Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi

Einstein should have known '2' I dont know why he wouldnt have.

"man's chronometer" does sound a lot like a Robert Hooke reference.
Hooke wrote Newton in 1676 concerning (my interpretation) of gravity wells and orbital capture.
Of course Newton couldn't answer publicly at the time.
The Calculus Prioritätsstreit came 40 years later.

The "shoulders of giants" probably refers to what was hidden during the dark ages by the Pythagoreans.
Maybe "they" finally decided we Earthlings could use a formal calculus after 1676.


Davinci obviously knew about conservation of energy.
Was this device used to differentiate gravity from centrifugal force?
If this was constantly accelerating clockwise till the balls reached the speed of light would they ever roll out to the end of the arms?

reply to: Arbitrageur

I think black holes form from a concentration of matter, not from expansion of space..

That what I wrote about. That black holes were not formed from concentration of matter. That it makes no sense. Matter spreading away has lesser opportunity to bind as the distance between particles ever increases.

Black holes to counter this inconsistency would had have to be first cosmic objects after big bang to attract matter into islands of atoms and molecules, igniting new stars as a result.

In this view, black holes represent 'raptures' in space-time, probably as an after math of inflation period. And this, in my opinion, only possible when expansion is greater than rate allows.

Ufff..man, I had three cups of coffee to put together run away brain scattering thought process in my head. That physics stuff is way too complicated.

cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
That what I wrote about. That black holes were not formed from concentration of matter. That it makes no sense. Matter spreading away has lesser opportunity to bind as the distance between particles ever increases.

The part you don't seem to be getting is that the distance between particles isn't ever increasing in local gravitational fields that hold a galaxy together, for example, or other local gravitational fields. The space that's expanding isn't the space between particles that will form a black hole, it's the void between superclusters of galaxies, where particles are relatively scarce, maybe on the order of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.

The analogy of raisins in raisin bread moving apart as the bread expands isn't perfect, but it does have one thing going for it. The raisins don't expand much if any compared to the dough expansion, so that much is similar to the way galaxies don't expand much if any as the space between them expands.

Ambient time existed b4 the big bang and is the reason for the big bang. Gravity is a result of time and dark matter compression curves around matter.
For understanding of ambient time see the ark video in the thread in my sig. Also watch the Gordon novel video in the same thread. for further understanding of ambient time, perform the candle experiment as suggested earlier. Moebius has succeeded with the candle experiment and so shall you.
a reply to: ImaFungi

A qualitative prediction is better than not at all.
Besides I am still waiting for the replication of the ark video.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei
Why would anybody who knows what they're doing want to replicate that video? As I said I could write a book about all of the things done wrong in that video from an experimental standpoint, so the last thing I'd want to do is to try to make the same errors. Eros posted a video showing a similar purple streak in some car headlights so that should be enough to convince you the purple streak had nothing unique to do with the machine, but you come to the least probable conclusion that it's related to the machine and not a camera artifact, and I don't think you ever explained why you think the car headlights show the same streak with no such machine, did you?

What are your thoughts on the universe having a net charge of positive, negative, or neutral?

Also, theoretically, if photons possess a charge (and/or net charge) of 0, then I would surmise that not only would colliding two gamma rays together create an electron and a proton (a positively and negatively charged particle, thus a cancellation), but also create neither a proton, nor an electron, and instead a neutron, or neutrons. This would allow the energy of light to convert into mass (e=mc2) while retaining within that mass, in the form of particles, a neutral charge, or zero net charge. Essentially, any matter, or particles created through converting the energy of light into mass, will have a 0 net charge, to reflect the 0 charge of the substance from which it was converted from. Does this make sense?

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello
What are your thoughts on the universe having a net charge of positive, negative, or neutral?

I've read speculation that the net charge of the universe might be neutral and haven't seen anything to cause me to doubt that speculation. I don't know of a way to prove it, especially since we can't even see the entire universe, only the observable universe.

