It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A dissertation on Space and Time

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
I wouldn't call it ok as the values show on the graph correspond with the value in the text, giving the reader a false impression of the amplitude of AC waveforms with respect to the RMS value. But yes, the scaling is the same.


Ah. You are right.


Anyway you needn't have bothered with your post to devino - if you look above I had already given him the same info as you.


Couldn't resist fond memories of a college class



I think I will pass on the oscillating neutron electron field though.


You will? What about "mass being a pressure wave which resists gravitational collapse"?

Thanks for your posts in other threads, I found them informative.




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
OK, I am going to try and start responding... please remain aware that my responses may be delayed or slow due to my recovery.

Of course, my most auspicious detractor is first:
reply to post by buddhasystem

OK, I'll bite.

Great! You have shown yourself to be well-versed in present physics theory.


I don't see how that follows. You imply interaction, but that in no way leads to same identity.

Quite correct. The quick explanation I presented here does not serve to completely cover all aspects of this general hypothesis. It isn't meant to. Instead, it is meant to serve as a rough overview with the basic logic more or less intact.

A complete description would take up several pages, as opposed to a couple of posts.

Now, with that in mind, are you denying that matter and energy are different aspects of each other (and thus different aspects of the same thing)? If so, where does the energy from the sun (deuterium/tritium transforming into helium) come from? Is it not created by the difference in mass between the reactants and the product? How about a nuclear bomb? Is that energy not produced from the mass differential between the beginning product (uranium) and the end products? How about e=mc²? That equation is a blatant statement that energy and mass are one and the same, and is proven throughout recent scientific history, to a much higher standard than the existence of quarks, gravitons, gluons, or navigable wormholes.

Perhaps I could have went into a bit more detail here, but that is no reason to state that something as obvious as mass-energy equivalence is not true.


Modern physics does not have any problems measuring sizes of protons and neutrons. It also asserts that due to their structure (a sea of quarks and gluons, not unlike an atom) you can't consider it a hard sphere, so the matter is "exact size" is entirely moot.

While it is true that we have no way to know if a subatomic particle is indeed a sphere, it would appear to be logical that it would at least resemble a sphere. The quark theory you speak of is still unproven and purely hypothetical. While there have been a few instances where scientists appear to have observed quarks during high-energy collisions, I do not yet know of a single case where quarks have been observed coalescing into a neutron, proton, or electron, nor of any cases where such as been 'disassembled' to show quarks.

I should also point out that all of the theorized quarks have not yet been theoretically observed.

So, until research shows me that there are indeed these strange little particles (which will of course beg the question of what they are made of), I will consider the quark theory as just that: a theory seeking proof. Of course, my proposal does not deny the possible existence of quarks, as the predicted masses of such would be harmonics of the masses of their products. This would mean that quarks may indeed exist for short periods, but would be inherently less stable than more mundane matter particles. Ironically, that is what has been observed to date.

As to there not being any problems with measuring physical size, that would in itself appear to discredit the claim that a neutron is some jumble of particles. Such a jumble would be extremely difficult to measure in any kind of meaningful way; yet we do have measurements to within a few percentage points tolerance.


What circular area? How does "amplitude" relate to it? Why is it electromagnetic wave? None of these assertions make any sense.

Circular area simply due to a 'hunch' that an elementary particle would logically be spherical. I remind you that if you run the calculations I outlined, you will be rewarded with an equivalence between the energy of such a wave and the mass of the particle.

I used an electromagnetic wave because that is the propagation form of energy moving through the Universe. Yes, there are other types of energy, but a sound wave (for instance) doesn't seem to propagate very well without an atmosphere to contain it.

I will assume that I misread your statement and you are aware that sinusoidal waves have two characteristics: frequency and amplitude.


Why on Earth should I try to imagine that a neutrino is a trapped electromagnetic wave? What about gluon? Quark?

Because it might actually be true?

I also try to maintain an open mind with respect to the present theories of quantum mechanics. I do find many of the assertions made therein to be incredible. That does not mean I dismiss the assertions; it means I wait for someone to offer me some measure of observable, repeatable proof.


To the best of our knowledge, the particles you listed here are point-like, there is absolutely no sense in trying to assign a size to them.

I find it strange then that you earlier stated that physicists have no problem measuring these same particles.

A particle may, for purposes of calculation, act as a point charge. That is no different than considering the mass of the earth as concentrated at a point directly at the inertial center of the planet. It works for most calculations (to an impressive tolerance anyway), yet it does not discount the fact that the mass of the planet is more or less evenly distributed throughout the entire sphere of the planet and therefore will not act like a point charge in certain conditions.


Well even I accepted this nonsensical theory of your "harmonics", I'd still have to note that proton and neutron have different masses, hence the above statement is incorrect no matter what.

Yes, yes they do have slightly different masses. However, if my memory serves, there have been observations of a proton and electron, smashed together in a high-energy collision, forming a neutron.

