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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

Incorrect -- there is also a neutrino.

Incorrect -- there is also an antineutrino, technically an electron antineutrino. Of course, there is debate over whether an antineutrino and a neutrino are one and the same, so this is a minor issue.

The neutrino (which for sake of discussion I will concede to be identical to the antineutrino) is one of the lightest of the theorized particles. They have been detected; the detection process is extremely difficult as they are known to move through most matter with the same ease as through space.

The fact that a(n anti)neutrino is produced along with the proton and electron during the decay of a neutron is due to the fact that the proton and electron do not together account for the mass of a neutron alone. This slight difference in mass requires that additional energy must be released in the decay, since we are all aware that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since it is apparent from observation that there is a mass difference between the proton, the electron, and the nucleus-bound neutron, this energy must go somewhere and it does... into a neutrino.

Now, is that neutrino a particle, or is it a lone energy wave?


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.

Of course it is an alias! I have stated many times that names are irrelevant, save to express concepts. As long as we have the concepts, the word used to describe them is moot.

What proof do you have that a nucleon (or any hadron) is a complex object? We have observed phenomena (decay, primarily) that supports such a hypothesis, but it could also support the hypothesis of particles being trapped standing waves of energy as well. During decay (dispersion) of the energy of the trapped standing wave of a particle, the energy inherent in such would dissipate and immediately reform into lighter (less energetic) waves. These would become trapped in an area of stability (a harmonic) that would correspond to a lighter particle, with any excess energy that did not fall into a harmonic being expelled as 'pure energy' rather than as a particle.


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

The key word here is 'almost'. It is for the same reason that tuning a radio to 'almost' the correct channel does not bring that channel in clearly. Standing waves are precise; a slightly off-frequency waveform will not produce a standing wave.

I am glad you brought up the decay of the π° into two photons. I believe that single example should put to rest any discussion of the fact that mass and energy are the same thing, since two photons have a combined rest mass of 0 while the π° particle has a rest mass of 135.0 MeV/c².


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".

It is not moot to ask questions. As a matter of fact, I believe I have answered your questions, at least to the point of continuing the discussion. Your posts somehow seem as though this proposal scares you somehow? I assure you, I have no intention of doing so, just as I have no intention of somehow destroying the research that has happened into quantum mechanics. Competing theories do not destroy; they simply force science to advance.

TheRedneck




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
What proof do you have that a nucleon (or any hadron) is a complex object?


Scattering. You can scatter electrons off protons, for example, and analyze the reaction. You'll find that whatever the electron hits only carries a fraction of the momentum of the proton. Kinematics.

For a brief layman exposition, see

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

I must admit, I really like Hyperphysics. They have this way of putting things into perspective that is simple to understand to the average person.

But the web site is not the issue.

I will have to agree that scattering appears to confirm the existence of quarks. It's a good thing for the quarks that it does, since it is really the only evidence we have for their existence. The evidence for my skepticism is also related to this part of the discussion, and that would be the so-called 'strong force'.

Every energy field we have been able to observe in nature has the property of its strength being inversely proportional to the square of its distance. That is, if you double the distance one is from a large body of matter, the gravitational force drops to 1/4 of it's previous value. The same occurs with electrostatic and magnetic fields. But not the 'strong force':

This force increases proportionally to a function of its distance. In other words, the farther one particle gets from another, the stronger the force holding them together becomes. It gets stranger, however, since this 'strong force' also suddenly drops off to zero after a certain distance. No force has ever been observed that follows this relationship with distance.

Mathematically, the strength of other forces with relation to distance can be explained as k/d². The 'strong force' requires an expression more like k/(k'·d² - k"·d³).

Forces simply do not behave that way.

That could well lie in the mathematics required for it to exist as it needs to exist in order to hold matter together under present quantum theory. The strong force is not something that has been discovered or demonstrated; it is a mathematical concept, developed to explain the unexplained. In that respect it is analogous to dark matter.

So, yes, one could see a hole in my arguments considering the evidence so far ascertained for quark existence; but conversely, there are some holes in quark theory as well. The end result is that both of us choose which holes we choose to overlook while we search for deeper insight.


