Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Admitted
What good is physics when anything is possible?

Every law of physics can be broken, in theory. Why take physics as gospel until these theories are proven or disproven?

I don't know any scientists who take science as "gospel", but we do have centuries of experiments and observations which form the basis for our current models. As George Box inferred only nature behaves exactly like nature and since no model is exactly nature, all models now and in the past and future are likely to be imperfect representations of nature in some way.

But to the extent we can use those models to predict what will happen, they are quite useful and they prove their usefulness everyday in ways you may not appreciate until you think about it. Even classical models which have been superseded by more accurate models are still used and prove themselves to you when you drive over a bridge, board an airplane for a flight, or take an elevator up a skyscraper.

“Classical Physics Is Wrong” Fallacy

One of the common questions or comments we get on PF is the claim that classical physics or classical mechanics (i.e. Newton’s laws, etc.) is wrong because it has been superseded by Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR), and/or Quantum Mechanics (QM). Such claims are typically made by either a student who barely learned anything about physics, or by someone who have not had a formal education in physics.

So do you think the old models like Newtonian physics are "wrong" just because we have better models now? Look at it this way:

Classical physics is used in an overwhelming majority of situations in our lives. Your houses, buildings, bridges, airplanes, and physical structures were built using the classical laws. The heat engines, motors, etc. were designed based on classical thermodynamics laws. And your radio reception, antennae, TV transmitters, wi-fi signals, etc. are all based on classical electromagnetic description.

These are all FACTS, not a matter of opinion. You are welcome to check for yourself and see how many of these were done using SR, GR, or QM. Most, if not all, of these would endanger your life and the lives of your loved ones if they were not designed or described accurately. So how can one claim that classical physics is wrong, or incorrect, if they work, and work so well in such situations?

So even though we know those models are imperfect, they are still very useful and we still use them, and that list of applications shows they prove their usefulness every day. Now if you want to appreciate how physics has proved its usefuness with things like GPS and the computers/internet we are communicating with, then you need more sophisticated models of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

And you're right that some day we will probably find better models than those, possibly even a unified theory, but it can't deviate too far from the aforementioned models since there is too much experimental confirmation to come up with something vastly different.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Simply because objects are on Earth, it is assumed the objects must be 'held' to Earth by something.

If you take a course in physics you might hear the professor say the old joke "assume a spherical hippopotamus..." and you might think "why is he assuming the hippopotamus is spherical?", but if so, you didn't get the joke. If what you see in physics are a bunch of assumptions, you don't have much in-depth knowledge about how physics has evolved over the years. Einstein didn't just assume Newton's model of gravity was perfect, he came up with a more accurate model, and other scientists didn't assume he was correct, they required "proof" or evidence. So I think most scientists didn't believe Einstein until they got evidence that his then new model was right.

This scale can measure "gravity", specifically the gravitational constant, and it doesn't do that by "holding" anything to the Earth, the force is measured horizontally, not vertically:

SN1036 Computerized Cavendish Balance for Laboratory

Experiments: Exp-1 Determining of G, the fundamental universal gravitational Constant.

That's not how we prove anything else, so why would 'gravity' be any different?

You don't seem to have much knowledge of how anything is proven, but what's really ironic is that you're accusing physicists of making assumptions, but it's actually you who are the one making the assumptions about how you think gravity should work. You probably don't even understand how the Cavendish balance or other measurements of gravity work. Scientists admit our gravity model isn't perfect (in the sense there are some esoteric problems it can't solve), but so far it's very consistent with observation and that's not an assumption, that's a fact.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Just for fun. Watch the first part of The Double Slit exp. And change the single particle into the 3 points mentioned above. 3 representing 1. And it's the -1 and +1 make it through the slits. which i find easier to understand than one single particle splitting into two.

first of all, there is NO particles traveling though space, the so called photon is just a name for the electromagnetic wave that is propagating in the electromagnetic field. mathematics require a number to calculate so the so called "photon" is the number they need.
BUT, and this is important, they call any electromagnetic wave a photon, an XRay, very short one is a photon, and a very long one like radio wave is a photon too. AND, they say it is a point like particle, means no volume no area ...means no sense at all

the difference between traveling and propagating is, if something is traveling it changes position in space, the electromagnetic field does no such thing, but... the imaginary photon of course does, as it is in a point like shape at one time in space.. so they need an uncertainty to describe it and all bunch of tricks to make it work, forget it !

now...
propagation means, that the field is changing the slope so that the peak of the slope is transferring, changing the actual place in space and it just looks like it is moving, but nothing really moves in the field, the field is changing it's slope !