The difference between a proton and a neutron would appear to me to be due to the separation of electrical charge of a proton/electron pair, as opposed to a neutron having no such charge separation. If this is true, then the two particles may be considered as similar enough to consider together, just like a particle may be considered to be a point charge for calculation.


What is, pray tell, "quantum nature of matter", and how the alleged harmonics explain same?

Quantum: only capable of achieving quantities that are a multiple of a given value.

In other words, one can have 1,543,577 protons, but not 1,543,577.5 protons.

I would think you would have grasped that...


Huh? A helium balloon is heavier than a lead sinker?

Oh, now you're being silly.

My comparison was assuming similar densities of materials. My apologies for not specifying that; I didn't think it necessary to specify something so obvious.


Why do you call simple particle count a "quantum effect"? Just to make it sound scientific?

If anything, I am trying to make this sound unscientific (yes, I know, you believe I succeeded in that). I use the term because it is accurate. See my description of 'quantum' above.


A nucleus with a larger number of nucleons is heavier than nucleus of the same element, which is a lighter isotope.

The principle is still the same as in the macro realm. We are not discussing a single particle; therefore the more particles, the more mass (assuming identical masses and density of those particles).


Where did you get this notion?

(referring to my assertion that electron physical size is an interpolation based on electron mass)

I got that notion from a couple dozen physics textbooks and college-level physics courses.


Again, completely false.

JUNK SCIENCE ALERT

While I am awed by the company you place me in with that remark (Newton, Einstein, DaVinci, Gallileo, Tesla, etc.), I must unequivocally state that I do not place myself in such company. I do not wish to be placed on such a pedestal.

But thank you for the thought.


TheRedneck


[edit on 11/11/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Its so obvious to me why science has yet to define gravity. It's because gravity is smeared across time. We have yet to measure the force of gravity correctly because we only measure an instant of time rather than the total force of gravity through a time period.

This is the smoking gun. It explains dark matter and dark energy. It's just gravity force we are not acknowledging.

The warp in space caused by black holes, suns and planets does not fill in immediately as the mass moves through space.

I am not sure I am explaining it correctly. I would imagine the difference in the expected matter in the universe and what they can detected is a result of not taking in account the remaining gravity as mass moves through space time.

The gravity earth created just now as we move through space is still there effecting and adding to the gravity Earth is creating now.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Great! You have shown yourself to be well-versed in present physics theory.


Thanks for appreciating that. Truth be told, my physics is rusty compared to what it was 20 years ago.


Now, with that in mind, are you denying that matter and energy are different aspects of each other (and thus different aspects of the same thing)?


I'm not. By now this is a trivial piece of common knowledge.



That equation is a blatant statement that energy and mass are one and the same, and is proven throughout recent scientific history, to a much higher standard than the existence of quarks, gravitons, gluons, or navigable wormholes.


Ouch. Please don't pile up quarks and navigable wormholes. This is an exercise in demagoguery.


While it is true that we have no way to know if a subatomic particle is indeed a sphere, it would appear to be logical that it would at least resemble a sphere.


It wouldn't.


The quark theory you speak of is still unproven and purely hypothetical.


Sorry you are late to the party.


I do not yet know of a single case where quarks have been observed coalescing into a neutron, proton, or electron, nor of any cases where such as been 'disassembled' to show quarks.


Quarks can not coalesce into electrons, these are fundamental building blocks of the Universe and quite distinct. We observe scattering of quarks which fragment into observable hadrons.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino

I believe the simple answers are usually the best and this is certainly true in a cosmological sense.

I believe something similar. I believe the most reasonable answers based on previous, reliable knowledge are the best. These are usually the simplest answers.

There is an easy trap to fall into when considering scientific evidence. The other night, while convalescing, I was watching TV. An old show by Carl Sagan came on. Now I liked Carl; I liked his style, his ability to explain things in such a way that even the most uneducated could understand things to some degree. And he put forth a scenario talking about Venus that I find appropriate here.

When Venus was first observed closely enough to see, it was found to be covered in a dense layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, obviously. That can only mean there is water on Venus, and apparently a lot of it. What do we call water-rich areas on earth? Swamps, of course. So Venus must be covered in swamps. What lives in swamps? Plant life. So these are rich, luscious swamps. What else lives in rich luscious swamps? According to the fossil records, dinosaurs lived in them. So there must be dinosaurs on Venus!

Obviously, we know much better now. Those clouds are not filled with water, but with poisonous sulfur dioxide, meaning Venus is lifeless and barren. But that little example shows how easily one's imagination can run away with them. I feel a similar thing has happened with quantum and astro-physics. Instead of using mathematics for what it is, a language of physics, it has been used to make predictions and advance hypothesis that are simply illogical. Perhaps my favorite is the 'graviton', the supposed particle responsible for gravity. Subatomic particles are exchanging these 'gravitons' between them in order to create a pull between them, according to one of the present theories being bandied about. But think about that a moment: by expelling a 'graviton', a particle actually accelerates in the same direction as the expelled 'graviton'... a clear reversal of Isaac Newton's physical laws.