Also, theoretically, if photons possess a charge (and/or net charge) of 0, then I would surmise that not only would colliding two gamma rays together create an electron and a proton (a positively and negatively charged particle, thus a cancellation)

Two gamma rays interacting with each other hasn't ever been observed in this way to my knowledge but it's theoretically possible as predicted by theory. I think the expected outcome would be creation of an electron-positron pair, which would of course have a net charge of zero just like the photons.

What has been observed is a single gamma-ray photon passing near a nucleus creating an electron-positron pair.

Does this make sense?

The part about charge conservation makes perfect sense, it's a basic principle in physics. The idea that you'd create a positive and negative charge that cancel also makes sense along these lines. The only part that didn't make sense was pairing up a proton with the electron, because the proton has way too much mass. In pair production you get an electron and its anti-particle, the positron, which has the same mass as the electron but the same positive charge as the proton.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I've read speculation that the net charge of the universe might be neutral and haven't seen anything to cause me to doubt that speculation. I don't know of a way to prove it, especially since we can't even see the entire universe, only the observable universe.

Okay, proof, I don't know either. But the equation would be to obtain the total amount of protons and electrons in the universe, and their net difference, if there was a difference.

Can't this be carried out at some basic level simply through using the table of elements? Creating some formula involving which elements can and will become ionized, and to what extent. The abundance of each element in the universe (one by one), multiplied by the amount of atomic particles existing within each element, and then finding the net difference between the particles.

What has been observed is a single gamma-ray photon passing near a nucleus creating an electron-positron pair.

Ohhh, okay. So, somehow the interaction between the nucleus and the gamma ray causes an electric result. A net gain in energy within the surrounding area, only in the form of electricity. Why is this? And, could this be extrapolated and expanded upon to create vast amounts of usable electricity? Or, is this an inefficient method?

I apologize. I remember the article as proton, perhaps it was positron. I stand corrected. I also recall reading that if a proton loses its spin, it becomes an electron at some point? I do not know how true this is, but my question would then be - a proton is more massive than an electron, so to transmutate a proton into an electron (if even possible, just theoretically), the proton would need to shed mass and become equivalent (if not already) in total possessed energy as the electron.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Why would anybody who knows what they're doing want to replicate that video? As I said I could write a book about all of the things done wrong in that video from an experimental standpoint, so the last thing I'd want to do is to try to make the same errors. Eros posted a video showing a similar purple streak in some car headlights so that should be enough to convince you the purple streak had nothing unique to do with the machine, but you come to the least probable conclusion that it's related to the machine and not a camera artifact, and I don't think you ever explained why you think the car headlights show the same streak with no such machine, did you?

Can't believe he's still trying that excuse. Cmos cameras will show purple streaks in fact it's common during people videoing things like lightining strikes it occurs because how the filter works.. CMOS sensors have a filter separating light into red green blue. and light is captured by all diodes at the same time. This means generally these show streaks because these do rely on combining light levels from the filter to get a color. This is analog to digital conversion sensors are always on and the camera samples the diodes for voltage.Streak occur when the voltage is above expected levels you get a rainbow effect where one color dominated the others in the pixel. Or you can get a pixel to go white 1 frame then red then blue then green depending on sampling rate. CMOS on the other hand is not always on these are direct digital. In a CMOS sensor each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits. Noise and error correction can cause artifacts in bright light situations usually do to bad programming. Very rare since this is one of the reasons for error correction mostly early versions. if you see streaks from a light source odds are good it's a CMOS sensor. Both sensors have advantaged depending on what your doing.

One would think an engineer would understand this and properly identify it in a video.

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello
Can't this be carried out at some basic level simply through using the table of elements?

Yes of course and such an analysis suggests net neutral charge.

Ohhh, okay. So, somehow the interaction between the nucleus and the gamma ray causes an electric result. A net gain in energy within the surrounding area, only in the form of electricity. Why is this? And, could this be extrapolated and expanded upon to create vast amounts of usable electricity? Or, is this an inefficient method?

