Ask any question you want about Physics

KrzYma theory...

infinity is double-ended and reversible principle
it is infinitely small and infinitely big without distinction between
some point is everywhere
first dimension
infinite points number

two points create distance
this distance is still infinite in this dimension

to describe distance one need comparison
3 points (...)

charge is motion ("rotation") compared to the other points
"clockwise" and "anticlockwise"
this is not a rotation, it's more like "tendency" to be one or the other
this "spin" "creates" next dimension
the true distance
...how often I have to "turn" to get there
"time" to "get there"

why they spin ?
infinite possibilities in double-ended and reversible universe

why two points attract each other?
they don't in this first dimension !
the next dimension makes them.
"clockwise" or "anticlockwise"
double-ended and reversible infinity emergence

first dimension is "all", "everything"
second, is the differential of it


I know it is hard to imagine dimensions for people who are used to point, line, cube representations of that, but this is again a wrong concept, told us to believe to be true


in simple words, like charges repeal because they are the same, unlike charges attract because they are the opposite

originally posted by: joelr

Gluons are detected in the 3-jet event but there are many other confirmations of gluons and quantum chromodynamics from data collected that exactly agrees with QCD.

Unlike a photon you cannot have a free gluon.

I asked you for the details, not what "they say is true"

but there are many other confirmations of gluons and quantum chromodynamics from data collected that exactly agrees with QCD.

of course the data supports the theory, or has been interpreted as such.. this is science
tell me the details, what detector has detected what and in what way ?

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So is it true, as Kryzma is arguing; that particle detectors detect using solely EM radiation; or is there not even a conceivable way to detect anything without using EM radiation?

No it is not true. To detect particles they have to interact with something. There are different types of detection devices like cloud chambers, muon chambers, sometimes you detect particles by looking for missing energy or using dense material to cause a decay event.

you guys don't understand !!

there are just and only two (2) fields (forces) we can manipulate... and the thing is, we can't change one without changing the other.. this is the electric and the magnetic field

gravity... is just a concept

there is no such thing as gluons, higs or dark matter...
those are just theoretical THINGS to get it right in the theory !!

and let me repeat... LHC is not an scientific tool...
to be one you need to be able to repeat the experiments.
LHC experiments can't even count the number of protons they let fly around, it is every time different and it just substantiate what I'm telling you!
LHC is a joke
and so is any BS coming out of it, like particle zoo !!

the theory holds, sure... but it is bound to loss of reality

Speaking of experiments, what experiments have proponents of "electric universe" or whatever you are so excited about, done to show the theory is in fact true.
What testable predictions does it make?
And why overlook decades of tested science to favor youtube video, and blogsphere pop-science?

a reply to: joelr
start with this ?

originally posted by: KrzYma

I asked you for the details, not what "they say is true"


?

Why not just look up 3-Jet Event?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: KrzYma
KrzYma theory...

infinity is double-ended and reversible principle
it is infinitely small and infinitely big without distinction between
some point is everywhere
first dimension
infinite points number

two points create distance
this distance is still infinite in this dimension

to describe distance one need comparison
3 points (...)

charge is motion ("rotation") compared to the other points
"clockwise" and "anticlockwise"
this is not a rotation, it's more like "tendency" to be one or the other
this "spin" "creates" next dimension
the true distance
...how often I have to "turn" to get there
"time" to "get there"

why they spin ?
infinite possibilities in double-ended and reversible universe

why two points attract each other?
they don't in this first dimension !
the next dimension makes them.
"clockwise" or "anticlockwise"
double-ended and reversible infinity emergence

first dimension is "all", "everything"
second, is the differential of it


I know it is hard to imagine dimensions for people who are used to point, line, cube representations of that, but this is again a wrong concept, told us to believe to be true


in simple words, like charges repeal because they are the same, unlike charges attract because they are the opposite

So you say this is true? Where are your details? Theories and predictions based on your model?
Experiments to test each hypothesis.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: joelr
start with this ?

Ugg, that was debunked: www.astronomy.com...

The EU thing is a crank theory: rationalwiki.org...


Get some history on it: hozturner.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: KrzYma
and let me repeat... LHC is not an scientific tool...
to be one you need to be able to repeat the experiments.
LHC experiments can't even count the number of protons they let fly around, it is every time different and it just substantiate what I'm telling you!
LHC is a joke
and so is any BS coming out of it, like particle zoo !!

the theory holds, sure... but it is bound to loss of reality

Do you know how many experiments there are at the LHC? There are two sister barrel detectors with different design configurations... BOTH are doing checkups of each other's data.