It is very useful to forget the dark matter/energy idea, it is based on the failings of the big bang theory and does not exist. There is a force that makes everything happen but I don't consider it a force that holds everything together, more like the origin of rotation. This idea is the start of a very simple understanding of matter and energy as far as I can tell (the origin of rotation).

Dark matter came about as nothing more than a failure in our ability to predict reactions of matter based on our understanding of gravity. Areas of space showed more gravitation attraction than could be explained by the matter in the area. So someone came up with the idea that there must be matter there, but apparently the only way it can be observed is by its gravity. And so, there must be dinosaurs on Venus.


I am personally torn about the Big Bang Theory. It does hold some logic, but there are some things that it does not adequately explain. I have heard it suggested that there never was a 'Big Bang', but that we still exist inside a singularity. We simply don't know it because our frame of reference is that of existing inside the singularity (This is eerily similar in some ways to the 'quantum foam' theory as well). While I do not support that theory, I do recognize it exists and as such should at least be considered.


I have a question about this part, I would consider electrons to be a force rather than a little ball. When dealing with atoms I think their size is proportional to their weight, separate water and we would get 4 times more volume of Oxygen than Hydrogen since Oxygen is 8 times heavier yet there are two Hydrogen per water molecule.

Actually, when dealing with mass, an oxygen atom weighs about 16 units, while a hydrogen atom weighs about 2. So you would have 8 times the difference.

The idea of something heavier being also smaller by virtue of its mass is a little difficult at first. But when dealing with standing waves, the more energetic the wave (due to its frequency), the smaller the wavelength, and thus the smaller the standing wave. Your explanation as it pertains to multiple atoms is correct; it is only when dealing with individual particles as opposed to masses of particles that the standing wave function comes into play.


I still consider this to be an error. Something else, Math is one of the few things in the Universe that can actually be incorrect.

Mathematics is never wrong and will never lie to you. It will always answer the question asked. Now, if you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer, but that does not mean mathematics is in error.

Mathematics is a language. It is the language used to understand the facts you mentioned, since it is a very precise language ideally suited to exploring concepts where more common languages fail. We can specify mathematically any property of any object, yet, try to explain how to build a building without using numbers. You will find it very difficult.

Since it is a language, it can be misunderstood. There is an old series of equations that have been used over and over to prove that 1+1=1. The procedure is deceptive; at one point in the equations, the divisor reduces to zero. At that point, the equations become worthless and prove nothing.


As you are describing I view electrons (and atoms for that matter) as standing waves and not little balls nor mini solar systems.

Personally, I tend to view them as point charges. The concepts seem to become easier to grasp for me when viewed that way. When it all comes down to brass tacks, all the theories we have are simply mental models to help us understand the truth, as opposed to actually being the truth.

I tend to agree with you that electrons especially seem to exhibit more properties like a standing wave than a material particle. Of course, this could be due to their light mass, which equates to a large physical area (long wavelength) and thus a very low energy density compared to a nucleon. Bear in mind that when we touch something, we are really touching force fields. The atoms in my hand do not actually make contact with the keys as I type this. The illusion of touch is actually repulsion between the atomic and molecular structure in my fingers and that in the keys.


Here is another boundary for relative thinking like in the equivalence principle, Objects can accelerate faster than the speed of light but the Observer would never know it. It is like falling into a theoretical black hole. For you, when you fall in, things get bad real fast and quickly your life comes to a crushing end. For me I see you forever on the event horizon and think that this means your still alive. In a way you have become the hologram.

Actually, I don't think they can. Consider what would happen if you decided to take a light-speed trip from here to Alpha Centauri. You would accelerate to the speed of light, at which time I, as an observer, would indeed see your progression through time approach a complete stop, your mass approach infinite, and your length in the direction of travel approach zero. But you, as you observe the Universe around you, would see the same thing. Motion is relative, and your movement at the speed of light relative to me means my motion relative to you is also at the speed of light. You would see the Universe approach zero length in the direction you are traveling in (the same direction the Universe is traveling in with respect to you), which means your origin and destination would approach each other. Your trip would reduce to traveling the barest distance imaginable; you would literally be in two places at the same time.

In other words, you cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because the speed of light is de facto infinite to start with.

Now, black holes and relativity get a little crazy. Suppose you were moving at the speed of light toward a black hole. The Schwarzchild Radius is the point at which the speed of the continuum equals the speed of light. But as you are also moving at the speed of light, then the movement of the continuum relative to you is different that that relative to a 'stationary' observer. The closer you appraoch the Schwarzchild Radius, the farther away it appears. That means that you see the black hole as smaller the faster you are moving.

Does this mean that one can fly right through a black hole if one is moving fast enough? Perhaps. Consider for a moment that it is not really your position in space that matters so much as your position in the continuum. If that continuum is stretched, then you could be stretched as well, without ever realizing it. If that continuum makes the 90° shift I mentioned, then perhaps you could make that 90° shift as well without even realizing anything had changed. Of course, the 'stationary' observer would see you as disappearing into the balck hole, but would you not see that same observer as disappearing as well?