TheRedneck


[edit on 11/17/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I say, call it what you will but the fact is that there is something there, a measurable force. I don't think changing the name will help because it is what it is. Personally I feel that science has gone the wrong way on this issue. I also feel that ridicule and ludicrous behavior does not belong anywhere in science, it's a sign of ignorance and hinders understanding.


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.

Are you describing a bow shock? Like the force of water against a rock in a river, the larger the rock the greater the force. Upstream the force is great (bow shock) and downstream there is an equal and opposite reaction (eddy). If I understand this correctly then this explains gravity as a pushing force and I don't think proof has been made for or against this idea. It shouldn't be too difficult to prove gravity as either a pushing or pulling force by the way.

Mass resists accelerations because this "continuum" is in the way and since mass is a gravitational acceleration it also is resisted by this unseen force. Resistance from the continuum creates "fictitious forces", as they are called, and this is evidence for the existence of this mysterious force.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
This force increases proportionally to a function of its distance. In other words, the farther one particle gets from another, the stronger the force holding them together becomes. It gets stranger, however, since this 'strong force' also suddenly drops off to zero after a certain distance. No force has ever been observed that follows this relationship with distance.


In the manner which you explained would this then be described as a fictitious force or the reaction to an acceleration? Except that this is backwards, the force is inversely proportional by the square of its distance towards the center?

[edit on 11/17/2009 by Devino]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino

Are you describing a bow shock? Like the force of water against a rock in a river, the larger the rock the greater the force. Upstream the force is great (bow shock) and downstream there is an equal and opposite reaction (eddy). If I understand this correctly then this explains gravity as a pushing force and I don't think proof has been made for or against this idea. It shouldn't be too difficult to prove gravity as either a pushing or pulling force by the way.

There are two ways to look at this concept, and I really don;t have enough of an opinion on which is correct to make that call. So I will leave that to your imagination and give both possibilities as I see them:

One is, as you say, similar to the bow shock effect. The other would be based on the possibility that since matter is integral to the continuum, any motion of that continuum would not present itself to an observer in the immediate area. In other words, we may see evidence of motion in a far-away galaxy that belies what we would expect due to our observations of localized forces, while an observer in that galaxy would not be able to detect these anomalies. The current of the continuum would be seen from within that current as non-existent, while our own galaxy to this observer would also be observed to be experiencing anomalies. The view would be relative to the observer, in other words.

Just the same way you would, if being carried along with that current you speak of, see the rock as approaching you. Someone on the rock would see you approaching the rock.

Also, remember that the continuum must have a certain amount of elasticity. Since we are integral with it, that would mean that should there be a 'stretching' of the continuum in our location, we would not directly experience it.


In the manner which you explained would this then be described as a fictitious force or the reaction to an acceleration? Except that this is backwards, the force is inversely proportional by the square of its distance towards the center?

I would say 'fictitious' would be an excellent word to describe it. You are correct that this hypothesized 'strong force' reacts exactly opposite to every known force we have experienced; thus my belief that it represents a logical deviation in the present quantum theory.

The description I gave was the description that must be should this force be an actual force between particles.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/17/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

The river is one example of a bow shock effect, there is a 'bow' pressure and then there is an equal and opposite 'eddy' which neutralizes this force back to the average medium pressure or flow (medium equilibrium). The buoyancy of a ship floating on water works the same trough displacement and this is also the true description of 'wing lift'. The wing pressure creates an eddy or an area of negative relative pressure above the wing called the scoop, and this eddy forces a displacement of air (downwash) that is equal to the aircraft's load.

We can also find examples of bow shock in the magnetic fields around planets, stars and even galaxies. This is medium equilibrium and is evidence for a medium in space that is something other that light in either a particle or wave form.


matter is integral to the continuum, any motion of that continuum would not present itself to an observer in the immediate area.

I see similarities in the two concepts you present yet your idea of the continuum being separated I find difficult to accept. The way I understand it is that everything is connected to this continuum which acts like a single place and we are all connected to this one place.