the second point is, there slit is not a strait line something blocking the wave like shown in the pictures, those walls are trillions of atoms shaped as a thin plate with holes in it.
all those atoms in this wall respond to the electromagnetic field but also modulate the wave as well, means, the wave does stop propagate where lots of atoms are or get reflected, and the wave propagates further where there are no atoms means where those slits are.
after the 2 slits there are 2 waves that interact with each other, interact, change shape of the wave and after propagating to the screen modulate the seen pattern on the detector screen.
the detector screen is also not a plane like shown in the pictures but is made out of trillions of atoms that interact with the incoming electromagnetic wave.
some of the atoms receive "the right kick" and release light, some not.

what quantum theory fools you with, is the trick to make light a point traveling though space and calling it particle/wave duality, there is no particle, just a wave. if something moves it can not move through two points in space at the same time. they know it, so at this point they call it a wave, then they will trick you with the "observer is collapsing the wave" thing.. so it is a particle again.
first, they say it is a particle, but than they agree it is a wave, than they say it's a particle again what hits the screen, humbug !

watch this for more info...

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: turbonium1

a magical, unproven, non-existent force, called 'gravity'.

LMAO. To paraphrase Tim Minchin:

It gives one hope that you feel that way about gravity. And you might just float the fck away.

These are actual quotes, which fit perfectly...

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

― Socrates

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."

― Jean-Jacques Rousseau

a reply to: KrzYma

first of all, there is NO particles traveling though space, the so called photon is just a name for the electromagnetic wave that is propagating

they say it is a point like particle, means no volume no area ...means no sense at all

Consider the particle as a wave in it's smallest form. And, a wave as a propagating particle. Where 3 points/parts are the least number needed to represent a wave in 2d. And it is point like even when it propagates in 2d. Like an expanding equilateral triangle as the particle travels up to the speed of light. In nature we don't see waves. We see particles. Points Of a wave. Every point of a wave. Is a point of the wave.


The video is obsessed with circular waves. And that's fine as to his examples. But it would mean our observable universe isn't flat and infinite. As it would actually warp as it propagates. This picture will show it. The orange represents -1 and the red represents +1.





Please read my model. Which is confusing. I admit. But you might understand this as the maths he uses are similar to what i'm doing.


Part way down the last page is the last attempt i had to explain it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good luck.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you take a course in physics you might hear the professor say the old joke "assume a spherical hippopotamus..." and you might think "why is he assuming the hippopotamus is spherical?", but if so, you didn't get the joke. If what you see in physics are a bunch of assumptions, you don't have much in-depth knowledge about how physics has evolved over the years.

I never said physics are a bunch of assumptions, that's YOUR assumption, which gave you licence to pontificate. You're off to a good start already.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Einstein didn't just assume Newton's model of gravity was perfect, he came up with a more accurate model, and other scientists didn't assume he was correct, they required "proof" or evidence. So I think most scientists didn't believe Einstein until they got evidence that his then new model was right.

It's not right, that's the whole problem. But let's continue..

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This scale can measure "gravity", specifically the gravitational constant, and it doesn't do that by "holding" anything to the Earth, the force is measured horizontally, not vertically:

SN1036 Computerized Cavendish Balance for Laboratory

Experiments: Exp-1 Determining of G, the fundamental universal gravitational Constant.

Why don't you try to replicate this with wood, and see if it works the same? If it did, I'm sure they'd have presented it endlessly by now, so maybe you can be the first to do it...

Metals contain ferrous material, which may be in very small amounts, within steel, for example. That's why most people don't understand the Cavendish experiment is a sly trick. I'm saying that. because you'd probably reply that they use steel, or rocks, or perhaps bricks, which are not magnetic. They actually ARE magnetic, but to such a fine degree, it is almost undetectable.

The slight magnetic attraction is why those two steel balls slowly attract to each other, without any resistance between them - hence the reason for the balls being suspended from the ground.

But you can prove me wrong, by using two chunks of wood, with no metal, non-ferrous material in either one.

Has anyone ever done this with wood before?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You don't seem to have much knowledge of how anything is proven, but what's really ironic is that you're accusing physicists of making assumptions, but it's actually you who are the one making the assumptions about how you think gravity should work.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You probably don't even understand how the Cavendish balance or other measurements of gravity work.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Scientists admit our gravity model isn't perfect (in the sense there are some esoteric problems it can't solve), but so far it's very consistent with observation and that's not an assumption, that's a fact.

Gravity is "very consistent with observation"? It's not even proven to exist, and you suggest that it is "very consistent"? For a non-proven, non-existent force - it's not even consistent within itself!

Gravity is supposed to hold/pull down all objects to Earth, which is proven false, as I've already explained.

The second thing claimed about gravity is that objects beyond a certain distance from Earth, are essentially free from its mighty grasp, and will 'float' in 'space', which they call '0 g', or weightlessness. I've heard the argument about a 'microgravity', but it's not relevant, since they claim objects 'float' above Earth, we'll go with that claim.