This is what I mean when I say this is only the beginning, a bare foundation.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe something similar. I believe the most reasonable answers based on previous, reliable knowledge are the best. These are usually the simplest answers.


There are numerous cases where "previous, reliable knowledge" turned out to be crap. It's amazing that you would cling to this (to say that in an unPC way) retarded view of the world.

Regarding Venus and whatever Carl had to say about it:

Those clouds are not filled with water, but with poisonous sulfur dioxide, meaning Venus is lifeless and barren.


Well there may be (just may be) a different kind of life that thrives in sulphur dioxide atmosphere. I find it frankly pathetic that you advocate open mind in in one case and then proceed to discredit same two paragraphs down.


Instead of using mathematics for what it is, a language of physics, it has been used to make predictions and advance hypothesis that are simply illogical.


I doubt that you completed an honest, Ivy League school level of quantum mechanics. As such, your proclamations of physics being "illogical" are silly at best.


But think about that a moment: by expelling a 'graviton', a particle actually accelerates in the same direction as the expelled 'graviton'... a clear reversal of Isaac Newton's physical laws.


Sheesh, ignorance at its raging best... What do you know about the emission of a photon and how it can create an attraction force?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino

My calculator says the square root of -1 = Error, this is what I meant by the "Error" in mathematics.

It's the difference between mathematics and arithmetic. Arithmetic is what your calculator can do, including addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, and exponentials/logarithms. Mathematics involves more of a subjective assessment of variables. As a small example, take the case of limits. Even though one cannot arithmetically calculate a division by zero, one can perform such calculations on numbers very close to zero. By analyzing the pattern of values obtained as one approaches zero, one can interpolate that the actual answer to division by zero is infinity. But since your calculator cannot display infinity (much less comprehend it), it will give an error should you try to divide by zero.


i actually stands for infinity since the concept of Zero is the mathematical event horizon.

i in the context I am using is the mathematical equivalent of √(-1), not infinity. It is encountered with some regularity when working with quadratics, and until one reaches higher levels of mathematical instruction, the very existence of i indicates a non-extant answer. This is simply due to the fact that in order to understand the application of i, one must consider the context under which it appears.

Your calculator can't understand i either. Try to take the square root of negative one and I promise you it will give another error.

I'm not sure I follow the rest of your paragraph; pi is definitely not infinity...


I would like to point out another concept that is often missed, the difference between velocity and acceleration from a relativistic view. Inertia is the resistance to acceleration not velocity, so velocity becomes momentum. Inertia becomes mass from the energy of the force that is accelerating it. Inertial mass is mass, length contraction is a crushing force from the resistance to acceleration and time dilation is due to the increase in gravity from the increase in mass. Here again I see the Equivalence Principle, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.

A lot of people do miss this point. Yes, acceleration is separate from velocity. In Einstein's thought experiment I started with, the car is accelerated to turn inertia into gravity. Velocity is irrelevant, since there would be no inertial force inherent of the velocity.

The two are of course related. Velocity is a result of acceleration and time. And when considering relativistic effects, it is not acceleration that is key, but velocity. Velocity controls the inertia, which then affects acceleration (F=ma).

That is an interesting thought on the relationship between the different relativistic effects. I will have to consider it before I answer in detail.



Is 'c' at a right angle to ' v '? In an 'x', 'y' axis the numbers intersect at a right angle which creates orbital or rotational motions.

No, 't' (time) would be at right angles to 'v' (velocity). 'c' (light speed) would be analogous to the combined vectoral length of the two components 'x' and 'y'.

d = √(x² + y²) (Pythagorean Theorem)
c = √(t² + v²) (Relativity, with 't' representing time and 'v' representing velocity)

Maybe my explanation was a bit confusing; if so, I hope this clears it up some. The fact that I am not a math teacher is probably a good thing.



I think I see an error in this thought, our speed through time is related to three things and you have only represented one of them. They are speed (either in acceleration or velocity), mass and the observer (we have to observe this happen).

Speed (velocity), yes. Mass is not a cause of our movement through time, but is rather another symptom of the same relativistic phenomenon that changes our speed through time.

The observer is an interesting aspect. For the purposes of the OP, I tended to ignore most of this aspect, simply because I wanted people to understand what it was I was trying to get across. Yes, as the observer themselves come into motion, things get much more interesting. I touched on a little of this at the end of my last reply to you.


I am following your point but I think you might be forgetting something, "inertial frame of reference". This is something that is not taught in math, astronomy nor physics. Some call it a personal perspective, point of view, the "seer", our ego, etc... and is a spiritual or metaphysical part to this equation. The particle would enter a different point of observation, not unlike the one it left, yet we would continue to 'see' this particle as its image would be imprinted in that spot throughout time. It would not disappear but appear to stop "think of a hologram". By the way scientifically this whole "Black Hole" stuff has gotten out of hand, it is a theory that has been described very poorly. What is actually taking place I feel is close but rather quite different.