No it's basically the same scenario you described as far as the electrical component of the resulting electron-positron pair being created. The main difference is, instead of half the required energy being distributed to each of the gamma rays (2 x 0.511 MeV), the total energy was in one gamma ray of 1.022 MeV or greater energy, which is equivalent to the mass of the electron-positron pair (Each has a mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2). The reason the nucleus is involved is so it can provide some "recoil" to allow the conservation of momentum requirement to be fulfilled in addition to charge conservation. Without the nucleus (or something else) to provide the recoil, momentum can't be conserved so pair production won't happen with a single photon in that case. In the two photon scenario you don't need anything else for momentum to be conserved.

I apologize. I remember the article as proton, perhaps it was positron. I stand corrected. I also recall reading that if a proton loses its spin, it becomes an electron at some point? I do not know how true this is, but my question would then be - a proton is more massive than an electron, so to transmutate a proton into an electron (if even possible, just theoretically), the proton would need to shed mass and become equivalent (if not already) in total possessed energy as the electron.

Well my memory is less than perfect too so it's OK but yes this is a little muddled. The closest thing I can think of is that a neutron by itself is unstable only having an average life of 14 minutes 42 seconds at which time it decays into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino.

In the LHC protons are smashed into each other at nearly the speed of light which creates a shower of particles with the main requirements being conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, charge, etc, but of course that's totally unlike the free neutron decay which occurs spontaneously. Free protons in contrast are thought to be stable and have no such spontaneous decay, and besides even if they did decay, the decay products would have to conserve charge so I don't know how you'd get an electron out of it without at least two other positively charged particles to keep the same net charge of +1, but I don't know of any such spontaneously occurring process.

originally posted by: dragonridr
One would think an engineer would understand this and properly identify it in a video.

Yes especially after seeing the same thing in the headlights, which should have been enough evidence that it's not specific to the "ark" machine.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You are bringing a lot of different physical processes into this 14 minutes 42 seconds is a "local time".

We are still back at Newtons answer to Hookes letter concerning gravity.

I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses

Davinci did "frame" an hypothesis, mirror writing was the method Davinci used to organize observations.
Obviously we are talking about the reversed image that falls on the human retina, imagery developed by the "mind's eye" before calculus would have to be expressed directly through drawings.

In this Davinci example of an X ray accelerator (we theorize gas atoms) rotate counter clockwise around an accretion disk of "a/the (according to Newton)" black hole.





hub.jhu.edu...

I posted about this earlier in another thread, Hooke would claim the Davinci image wound up uniformly like a "watch spring" as X rays near the inner part (would indicate formed gas) approached the speed of light.

I think an intuitive cosmological model might section wave interactions into particles using simple integers.
In some geometries Betti numbers are integers.

Why argue about glass prison?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Disclaimer alert! Purely theoretical physics postulation ahead. The numbers chosen are random, but the logic attempts to stay strictly in line with the laws of energy conservation and net-charge conservation.

Well, speaking of the LHC, it got me to thinking; if two protons are collided and upon their annihilation it is observed that 14 (choose any amount) sub-nuclear particles are shot outward, and the experiment is conducted multiple times and gives the same result, then it would be somewhat safe to assume that each proton consists of 7 sub-protonic, or sub-nuclear particles.

Since a proton has a positive charge, I think it would then be safe to assume that at least 4 of these sub-nuclear particles must possess a positive charge. What the other 3 are, would not be certain. They could be any mixture of neutral and/or negatively charged sub-nuclear particles. For some reason, though, I find it more fitting to be a comfortable 4/7 positive charge and 3/7 negative, with a +1 positive net-charge of the proton's sub-nuclear particle matter. If and/or when it is a higher ratio, then the proton should exhibit a stronger positive charge, and/or would have been a proton with a strong positive charge before it was destroyed.

Understanding this though, may not reveal everything about every element. It could remain possible that within the nuclei of some elements, the sub-neutronic, or sub-nuclear negatively charged particles of the neutron are existing in such a number and in such close proximity to the proton, that it is hiding the actual strength, or weakness, respectively, of its neighboring proton(s) by serving to interfere with the sub-nuclear net-charge of it.

For instance - a strong positively charged proton would comprise of 6 positively charged sub-nuclear particles, and one neutral, or negatively charged sub-nuclear particle.