So now we come to the problem - our moon. It's claimed the moon is about 250,000 miles from Earth. And they've also claimed the moon is held in place by Earth's gravity..

If gravity cannot hold a floating astronaut, only a few thousand miles away from Earth, why do you think it can hold a moon a quarter-million miles away? With a giant invisible fish hook, cast from Earth, into 'outer space'?

Anything look 'very consistent' to you here?

Since you also ignored my entire point, and snipped out a couple sentences out of contest, it's rather ironic you'd talk about how I lack education of the sciences.

Science is supposed to be, and how I look at it, as our path to truths, and facts, which are only found through actual, valid evidence, and proof, beyond any doubt. If you don't see it the same way, you are not looking for the truth, the facts, and you will hold up anything as evidence, whether or not it is valid, to support your argument.

When I mentioned that gravity lacks proof, of even existing, I explained one of the main flaws of gravity as a force - the lack of any resistance to opposing forces.

Why you ignored the entire point, is not relevant to discuss. So if you could address the point ...

originally posted by: KrzYma
what quantum theory fools you with, is the trick to make light a point traveling though space and calling it particle/wave duality, there is no particle, just a wave...

watch this for more info...

Are you feeling OK? I can't remember you posting a video with such a mainstream view as this one. He is very clear about wave particle duality in his introduction, and chooses to focus on wave aspects but he doesn't deny particle aspects or wave/particle duality as you do. Here's what he says near the beginning:

"In the early 20th century, the particle character of light surfaced again, and this mysterious and very fascinating duality of being waves and particles at the same time is now beautifully merged in quantum mechanics, but today I will focus on the wave character only."

originally posted by: turbonium1
Why don't you try to replicate this with wood, and see if it works the same? If it did, I'm sure they'd have presented it endlessly by now, so maybe you can be the first to do it...

G is a difficult constant to measure since gravity is such a weak force. The accuracy when using a Cavendish balance can be improved by using dense materials, like lead, which is non-ferrous. The problem with wood is the density is much lower than with lead so it's going to be a lot harder to measure and the error will be greater as a result. Scientists are interested in reducing experimental error, not increasing it as your proposal would do.

Metals contain ferrous material, which may be in very small amounts, within steel, for example. That's why most people don't understand the Cavendish experiment is a sly trick. I'm saying that. because you'd probably reply that they use steel, or rocks, or perhaps bricks, which are not magnetic. They actually ARE magnetic, but to such a fine degree, it is almost undetectable.

Where is your evidence that lead behaves as you suggest? I've never seen any evidence it's magnetic.

Gravity is "very consistent with observation"? It's not even proven to exist, and you suggest that it is "very consistent"?

Newton posited gravity as a force. In Einstein's model, some physicists will tell you it's not actually a force, it's a pseudo or fictitious force, and yes observations in our solar system are very consistent with Einstein's model and mostly consistent with Newton's model with small exceptions like the precession of Mercury.

The second thing claimed about gravity is that objects beyond a certain distance from Earth, are essentially free from its mighty grasp, and will 'float' in 'space', which they call '0 g', or weightlessness. I've heard the argument about a 'microgravity', but it's not relevant, since they claim objects 'float' above Earth, we'll go with that claim.

This is just ignorance on your part. The gravitational acceleration near Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s/s. In the "microgravity" environment of the ISS, gravity is about 90% of that, so in no way is the ISS free from gravity's grasp, it keeps circling the earth because it's not free.

So now we come to the problem - our moon. It's claimed the moon is about 250,000 miles from Earth. And they've also claimed the moon is held in place by Earth's gravity..

If gravity cannot hold a floating astronaut, only a few thousand miles away from Earth, why do you think it can hold a moon a quarter-million miles away? With a giant invisible fish hook, cast from Earth, into 'outer space'?

Anything look 'very consistent' to you here?

Very consistent since I understand what "microgravity" is, but you don't understand it so that's your problem, not the physics and not gravity. To understand that you have to learn about inertia and how that appears to create a "zero-g" environment inside the ISS even though the gravity is still really 90% of Earth's surface gravity. Once you figure that out the moon is no problem.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Since you also ignored my entire point, and snipped out a couple sentences out of contest, it's rather ironic you'd talk about how I lack education of the sciences.

Science is supposed to be, and how I look at it, as our path to truths, and facts, which are only found through actual, valid evidence, and proof, beyond any doubt. If you don't see it the same way, you are not looking for the truth, the facts, and you will hold up anything as evidence, whether or not it is valid, to support your argument.