If one looks at the black hole from the perspective of the Schwarzchild Radius being a bend in the continuum into a different dimensional realm, then the relativistic observations can be seen as simply perspective from different points along this curve.


This sound too much like creating cold or darkness to me. Anti-particles would be the absent of particles so if you were to take away an equal amount of energy that is contained in a particle it would be annihilated and if you were to add an equal amount you would double it. There is still some profound reasoning here but it's more interesting than simply making ice cubes.

Nothing is ever at rest and it is quite possible that the concept of "Anti-Particles" is the point of "at rest" for a particle. To consider this in a more common manner it is the absolute zero of temperatures, absolute darkness of light and absolute void of space. It is the low end limitation of E=MC^2, a point of infinite non-existence.

Anti-matter is not an absence of matter; it is instead an actual reversal of normal matter. Each particle has an anti-particle that is equal but opposite in all respects. An anti-proton is the inverse of a proton, negative in electrical charge instead of positive, with reversed spin characteristics, and I believe, a reversed (or negative) mass. Similarly, a positron (anti-matter counterpart to an electron; an anti-electron) has a positive electrical charge instead of a negative charge.

These are fairly well-known in physics, having been created for short periods of time on a number of occasions.


I understand this as taking the energy of 2 to destroy 1 and you are left with one (or 2 - 1=1).

Not exactly. It's the energy of two being used to destroy (or create) two.

If a particle and a corresponding anti-particle meet, they are both annihilated and in the process release energy equal to two times the mass of the particle according to e=mc². In order to create a particle and an anti-particle, energy equal to twice the mass of the particle according to e=mc² is required. As far as I know, no one has yet been able to create a particle from energy without also creating its anti-particle (although if it has happened, I am sure buddhasystem will inform me.
).


I think I am beginning to understand how a wave structure can create matter, nice!




However, keep in mind that the only way we could view an anti-particle (or anything else) moving backward in time is if we were to become anti-particles that were moving backward in time. Of coarse if we did that the 'Anti-' and 'Back' would be candled in us both and observation would cease between 'us' and those we left behind.

Not necessarily. it is possible to view our travel through time as an infinite series of 'snapshots' of what is around us. Therefore, if something existed in the time we were experiencing, but was moving backward through time relative to ourselves, we would see it behave as though it were the complete inverse of what we would see were it moving in the same direction chronologically as we are. Any spin would be backwards, gravitational effects would be reversed (anti-gravity), and any motion it undertook while on that backward journey would be seen in reverse.


There are many different 'realities' of time but they might all seem normal to those that are observing inside. Outside observation cannot exist simply because one cannot be in more than one place at a time. Omnipresence is truely ineffable.
I believe that this is beginning to open the understanding of different dimensions but to travel amongst these dimensions could have grave side effects.

It is indeed difficult to understand things which are not in line with our present understandings and experience. I am still amazed that people simply take for granted that things fall to earth, when in reality why should there be some mysterious force that causes this? It is due to our experience and knowledge that this is what happens 'normally' that we see gravity as just a mundane force.

Can you imagine what the reaction of people would be should the laws of physics change? And it may well be possible that these laws do indeed change depending on our position in the different dimensions.

If this expose opens one mind to the possibilities that lie outside present scientific though, then it was well worth everything I have put into it.


TheRedneck


[edit on 11/11/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

Thanks for appreciating that. Truth be told, my physics is rusty compared to what it was 20 years ago.

You are fairly well-known for your knowledge in this area at ATS. It would be disingenuous of me to ignore that reputation (as well as my previous experiences with you).

And believe me, we all have those areas we wish we were as up on as we were in college. If you don't use it, you lose it.


Ouch. Please don't pile up quarks and navigable wormholes. This is an exercise in demagoguery.

Believe me, I didn't mean it in that way. Just because I relate commonalities among two different objects does not mean I consider them as equal in other ways.

I'll make you a deal: I won't try to equate quarks (possible but as yet unproven theory to my standards) with navigable wormholes (thus far science fiction without any real basis behind them) if you'll at least read my responses without assuming I have never studied quantum mechanics.



Sorry you are late to the party.

Not late, but maybe slow. Let me ask directly: Have there been any observations of quarks coalescing/integrating into nucleons, or of nucleons disseminating/disintegrating into the predicted quarks? I will admit the possibility I may be ignorant of any such observations.

My knowledge is that quarks may have been observed (based on quick observation) under high-energy collisions, but they dissipated into energy quickly. I also understand even this has happened rarely and is one of the reasons for the excitement behind the LHC.


Quarks can not coalesce into electrons, these are fundamental building blocks of the Universe and quite distinct. We observe scattering of quarks which fragment into observable hadrons.

You are correct about electrons; I misspoke when I included them.

I am a bit confused about the last sentence in the quote. Quarks are components of hadrons; therefore how can they fragment into hadrons? Should the hadrons not fragment into quarks?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

There are numerous cases where "previous, reliable knowledge" turned out to be crap. It's amazing that you would cling to this (to say that in an unPC way) retarded view of the world.