If its neighboring neutron, with a net-neutrality, had 4 negatively charged, and 4 positively charged sub-nuclear particles, then their combined ratio (of the proton and the neutron) would become +10/-5 (+6/-1,+, +4/-4). A ratio of 2 to 1 positive charge against other S.N. (subnuclear) particles. Whereas, the proton on its own would be displayed and measured as a 6 to 1 ratio, a much stronger positive charge.

Is something like this possible, assuming that sub-nuclear particles are elementary?

originally posted by: Cauliflower
In this Davinci example of an X ray accelerator (we theorize gas atoms) rotate counter clockwise around an accretion disk of "a/the (according to Newton)" black hole.

Who is "we" and what's the source of the above claim? Your posts have odd claims like this but the sources never seem to confirm the odd claims. I didn't need any source to confirm matter accretion into a black hole could give off X-rays.

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Disclaimer alert! Purely theoretical physics postulation ahead. The numbers chosen are random, but the logic attempts to stay strictly in line with the laws of energy conservation and net-charge conservation.

Theoretical physics is what theoretical physicists do, but they base their theories on what's known which is information you lack, so this isn't quite theoretical physics, but I think aside from lacking the knowledge your ideas show good logic.

Unfortunately logic isn't enough sometimes and while I can understand your predictions that's not what happens.

Well, speaking of the LHC, it got me to thinking; if two protons are collided and upon their annihilation it is observed that 14 (choose any amount) sub-nuclear particles are shot outward, and the experiment is conducted multiple times and gives the same result, then it would be somewhat safe to assume that each proton consists of 7 sub-protonic, or sub-nuclear particles.

We think there are three particles inside each proton called quarks and this was pretty well established by the 1980s, but to this day we've never seen a quark by itself and theory predicts why it's unlikely we will.

So the LHC isn't smashing protons to see what they're made of since that was known decades ago, at least that wasn't the goal of the experiment to find the Higgs boson, which has a mass about 133 times greater than the proton. So you might ask, how do you get a particle out with more mass than the two protons that collided? That's done by giving the protons a lot of energy, in fact each 7 TeV proton has 7460 times as much energy as mass so that explains how a 133 times more massive particle can be observed when those are smashed together.

I found a great site that explains a lot of this so you might be interested in reading more. Here are some links at the site:

Particle Physics: Why do it? And why do it *that* way?
The Structure of Matter
The Known (Apparently-) Elementary Particles

Lol you are making a lot of excuses. Pl replicate all the effects in that video, that you made excuses about, thermal expansion, streaks, light bending, candle breeze an also anti gravity. then you will be vindicated of all the excuses.
even my cheap mobile camera cannot produce those streaks, light bending, image distorsion etc. I tried to get an image distorsion of my rectangular fridge and failed.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei
Eros already posted the video showing the same type of streak from car headlights. Don't you remember? What's your explanation for that?

And this is why your newtonian engineering at the LHC will fail as no Newtonian calculation predicts the protons will have 7460 times as much energy as mass. In fact what does Newtonian physics predict for the energy of a proton traveling at nearly the speed of light?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
... the LHC ...each 7 TeV proton has 7460 times as much energy as mass so that explains how a 133 times more massive particle can be observed when those are smashed together.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Eros already posted the video showing the same type of streak from car headlights. Don't you remember? What's your explanation for that?

Oy replicate that video, will ya. forget eros for now, first made good on your excuses, then we will deal with eros.

Oy cmos engineer , kindly replicate that video and show every1, instead of typing walls of text, will ya
a reply to: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Oy replicate that video, will ya. forget eros for now, first made good on your excuses, then we will deal with eros.

That's a replication of the streak so if you're not going to deal with replications already provided what's the point in providing more?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you are making a lot of excuses. Pl replicate all the effects in that video, that you made excuses about, thermal expansion, streaks, light bending, candle breeze an also anti gravity. then you will be vindicated of all the excuses.
even my cheap mobile camera cannot produce those streaks, light bending, image distorsion etc. I tried to get an image distorsion of my rectangular fridge and failed.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok. In the 40s, the Arab politicians did not find any “Palestinian people”.

Again see my post on optical sensors and then do some research to see what your cheap phone has.