When I mentioned that gravity lacks proof, of even existing, I explained one of the main flaws of gravity as a force - the lack of any resistance to opposing forces.

Why you ignored the entire point, is not relevant to discuss. So if you could address the point ...

If I thought you were interested in learning, I would discuss your points. But, I've read your posting history and I think either you are not interested in learning, or, possibly, not capable of learning, after seeing things previously explained to you very clearly yet you still either didn't understand them, or pretended to not understand them, and maybe don't want to understand them because you are stuck in your world view. So I'll put some small effort here and there and see if any of it sinks in but I've seen many of these topics discussed before in other threads where you simply refused to accept the correct explanations so it would just be a waste of time to repeat that cycle here. There's not much space to get in depth here either, since mods will close the thread at 400 pages so it's about over.

a reply to: KrzYma

In my last reply to you. I put a diagram of why the video you posted is wrong.

He assumes that light waves are circular like the other examples he gives.

The other examples are because of resistance. This slows and curves the wave.

Light waves travelling up to the speed of light are triangular. No resistances. No distortion.No need to add theta either.

This diagram shows how light waves pass through the double slits.

The green zero's are the particle hits. The orange and red dots are the valley's (as he puts it). Orange being less than zero and red being greater than zero.



His maths are what i'm interested in. Very similar to what i'm doing. But he doesn't take it far enough.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: KrzYma

In my last reply to you. I put a diagram of why the video you posted is wrong.

As far as I can recall, most of the videos posted by KrzYma have been electric universe type things which are usually wrong.

However the most recent video he posted was called "8.02x - Lect 33 - Double-slit Interference, Interferometers"
The professor speaking at MIT is Dr. Walter Lewin, and I didn't find anything wrong with his lecture, he's teaching the same mainstream models I was taught some years ago...they haven't changed.

Lewin is doing demonstrations inside the classroom to prove his double slit interference models are correct. He calculates the prediction of the model where the interference cancellation should appear, measures the interference patterns, and they occur where predicted so I don't know how you can say he's wrong.

When he aims the laser at the double slit, the laser light is collimated, but when leaving the double slits it does tend to spread out from each slit in a circular pattern looking at a schematic in 2 dimensions. When he makes the diagram he refers to Huygens and calls them pinholes and in that case the classical models say the waves leaving the pinholes will indeed be "spherical" though really only half a sphere as he draws here with his half a circle coming from each slit or pinhole in 2D; see the right side of the blackboard:

www.youtube.com...


I don't think anybody understands your model except you and I'm not even sure if you understand it since you can't seem to explain it well enough for anybody else to understand it. Maybe the mainstream models like the one he's teaching aren't perfect (and we know the quantum model he's not teaching is more accurate than the classical model he's teaching), but still there's a lot of evidence supporting the mainstream models and he even demonstrates how the model works with light, sound and microwaves.

I can't even evaluate your model without understanding it, but I can't find anything wrong with what the MIT physics professor is saying so I don't know why you're saying he's wrong. On the contrary, I don't think he's wrong, and I thought he gave a very nice lecture with demonstrations.

You said you're interested in more maths. The MIT courseware lectures get into plenty of math, and they are free online and taught by good professors at MIT like Dr Lewin. Here's the playlist link for the entire "8.02x - MIT Physics II: Electricity and Magnetism" course where I'm sure you can find more math, be sure to check out the homework assignments and solutions since they get into more math than in the lecture.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not arguing with anything else in the video. Only that light waves are not spherical.

His maths lead to predictive evenly spaced max's. But only x1 and x2 (from 35 min in the video). Which is what we see in results of D/S experiments. Evenly spaced parallel bars.

If the waves were spherical. The result would be different.

In my first diagram of spherical waves to KrzYma. It clearly shows where the max's would be. In green bracketed zero's (you can use the 5 along the top black line (which is the detector screen). From the centre green (0). Call the next right (0) x1. And the next right (0) x2 if you wish.

The problem for me being. We don't see evenly spaced max's.

In my diagram. x1 would be 5 squares to the right of centre (0). x2 would be 8 squares to the right of x1.

I can't seem to copy pics and paste them here from ggle images. But there are pics of double spherical wave interference patterns which are full wave (not blocked by detector screen). And. If you put a ruler across the image (to substitute as detector screen). Again. It's not evenly spaced max's.

Apart from that. I have no problem with the video.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not arguing with anything else in the video. Only that light waves are not spherical.

He's not saying light waves are spherical in general. He made a drawing in the screenshot I posted above showing light striking an obstruction with a pinhole in it, and he draws circles on the other side of the pinhole to show how the light spreads out, maybe not perfectly spherically in intensity, but it has to be a sphere because a sphere is the distance from the pinhole to the radius of a sphere of photons traveling at the speed of light. So for example at 1 nanosecond after the photons left the pinhole, they have all travelled at a distance of 1 light nanosecond and they will all be on a sphere with radius 1 light nanosecond from the pinhole.