I am coming to believe that I may not be communicating with you as well as I would like to.

I consider such 'previous, reliable knowledge' to be along the lines of Newton;s Laws of Motion, Einstein's Relativity, Ohm's Laws, and similar previous knowledge which has withstood the test of time and scientific scrutiny sufficiently to be accepted as reliable. All of the above examples have been shown over and over to be accurate (within certain conditions, such as Newton's Laws of Motion).

No one can begin to understand scientific principles without utilizing previous knowledge. Yet, any such previous knowledge must be vetted. Therefore I question any theory which has not withstood the true tests of time and scrutiny. That is not the same as dismissing such a theory.


Well there may be (just may be) a different kind of life that thrives in sulphur dioxide atmosphere.

Possibly. Yet, since I have seen no proof that such life is even possible, much less exists, I will not consider such a hypothesis as trustworthy.


I find it frankly pathetic that you advocate open mind in in one case and then proceed to discredit same two paragraphs down.

I am not sure exactly where I exhibited such hypocrisy. Please elaborate.

My mention of Mr. Sagan's little tale (which was terribly simplified, by both he and I in turn) was not to declare that there are no dinosaurs on Venus. It was to show how easily an observation can be turned into much more than it actually indicates. Surely you can agree that supposition is a very dangerous thing when taken as fact.

And before you mention it, I am aware that my entire OP was supposition; I never endorsed it as anything more. There is a difference between taking a supposition as fact and investigating supposition to determine if it may contain factual information.


I doubt that you completed an honest, Ivy League school level of quantum mechanics. As such, your proclamations of physics being "illogical" are silly at best.

I was unaware that only Ivy League institutions were capable of disseminating information.

I find your elitist demeanor disturbing. Can we stick to the topic, please?


What do you know about the emission of a photon and how it can create an attraction force?

According to the present theories, probably the same things you do. The difference is I see holes in those theories that have not been adequately explained, while you do not.

Science advances through questioning held theories. It does not advance through blanket acceptance of whatever is written in a book. Feel free to question me on my OP (as you have been doing very well). But do not expect me to not question theories I find implausible.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Sorry if I came across as rude in a couple of recent posts. I just find it difficult to engage in pure speculation that is not grounded in some physics experiment and does not result in predictions that can be verified.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
Not a problem.


I actually appreciate your criticisms. Seriously! Please continue. Without some criticism, some questioning, nothing would ever advance. Without someone challenging that the earth was flat, we would still not know about the American continents. Without someone challenging the 'fact' that the earth was the center of the Universe, we would not have the cosmological advances we have today, and surely could not have landed a man on the moon or a rover on Mars. Without challenge, we would not know about Relativity.

As far as scientific experimentation as a basis, that is not required at the onset of an idea. It has been said that Einstein's greatest contribution to science was his 'thought experiment', a simple mental exercise into reality. Without further experimentation and accurate predictions, of course, they would have been useless, but it would also be useless to ignore thought and insight without at least attempting to experimentally prove the veracity of such thought and insight.

All of today's present theories and laws of physics began with a simple idea in someone's mind. The experimentation comes next.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
All of today's present theories and laws of physics began with a simple idea in someone's mind. The experimentation comes next.


To begin with, any theory must adequately explain the already existing body of experimental data. I find little if anything to this effect, in this thread.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I read your reply on relativity and I would like to add a bit of my own understanding and most importantly that I feel it has everything to do with the observer's "inertial frame of reference".

Two observers traveling towards each other, each at a velocity of 75% the speed of light, both would measure light coming from all directions moving at the same rate. Neither observer would be able to tell if they were moving or their observation was moving without a fixed point to measure from. If we were able to step outside of these "inertial frames of references" we might measure both observers moving at a combined velocity of 150% to that of light but we can't do this. Add any number of observers all moving in different directions and at different velocities and the same thing happens, all measurements of the speed of light are the same.

Above explains the motion of velocity, however, accelerations are a different story. Accelerations result in the "fictitious" forces; Inertia, Centrifugal force and Gravity. All of these are related to accelerations and I think are one of the same. Linear acceleration and rotational motion generate a fictitious force or a force that is opposite to the direction of motion. Since gravity is a fictitious force does that mean it's in the opposite direction to acceleration? I believe that the key is in understanding these "false" forces.

Rotational motion (velocity) and gravity (weight) are both constant accelerations yet do not increase their speed. As an object rotates it is under a constant acceleration, a centrifugal force is created and since inertia resists this then inertial mass is present from this motion constantly. Increase the mass and an increase in the force is needed to keep the same rate of rotation, increase the rate of rotation and we increase the inertial mass. If this is the origin of rotation, a fictitious energy that is creating these fictitious forces, then this should be measurable in the amount of angular momentum.

In other words...Energy is Mass in Motion...Motion creates Mass from Energy...Mass stores Energy in its Motion.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

I find little if anything to this effect, in this thread.

Then may I respectfully suggest you re-read it, perhaps with a more open mind?

