He also examines the connection between this "charge like concept" and the expansion via the mercury column. I wish I had your guys intuition though instead of these nonsense Einstein field concepts.

[Bored chemist]

The concept for how much heat is created could be best approximated by how gravity changes with proximity to mass.

Chemical reactions (like the decomposition of TNT) are based on the electromagnetic forces within molecules.
These are about 37 orders of magnitude (100000000000000000000000000000000000000) times bigger than the gravitational effects.

Are you aiming to claim the prize for "wrongest thing said on the site"?

[Bored chemist]

It's so easy right to come up with new theories?

No
You need to look at what the word means.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

It is difficult to come up with valid theories.
But it is easy to come up with tripe.

You have done the easy thing, but are trying to seek credit for the difficult thing.

[Bored chemist]

The fact that you don't think anybody has political and social biases in science,

That's not a "fact" it's just dross you made up.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

The concept for how much heat is created could be best approximated by how gravity changes with proximity to mass.

Chemical reactions (like the decomposition of TNT) are based on the electromagnetic forces within molecules.
These are about 37 orders of magnitude (100000000000000000000000000000000000000) times bigger than the gravitational effects.

Are you aiming to claim the prize for "wrongest thing said on the site"?

I never heard the diatribe that electromagnetism is orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. Oh wait yes I did.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

It's so easy right to come up with new theories?

No
You need to look at what the word means.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

It is difficult to come up with valid theories.
But it is easy to come up with tripe.

You have done the easy thing, but are trying to seek credit for the difficult thing.

I've never heard the diatribe of the difference between a theory and hypothesis. Oh wait yes I did.