So that's how it has to be spherical, although that doesn't mean the distribution of photons on that sphere is uniform since even a single pinhole has its own diffraction aside from an interference pattern with two pinholes.

So about the spherical light, the professor is right and you're wrong, no surprise there.

Now about the geometry of the interference pattern, you apparently didn't pay enough attention to his lecture. When he does the calculations for the spacing of the interference pattern of two slits, he says that he is considering the case where the distance to the screen is VERY LARGE. And what do you do? You draw a picture to a screen with a distance which is VERY SMALL, and then say he is wrong. He didn't explain what would happen when the distance to the screen was very small, so that's what you are missing here.

Geometrically speaking the difference is that when the screen is close, the angles of the photons leaving the pinholes are not parallel and you get uneven spacing of the interference pattern on a flat screen, like your drawing. But if the screen is far away, the angles of the photons from the two slits can be approximated as parallel, which is what the professor states, and in that case the spacing is even.

So there are some caveats and assumptions in what he presents, but he explains them all, you just have to pay attention to what he is saying about things like the screen being very far away for the calculations he makes.

The problem for me being. We don't see evenly spaced max's.

We do for a single color if the screen is far away.

He explains why white light doesn't show even spacing because spacing depends on wavelength and white light is a mixture of wavelengths. But the spacing looks very even on his red and blue examples, as seen in this screenshot:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

From my understanding quarks are subatomic particles and are the most basic building blocks of matter that make up protons and neutrons. They're held together by the strong interaction, or strong force.

www.livescience.com...

Then gravity takes over.

What would happen to matter if the strong force suddenly disengage?

originally posted by: Skyfox81
What would happen to matter if the strong force suddenly disengage?

One thought that comes to mind is the early universe soon after the big bang didn't have atoms and molecules as we know them, it was sort of a quark-gluon plasma of rather high density and temperature. We try to recreate that in particle colliders like the LHC.

Without the strong force to hold the nucleii of atoms together the coulomb forces would cause the protons in every atom above hydrogen to fly apart, because it's the strong force holding those protons together, and the protons themselves (and neutrons) would disintegrate because it's the strong force holding the quarks in them together. So I suppose we would be in another quark state which is less dense than the early universe. I can't say quark gluon plasma, because in your proposal, are there still gluons which just don't obey the strong force, or does no strong force mean no gluons?

Also I'm not sure I see the point of this type of question which has no basis in reality. A more interesting question that considers the possible fate of our universe is whether our universe could end in a "big rip", where dark energy overpowers the other forces.

We know the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which is attributed to dark energy which is thought to be a "cosmological constant" which observations suggest is probably a constant (plus or minus 8% uncertainty). But what if it's not a constant? If it's gradually increasing, then dark energy will become stronger and stronger as time goes on. The 8% uncertainty limits how much stronger it can become so we know that atoms and molecules won't fly apart in the next 80 billion years. But after that, one possibility is not the strong force disappearing, but dark energy increasing if the cosmological constant is not constant, and if dark energy increases enough, it could cause even atoms and molecules to rip apart.

That seems unlikely to me and we are continually making better and better observations so the constraints in our observations will tighten further. I think they will show the cosmological constant is constant in which case there won't be a big rip, but so far we can't rule out a big rip with the uncertainty in our data.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
G is a difficult constant to measure since gravity is such a weak force.

Sure, 'gravity' holds everything to Earth, makes the oceans curve around a sphere, and holds a moon in place, but it is obviously "such a weak force", it cannot be measured accurately!!

How nice to have a 'force' that does all that, while it cannot be proven to do anything at all!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The accuracy when using a Cavendish balance can be improved by using dense materials, like lead, which is non-ferrous. The problem with wood is the density is much lower than with lead so it's going to be a lot harder to measure and the error will be greater as a result. Scientists are interested in reducing experimental error, not increasing it as your proposal would do.

They claim all objects are held/pulled down by 'gravity' to Earth's surface, wood included. You can't make excuses for any other material besides lead, or steel, because your claim includes ALL materials.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Where is your evidence that lead behaves as you suggest? I've never seen any evidence it's magnetic.

Because metals are not 100% pure, that's why they contain slight magnetic properties, which are only observed in such conditions. That's why the Cavendish experiment is a trick, an illusion, to appear as if 'gravity' is in play, by using metal objects, and they never use non-metallic objects. Because it would expose the trick, and they don't want that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Newton posited gravity as a force. In Einstein's model, some physicists will tell you it's not actually a force, it's a pseudo or fictitious force, and yes observations in our solar system are very consistent with Einstein's model and mostly consistent with Newton's model with small exceptions like the precession of Mercury.