I have thought about galactic bubbles of gravity pressure and time but not separate from the continuum. Quasars are perfect examples of time outside of these galactic bubbles. Most galaxies would have similar rates of accelerations-gravity pressure and therefore time would be similar but QSOs are very different. High red shift values from QSOs show that our time is dilated compared to these objects, time around a Quasar is moving much faster then ours since we are actually accelerating at a much faster rate (gravity pressure and rate of rotation). Unless one might believe that these high redshift values are showing QSOs to be at the supposed impossible distances of 40 billion light years and more.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino

This is one of those replies I really had to think on, so forgive me for the delay answering. You bring up some interesting ideas.


We can also find examples of bow shock in the magnetic fields around planets, stars and even galaxies. This is medium equilibrium and is evidence for a medium in space that is something other that light in either a particle or wave form.

I have wondered for many years what the mechanism is that allows for inertia. Einstein proved it is identical to gravity, but his description did not show it was gravity. The bow shock effect and the corresponding eddy effect could possibly be that mechanism.


I see similarities in the two concepts you present yet your idea of the continuum being separated I find difficult to accept. The way I understand it is that everything is connected to this continuum which acts like a single place and we are all connected to this one place.

You understand correctly; perhaps my choice of words was lacking. Let me try again to explain:

If we imagine this continuum for a moment to be like unto a three-dimensional mathematical grid, it is easy to see that in order for this grid to be pulled into matter to create the force known as gravity, its speed must be inversely proportional to the distance from the matter squared (as is in line with observed forces). That also means the grid itself does not remain as a solid grid, but rather can be stretched and twisted in order to fill the available area it inhabits.

In short, it has an elastic property.

Now assume that a person is inhabiting a grid that is, to an imaginary observer who is observing from outside the continuum itself, 2 units cubed. The grid enters a gravitational pull, and soon this same cubic area which contains our person stretches to 3 units in height, relative to the observer. Would the person in that grid notice? To their observation, could the area of space that surrounds them still be seen as 2 units high?

I know this can get confusing, but I hope you see my reasoning in this.

This goes into an even stranger scenario should one approach a black hole. In my OP, I theorized that the event horizon was actually a 90° shift in the continuum into another dimension. Now, if one considers what an observer moving toward a black hole would observe, that observer would see the event horizon as the point where the continuum was moving at the speed of light relative to them. As long as they are stationary with respect to the black hole, this would be the same observation for an outside observer, but once they began moving toward the black hole, this point would change to be farther from them, as the continuum's speed relative to them would be slower. It follows that as one enters the black hole, the speed of the rest of the universe relative to them would be the speed of light, so in essence the event horizon would reappear behind them.

So is it actually possible to survive a trip into a black hole?

Obviously, the outside observer would see the observer entering the black hole as destroyed. Their bodies would appear to be stretched into a long stream of individual atoms under the gravitational influence of the black hole. But is this observation valid outside of their own reference? Since it is actually the continuum itself that is being stretched so thin as it enters, would this observation be valid for the observer entering the black hole, or would they see things as though there were no change in the space-time continuum they were in, since they are an inherent part of it?

Nothing has separated in this example; space-time is still connected, but at one point it is being drawn into another dimension. The question is whether or not such would even be noticeable for one undergoing the dimensional shift.


High red shift values from QSOs show that our time is dilated compared to these objects, time around a Quasar is moving much faster then ours since we are actually accelerating at a much faster rate (gravity pressure and rate of rotation).

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have not heard of such observations being made. Can you locate some links to this? I would love to investigate!

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I see fictitious forces as a common denominator which is resistance to acceleration of some kind. In other words if there is an acceleration then there will be a reaction to this, or a fictitious force, and vice versa. If atoms are indeed a wave form accelerated by a continuum then they should follow the same reactions as other observed reactions of the like, showing fictitious forces and bow shock/eddies.

To put this in a more controversial way, the atom is a spherical bow shock that is resisting the continuum pressure (strong force). If you push with enough force then solids will melt, vaporize, turn into plasma and even collapse fusing atoms together or even splitting them apart.