I have explained the wave nature of light... the actual cause of the inaccuracies in gravitational observation that are sole basis for 'dark matter', the paradox of black holes losing matter over time (as suggested by Dr. Stephen Hawking), the reason some of the more exotic sub-atomic particles exist only momentarily, and the relationship which equates gravity and inertia.

These explanations do not, however, bow to previous theories which are 'proven' in only an indirect way and which are only supported by mathematical suppositions. For that, I apologize.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino

Two observers traveling towards each other, each at a velocity of 75% the speed of light, both would measure light coming from all directions moving at the same rate. Neither observer would be able to tell if they were moving or their observation was moving without a fixed point to measure from. If we were able to step outside of these "inertial frames of references" we might measure both observers moving at a combined velocity of 150% to that of light but we can't do this. Add any number of observers all moving in different directions and at different velocities and the same thing happens, all measurements of the speed of light are the same.

Yep, that is Relativity. No matter the conditions, the observation of the speed of light will always be at that stubborn constant: about 300,000 km/s.

Einstein realized this, and in process also realized that for this to be true, observations of time, mass, and distance would have to change to allow it. Of course,we are not used to seeing such things in a variable sense, so it can be difficult for some to grasp.


Above explains the motion of velocity, however, accelerations are a different story. Accelerations result in the "fictitious" forces; Inertia, Centrifugal force and Gravity. All of these are related to accelerations and I think are one of the same. Linear acceleration and rotational motion generate a fictitious force or a force that is opposite to the direction of motion. Since gravity is a fictitious force does that mean it's in the opposite direction to acceleration? I believe that the key is in understanding these "false" forces.

I don't consider such to be 'false' forces, but given that there are not any really good words to describe such alien phenomena, I'm not going to make a big deal out of that. 'Continuum' isn't exactly accurate either; it's just the closest word I could come up with.


Beyond that, yes, gravity and inertia are one and the same, both being the oppositional force to motion; inertia due to movement through the continuum and gravity due to motion of the continuum.


Rotational motion (velocity) and gravity (weight) are both constant accelerations yet do not increase their speed. As an object rotates it is under a constant acceleration, a centrifugal force is created and since inertia resists this then inertial mass is present from this motion constantly. Increase the mass and an increase in the force is needed to keep the same rate of rotation, increase the rate of rotation and we increase the inertial mass. If this is the origin of rotation, a fictitious energy that is creating these fictitious forces, then this should be measurable in the amount of angular momentum.

As indeed it is measurable as such.

I do believe you are understanding the things I have tried to explain.



In other words...Energy is Mass in Motion...Motion creates Mass from Energy...Mass stores Energy in its Motion.

The only problem with this is that it is incomplete. Energy can be a measure of motion and inertial mass, yes. But it can also be in the form of fluctuations in the value of the continuum, much as water waves in a pond are fluctuations in the level of the water surface. Of course, if we consider that all motion of mass is actually motion of standing waves in the continuum through that same continuum,then it becomes apparent that both 'forms' of energy, the one you mention as well as the one I add to that mention, are inherently the same.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I don't consider such to be 'false' forces, but given that there are not any really good words to describe such alien phenomena, I'm not going to make a big deal out of that. 'Continuum' isn't exactly accurate either; it's just the closest word I could come up with.


I don't consider these to be false either and I have read what I could find about these forces and why they are considered fictitious. I call them that for lack of a better term.
Keep in mind that some of the words used here to describe such phenomena are not new. The word "Aether" goes back at least 2,000 years and "Quintessence" originates beyond recorded history so these words are not trivial nor pompous.



Rotational motion (velocity) and gravity (weight) are both constant accelerations...

As indeed it is measurable as such.

The Milky Way has a huge amount of energy from its rotational velocity. The energy accelerating all of the stars within our galaxy is being conserved in its angular motion. All of these motions; Earth's axial spin, orbit, Sun oscillations and galactic rotation create our local time dilation which would be different outside of these motions. Once we are removed from these accelerations our perception of time and motion are changed. Galaxies do not rotate correctly under the laws of gravity alone. There is another force accelerating everything and I don't think it is dark or beyond measure.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino

The word "Aether" goes back at least 2,000 years...

You know, the first time I realized that there must indeed be something which encompasses space, I used the word 'aether' to describe it. Over the years I became uncomfortable with the connotations of the word in scientific circles and thus renamed it, first to 'space-time grid', then finally to 'continuum'.

The written language is a tricky thing, which is why I prefer mathematics. If I mention 'aether', it brings up memories of the old theory that there was some sort of matter encompassing space, which has become a laughing-stock example of poor science. Ironically, the old idea of a material 'aether' has indeed resurfaced; we now call it 'dark matter'.


Galaxies do not rotate correctly under the laws of gravity alone. There is another force accelerating everything and I don't think it is dark or beyond measure.

That is where the very idea of 'dark matter' comes from: observations that the laws of centrifugal motion are not followed correctly in some galactic rotations. On earth, we have determined exactly the relationship between angular velocity, mass, and centrifugal force. It only makes sense that this relationship would be maintained in the Universe. Yet, it is apparently not being maintained.