It is NOT a force.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The gravitational acceleration near Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s/s. In the "microgravity" environment of the ISS, gravity is about 90% of that, so in no way is the ISS free from gravity's grasp, it keeps circling the earth because it's not free.

Astronauts would circle the Earth too, but they don't. You're making an excuse that doesn't work here.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Very consistent since I understand what "microgravity" is, but you don't understand it so that's your problem, not the physics and not gravity. To understand that you have to learn about inertia and how that appears to create a "zero-g" environment inside the ISS even though the gravity is still really 90% of Earth's surface gravity. Once you figure that out the moon is no problem.

Again, the astronauts float, they don't circle the Earth, in space. This proves there is no gravity.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If I thought you were interested in learning, I would discuss your points. But, I've read your posting history and I think either you are not interested in learning, or, possibly, not capable of learning, after seeing things previously explained to you very clearly yet you still either didn't understand them, or pretended to not understand them, and maybe don't want to understand them because you are stuck in your world view. So I'll put some small effort here and there and see if any of it sinks in but I've seen many of these topics discussed before in other threads where you simply refused to accept the correct explanations so it would just be a waste of time to repeat that cycle here. There's not much space to get in depth here either, since mods will close the thread at 400 pages so it's about over.

That's not answering my question of actual forces being proven by their resistance against opposing forces.

No excuses, address the question....

The reason I've always appreciated physics, above all of the other scientific fields, is the way it bases facts on real evidence, how it requires proof within the real world.

But they have abused it, for their agenda, and that's what I'm against here.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are you feeling OK? I can't remember you posting a video with such a mainstream view as this one.

??? you're joking right ??

this is waves and not point particle photon humbug, sure I post it... it really looks like you don't get it at all what I'm posting here the last few thousand pages...

this is physics !

and... he is mentioning the so called duality, sure... ever seen a professor questioning the MS giving longer lectures ??

sure all he says about the double split experiment and Huygens sources is correct ( your next post ).. all this is correct as long as light is a wave !!

I never said what we observe is wrong, I'm saying QM is interpreting it wrong is some cases..
I do not deny the physics, I refuse the QM interpretation of the physics !

anyway..

let's have a look at his lecture on quantum mechanics



so... let's start..

Maxwell equations should make the electron spiral into the proton immediately,
first example the mathematics are wrong ! we do exist so the equations are wrong...
why ??

protons and electrons have a size, proton is much bigger then electron as you know.
the electric field density is the same for electron and proton at a given point and additive, but the slope is not the same because of the surface field difference.
electron is much smaller and has bigger slope in the field as an proton at a given point between them,
if an electron is close to a proton, its electric slope dominates in the field, canceling the attraction force.
it can not fall into the proton as it looses it's attraction force, close to the proton.

a neutron is a proton electron two particle combination and not a particle on it self...
electrical neutral system that decay very quick if separated from the rest of the system of more charged particles..

I'm sure you don't get it at all

anyway...

so... back to the video

Bohr has 1914 postulated, electrons are not allowed to do what Maxwell calculated..
sure! told you the math is wrong !

but proton electron interactions create a shape, a shape that is defined by what I just told you
shape defined by resonance and standing electric waves made by the motion of electrons and protons.

time: 5:20 ...a corner stones of QM, electrons can only exist at well defined energy levels and they can not exist in between...
so... somebody says something by a ques and that is somehow the truth ??
you kidding me, right ??

now.. I try not to lough loud...

time: 5:45 ..when I heat a substance, the electrons can jump from low energy states to high energy stats...
?? what ??

energy ? what is energy anyway ?? is it this E in the equations or a physical thing ??

first of all.. energy is again just a term, a concept.
like time, like temperature, like good and bad
this is not a physical thing !
energy is a concept describing at least 2 body interaction.
it is not something you can touch or collect or put it into a bottle.

electrons do not put a hole in energy anywhere at any level somewhere humbug talk..

if an electron gets displaced, it still influences the space it left..
and they do not fall back to occupy any whatever he is trying to imply !!

7: 28... high energy states and low energy states is nothing else than the shape of the protons electrons system. there is no "energy", just the shape change in it. but YES... it comes out as radiation... told you about it few postings back

now... 8:30... he said "now you see"... NO, I don't see anything... "the more energy available the smaller the wavelength"

NO !!
the smaller the wavelength, the more rapid change in displacement of the corresponding charge.
there is no energy in a wave, there is just a slope as a directional change.

long waves have less slope, shorter waves have more slope...
but this slope in the field is not energy, its just the slope in the field at a giving time...
it makes charges displace, sure... but a 1m wave displaces a charge the same amount an 1mm wave, just slower.
energy is not something, energy is the interaction.
E=mc2 is a concept, not real

originally posted by: KrzYma
I never said what we observe is wrong, I'm saying QM is interpreting it wrong is some cases..
I do not deny the physics, I refuse the QM interpretation of the physics !