High red shift values from QSOs show that our time is dilated compared to these objects, time around a Quasar is moving much faster then ours since we are actually accelerating at a much faster rate (gravity pressure and rate of rotation).


Please forgive my ignorance, but I have not heard of such observations being made. Can you locate some links to this? I would love to investigate!

The accepted explanation for the high red shift values of QSOs is that they represent their distance according to the Hubble constant. The problem is that this puts them much farther away then the Universe is supposed to be old (47 billion LY) and from this comes the idea of "Look Back time". There is also a problem with the size of these objects if they were at these distances which would violate the laws of physics and the theory of relativity but on top of that this "look back time" is a nothingness that is said can travel faster than the speed of light that somehow makes all of this OK.

These observations were made by Dr. Halton Arp.

For what it's worth I put this idea together in a thread called, "The Big Bang Never Happened", from many different sources.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

High red shift values from QSOs show that our time is dilated compared to these objects, time around a Quasar is moving much faster then ours since we are actually accelerating at a much faster rate (gravity pressure and rate of rotation).

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have not heard of such observations being made. Can you locate some links to this? I would love to investigate!

TheRedneck



Here is a question I have had for a long time.
What is the origin of rotation?
When it comes to acceleration there are two things I noticed; 1. There is an inertial reaction to the force and, 2. There needs to be a force to continue acceleration.

Rotational motions do have inertial reactions so this indicates that this motion is an acceleration.
If this is acceleration then what is the force that is accelerating it?
Are we to believe that this is not an acceleration and centrifugal forces are popping up on their own?
Or perhaps this is motion left over from the big bang and since then mass has been swirling around itself creating its own energy?
At any rate, this centrifugal force is creating mass through inertia, that is if mass and inertial mass are the same. Is there a difference between these two?

Mass is acceleration and vice versa but what is the energy that is accelerating it?

Since rotational motion is an acceleration and centrifugal force is the inertia then the mass in a rotating body (planet, star or galaxy) is resisting this force yet the accelerations are constant. An object, that is observed rotating, is like gravity in that they both are experiencing a constant acceleration without an increase in speed. I find this to be very strange yet it seems to be accepted without too much question.

We can assume that most galaxies observed are somewhat close to the same mass and/or rate of rotation, a galaxy with a smaller mass that was rotating faster would appear the same (call it intergalactic equilibrium). So the observed time (from our inertial frame of reference) from these galaxies would be measured as the same or very similar. The speed of light is a measure of time and distance so with an increase in distances between galaxies and an increase in velocities due to a theoretical expanding Universe we would measure an increase in the redshift value.

Objects that are accelerating away from us have a redshift yet objects that have an acceleration due to gravity would shift to the blue. So theoretically a QSO is a non-rotating body with a very low mass, non-dilated time, that has a redshift due to its 'time' moving at a faster rate then ours. An observer from the perspective of a QSO would see a huge blue shift from all the galaxies around it, or in other words would see a big time dilation.

As Quasars begin to rotate (accelerated by an unknown force) their mass would increase which in turn dilates their 'time' thus reducing the measured redshift value. This explanation doesn't require impossible distances, faster than light speeds or "lookback time" and puts QSOs next to their 'parent' galaxies just where they were observed at in the images.

This idea is new to me and I don't know if it's correct but I'm sure there are several ways to find proof either for or against. Personally I find it much more appealing than 'lookback time'.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Devino]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
This force increases proportionally to a function of its distance. In other words, the farther one particle gets from another, the stronger the force holding them together becomes. It gets stranger, however, since this 'strong force' also suddenly drops off to zero after a certain distance. No force has ever been observed that follows this relationship with distance.


Hi Redneck

Glad to see you're still thinking!

If I remember my QCD correctly (correct me if I am wrong bhudda), the standard model explantion for the strong interaction is that when the force reaches its peak new quarks are created which pair off with the separated quarks.

I used to envision this force like trying to pull a ball bearing out of a dish using only horizontal movement.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join