There are other experiments there doing beamdump style collisions

I think the total number of major experiments that all cross check and REPEAT each other's experiments are about 8.... you seem to not even understand that the LHC is just the accelerator, the LHC is not an experiment in its own right, but the accelerator that serves many other experiments.

by your own terms, your ignorance has proven that the experiments happening at the LHC are in fact scientific tools. They also have a really good handle on the numbers of protons in the thing at any given moment...

originally posted by: joelr
The EU thing is a crank theory: rationalwiki.org...

I agree, but I had no idea they cited one of my ATS threads in the "critics" section until I just checked that link!

I would have written a much more comprehensive de-bunking thread than that if I knew it was going to be cited.

a reply to: joelr

sorry to interfere.

It depends what do you call photon. Photon is energy and gluon is energy. Gluon is special state of energy. They are made of photons (see definition of photon). Of course, you see contradiction where there is none. Gluon is bound energy state where photon is unbound state of the same energy. Or do you think gluon is made of something else than energy?

)cheers

originally posted by: greenreflections
Photon is energy and gluon is energy.

No argument with that.

Gluon is special state of energy. They are made of photons (see definition of photon).

This is what seems to be your flawed logic:

1. Photons are a type of energy
2. Gluons are a type of energy
3. Therefore gluons are made of photons.

If I apply that logic elsewhere:
1. Men are a type of human
2. Women are a type of human
3. Therefore women are made of men.

Do you see the logical flaws here?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

no, I don't.

It is not the type of energy, it is the state of energy (same energy and of only one type, if that helps).

but again, most of my posts are linguistically crippled so I dont blame you).

Just to ad.

IMO, by ''fundamental forces" is meant finite number of stable wave curl configurations (frequencies that allow stable interact bond with similar in frequency state or that can be harmonically accepted/ entirely absorbed/added, assimilated). Not to be confused with ''types'' of energy.
No?

originally posted by: greenreflections
It is not the type of energy, it is the state of energy (same energy and of only one type, if that helps).

That seems to make it worse. How do you get 8 different types of gluons if they are "made of photons" and "of only one type". That seems like even worse logic.

but again, most of my posts are linguistically crippled so I dont blame you).

Saying "gluons are made of photons" doesn't seem like a language barrier issue, the statement should be either supportable or not. So if it's supportable then post your evidence to support the claim. If it's not supportable, then allow me to remind you of the expectation for this science forum, that science claims should be supportable.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

alright. gluons are not made of photons but they both made of energy. Photon is an unbound state of energy and is the smallest energy unit (quanta) that exists.
I didn't mean gluons are photons directly but it takes photons to make gluon.

originally posted by: greenreflections
it takes photons to make gluon.

How do you know this?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
it takes photons to make gluon.

How do you know this?

it's a logical assumption, that's all. Trust me, I don't run back yard version of CERN.

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur

alright. gluons are not made of photons but they both made of energy. Photon is an unbound state of energy and is the smallest energy unit (quanta) that exists.
I didn't mean gluons are photons directly but it takes photons to make gluon.

May be a single photon.

originally posted by: KrzYma
KrzYma theory...

infinity is double-ended and reversible principle
it is infinitely small and infinitely big without distinction between
some point is everywhere
first dimension
infinite points number

two points create distance
this distance is still infinite in this dimension

to describe distance one need comparison
3 points (...)

charge is motion ("rotation") compared to the other points
"clockwise" and "anticlockwise"
this is not a rotation, it's more like "tendency" to be one or the other
this "spin" "creates" next dimension
the true distance
...how often I have to "turn" to get there
"time" to "get there"

why they spin ?
infinite possibilities in double-ended and reversible universe

why two points attract each other?
they don't in this first dimension !
the next dimension makes them.
"clockwise" or "anticlockwise"
double-ended and reversible infinity emergence

first dimension is "all", "everything"
second, is the differential of it


I know it is hard to imagine dimensions for people who are used to point, line, cube representations of that, but this is again a wrong concept, told us to believe to be true


in simple words, like charges repeal because they are the same, unlike charges attract because they are the opposite

Basically as I understand, you imply that concept of distance can only be meaningful when third point of reference is introduced, right?


Also, I did not get the dimension thing but some sort of spin that we identify with plus and minus sounds right.

Can two rocks colliding, create the big bang?

That's my question.

Thanks in advance.