And you have a model that works better at making predictions? No, you don't. Regarding how to interpret QM itself, we aren't sure which interpretation of those mentioned in the opening post of this thread is correct, if any. But our uncertainty over the interpretation doesn't prevent the model from working at making accurate predictions in most cases.

now... 8:30... he said "now you see"... NO, I don't see anything... "the more energy available the smaller the wavelength"

I have no idea what you mean here and in most of your post, too many incomprehensible brain farts to address. "You see" is an expression, and he shows the formula saying that the longer the wavelength the lower the energy (and vice versa). I don't know if you mean you have some contradictory evidence or what; if so you should have posted it but that just sounds like nonsense since this energy versus wavelength relationship for electromagnetic radiation is well observed and documented. Your failure to understand this doesn't make it false.

NO !!
the smaller the wavelength, the more rapid change in displacement of the corresponding charge.

So it never occurred to you that you need more energy to move charges more rapidly? Duh I forgot you don't believe in time either so how can you even talk about "more rapid" if time is not a "thing" according to you?

energy is again just a term, a concept.
like time, like temperature, like good and bad
this is not a physical thing !

Your semantic rants may have been entertaining at one time, but they are very old now. "thing" is not a precisely defined term so to say whether it is a "thing" or not a "thing" is meaningless. Whatever you want to call it, it is more than just a concept that burned the holes in these metal sheets. These are real holes where the metal was turned into plasma by laser energy, not concepts.


www.youtube.com...

Hawking's radioactive decay is what supposedly keeps micro black holes from forming into actual black holes.
This decay is observed micro black holes moving at near the speed of light.
Two problems here.

First,
Hawking's radiation is theoretical.

Secondly,

The fact that this decay occurs at speeds near the speed of light means nothing when it pertains to the Large Hardon Collider.
Those particles travel very fast but nowhere near the speeds of micro blackholes in space.
They are traveling at speeds within the TeV range.
So the two things we can be certain of here is that

A) hawking's radiation is theoretical to begin with.

B) Even if Hawkings theory is correct we still have no idea if the same decay would occur at speeds far slower then the speed of light. No idea whatsoever what happened s to micro blackholes traveling at speeds within TeV range.

So my question is this-

Why WASN'T the creation and implementation of the LHC experiment incredibly irresponsible and incredibly dangerous?

It was not irresponsible for at least two reasons:
1. Scientists are confident that any black hole created by the LHC would pose no threat. How can they be so sure? Because of cosmic rays. Thousands of times per day, high-energy cosmic rays strike the Earth's atmosphere, colliding with molecules in the air with at least 20 times more energy than the most powerful collisions that the LHC can produce. So if this new accelerator could make Earth-devouring black holes, cosmic rays would have already done so billions of times during Earth's long history.
2. what would happen when a black hole is born inside the LHC? The surprising answer is "not much." Even if the black hole survives for more than a fraction of a second (which it probably wouldn't), most likely it would be flung out into space. It would only have the mass of a hundred or so protons, and it would be moving at near the speed of light, so it would easily have escape velocity. Because the tiny black hole would be less than a thousandth the size of a proton and would have an exceedingly weak gravitational pull, it could easily zip through solid rock without ever touching — or sucking in — any matter. From the perspective of something this tiny, the atoms that make up "solid" rock appear to be almost entirely empty space: the vast space between the atoms' nuclei and their orbiting electrons. So a micro black hole could shoot down through the center of the Earth and out the other side without causing any damage just as easily as it could shoot up through 300 feet of the Swiss countryside. Either way, it would end up out in the near-vacuum of space, where the odds of it touching and sucking in any matter so that it could grow into a menace would be smaller still.

You see, the paranoia about the LHC creating black holes is caused by lack of understanding and knowledge of physics. That's why physicists were never worried about their experiments at Cern producing microscopic black holes.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: delbertlarson
What I meant by photons changing from there to here was not the red-shift at their origin, but rather, once the red shift has occurred, it is my understanding that cosmologists assume no change from that point on occurs until they arrive at our telescopes, even though they have traveled for billions of years over billions of light-years of space.

"not the red-shift at their origin"...I have no idea what you're referring to here. Astronomers assume the stars have spectral output based on their size, composition, and evolution on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram like the stars in the milky way even if the stars are elsewhere. So they don't assume any red-shift at the origin that I know of.