Just as Einstein discovered that values we perceive as constant here on earth (time, distance, mass) are actually variables, I believe gravitation as well to be variable. Consider for a moment what would happen if my concept in the OP is correct: gravity is the flow of the continuum as it is drawn into matter from antimatter arranged at the edge of the Universe. That means that there would be an overall current of continuum that would be more pronounced where more matter is accumulated, as in the center of a galaxy. The elasticity of this continuum would serve to give different gravitational values depending on the flow of the continuum itself, thereby giving erroneous readings when in areas of large matter density.

This also has implications for 2012, when our solar system crosses the galactic axis. It is entirely possible that slight changes could occur in our own observations of gravitation on earth, as though we were suddenly pulled into or away from an otherwise constant current.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by buddhasystem

I find little if anything to this effect, in this thread.

I have explained the wave nature of light... the reason some of the more exotic sub-atomic particles exist only momentarily, and the relationship which equates gravity and inertia.


Well let's see what you have to say about particle decays:


If there is one such harmonic, it stands to reason there would be others, and this would account for the existence of other particles: quarks, muons, neutrinos, electrons, etc. However, some of these harmonic frequencies would be less stable than others, and so we also have an accounting of why certain particles decay more rapidly than others. The main harmonic of the Universe would seem to be the proton/neutron wavelength, with other particles existing sporatically at other harmonics. It also explains the quantum nature of matter, since particles could only exist at these harmonic frequencies.


You do know that neutron is unstable, right? It can only exist inside a nucleus for a considerable amount of time, but not in it's "fundamental state". So, for the face value, something is already wrong with your assertions.

Your explanation of different rates of decay is not an explanation at all, actually, because saying "one frequency is more stable than another" is not an explanation. It's just a way of saying "things are made this way", and does not give any insight into the process. It also ignores the cause of particular particles produced in a particular decay. Why doesn't a neutron decay into a positron and an electron, which are both perfectly stable?


Unless you have a scrap of explanation of why neutron is unstable while proton is stable, and why the ratio of the neutron half life to that of any resonance is what it is, I'd have no choice but still relegate this "theory" to the realm of junk science.


[edit on 16-11-2009 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

A difference of terminology, as well as an admitted omission on my part.

Inside the nucleus, obviously a neutron is undergoing forces from closely neighboring particles which apparently allow it to exist as stable. Outside the nucleus, removed from these forces, the neutron decays into a proton and electron. Yes, this indicates that the actual stable frequency is that of the proton and not the neutron, just as the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron is a temporary difference dependent on the nuclear arrangement.

This was an early realization in the development of the idea many years ago. Thus I tend to see neutrons and protons as differing aspects of one particle, due to the fact that free neutrons become protons (with their associated electrons). You are completely correct that I did not explain that in my OP, and for that I apologize. I also thank you for pointing that out.

As I consider this again, I wonder if the ability of the neutron to 'survive' inside a nucleus could be another manifestation of the gravitation 'current' forces I mentioned earlier as being a possible cause for observed gravitational variations in galaxies. I will have to consider that for a while.

As for the 'it is what it is because it is that way' complaint: Your observation makes sense at this time. However, knowing that something works the way it does does not always require an explanation; it can be a path to that explanation as well. I can be as truthful by asking "why is the sky blue?" as I can by stating "the sky is blue because of the refractive index of the air and its effect on visible solar radiation". The first is true, but begs the question "why?"; the latter is also true and answers that question. The latter did not precede the former; the former led to the latter. Similarly, it is my hope that others can add to this concept, developing it further by either pointing out inconsistencies or offering insight. It is something that I have recently determined is of no intrinsic value in itself to my work (although there are certain furtherances to it that might be applicable, as indicated earlier in the thread), and something that may well better serve by presenting it now.

You have been very adept at pointing out flaws; please continue. All constructive criticism is more than welcome, and your knowledge certainly qualifies you to offer such. I only wish you would place a bit more thought into the possibility that some grain of truth may lie within these writings.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Inside the nucleus, obviously a neutron is undergoing forces from closely neighboring particles which apparently allow it to exist as stable.


Correct, due to shifting the apparent mass.


Outside the nucleus, removed from these forces, the neutron decays into a proton and electron.


Incorrect -- there is also a neutrino.


Yes, this indicates that the actual stable frequency is that of the proton and not the neutron, just as the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron is a temporary difference dependent on the nuclear arrangement.


No it does not, because the "stable frequency" is just an alias for stability and in no way explains anything related to physics of COMPLEX OBJECTS which are protons and neutrons.

Again, why does pi0 decay to two gammas, while charged pions of almost identical mass decay very differently?

Your "theory" is rather thin on substance, I am afraid. It really just doesn't explain much, if anything at all. Why do certain neutrinos react and create muons but not electrons, and vice versa?

I know it's moot, to list a question after question, because answers aren't coming. To keep saying "this is a fundamental frequency" is like saying "because it's like asparagus".




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join