"once the red shift has occurred, it is my understanding that cosmologists assume no change from that point on occurs until they arrive at our telescopes"...This makes even less sense to me. I have no idea what you're talking about with "from that point on", what point?

Recall that I am a proponent of absolute theory. What I meant by photons red-shifted at their origin is that as observed from an appropriate absolute frame, any photon of light from any far-distant galaxy is thought to emanate from a source moving away from earth at a rapid speed, and that light is red-shifted at its origin as a result. That origin of the light could come from any number of atomic decays or collisions, but whatever the particular source, the source is "that point" that I meant. It is the point of emission. The light then travels to our telescope from "that point". The mainstream arguments against tired light is one possible effect I was interested in learning more about.

I believe you posted concerning "tired light" in the past, but I did not follow up on the link at that time. If you have it handy, I'd appreciate a link to the tired light analysis.

Ned Wright's page on the topic was last updated 11 years ago and I think it still applies though astronomy is a fast moving field so there could be some more up-to-date papers out there, but it's still probably a good starting place for some fundamentals.

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

I think Eros said he was a professional astronomer at one point which I've never been so maybe he can correct me too if I said anything wrong, but as Matt O'Dowd says the real experts on NGC1052-DS2 are the ones writing papers about it, so my recommendation is to cut out the middlemen like me and Matt who might be misinterpreting something and read direct from the source papers

I looked at the tired light reference, thank you. Unfortunately I could not understand all the terms. This is what I expected would be the case. In most science and engineering fields, intelligent and creative minds produce all kinds of proposals for observed data, some of them fit quite well, and they then become the standard model for that field. Then, further intelligent and creative minds repeat the process with new data, adding to that model and it becomes complex. Then, to simplify discussion within the expert community, short phrases and acronyms are invented, which is called jargon. The jargon makes it easier for experts to converse with each other, but lay people are left behind. I am a layman with respect to astrophysics, and so could not understand all of the jargon in the tired light reference. The same problem with jargon applies to papers written by experts on dark matter and dark energy.

Hence, I am very happy to deal with you and Matt, as your presentations were not too deep into jargon, and in your case I can ask for clarification when I need further definition. However, while it is better to discuss things with you, you and I also have a problem with communication as evidenced above in this post concerning the red shift. My thinking has long been that we should return to 1904 and start over, and that leads to difficulty in communicating with my contemporaries.

I think you got confused between the bullet cluster which is based on observations over a decade ago in 2006 and involves some gas, and the more recent observations written up in 2019 about a galaxy that Matt nicknamed "Fritz" since it's easier to say than NGC1052-DS2, which is composed of stars. The only mention of gas I heard him make for current observations was for the bullet cluster, while in reference to Fritz when he mentions gas he's talking about theories or hypotheses for how Fritz might have formed from various sources of gas a long time ago, not commenting on how much gas it appears to have in the images reaching our telescopes.

Yes, I was thinking of the bullet cluster when I mentioned the gas. I took another look at Matt's video, as well as the other references you sent. Thanks. For the Fritz galaxies it is notable that they are ultra diffuse. I am now thinking that dark matter might be due to a dense galactic core (often including a black hole) that attracts the aether so strongly that it reduces the aetherial tension density and increases the aetherial mass density, and that once this happens within the core, outside of the core the density changes fall off as 1/r^2 due to simple geometry.

My aether model includes both a uniform mass density and a uniform tension in order to arrive at Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz force equation, so tension and mass densities are already in the theory. As mentioned in a Matt video, a uniform tension will essentially serve as a uniform negative mass, which in turn leads to a force that would accelerate galaxies outward, and this would explain observations attributed to dark energy, provided the stored tension energy exceeds the stored mass energy within the aether (since the stored mass energy would be attractive).

To explain dark mass, for a star in the arms of spiral galaxies, since motion is non-relativistic, we can set mv^2/r = GmM/r^2, or v^2 = GM/r. where G is the gravitational constant, v the star velocity, m is the mass of the star, and M is the attractive mass toward the center of the galaxy. Since v is observed to be constant for stars in the spiral arms, this says that the mass interior to stars in the arms is proportional to r. Since the mass density is M/r^3, this implies a mass density that falls off as 1/r^2, consistent with the proposal that the tension and mass densities are affected by the dense galactic core as described two paragraphs above.

So why would the effect show up primarily in dense regions? Because, as mentioned earlier, it is a non-linear effect. This comes about because as the galactic core pulls the aether into it, the mass of the aether that is pulled in increases the mass within the core. The core mass becomes the original mass plus the change in mass due to the pulled-in aether, and the mass of the pulled-in aether will pull in even more aether, and that is the source of the non-linearity. Hence, dark matter will show up more where matter is dense, and less where it is not. And it is less dense in gas clouds and ultra-diffuse galaxies.