"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Also it keeps me up at night thinking about EM radiation (yes I have read wiki explanation 50 times).

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Oh, so EM radiation is quarks and electrons.

If that's what you got from reading the Wiki article 50 times, you're not a very careful reader. It does mention photons.

en.wikipedia.org...

The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction, and is the basic "unit" or constituent of all forms of EMR.

That explains nothing... You have no idea what EM radiation is. If you did you would be able to tell me from a level of understanding. You cannot do this, because you do not understand.

A=A

Whats a photon? "EM radiation"... Whats EM radiation? "a photon"... How helpful.

Can you take off your training wheels and tell me from you own knowledge and comprehension of the model and the universe what EM radiation is? How it is created? where it comes from? What its made of?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Quarks are not observable by themselves. We detect particles in final states, but not really quarks themselves.

The reason being the measurement? The apparatus that measures the particles forces them to be particles at the moment of measurement? This has to do with uncertainty principle and wave function collapse?

No. We would have seen a phenomenon like that, due to a different pattern of what you describe. There are terms like "hadronization" and "fragmentation" which are used to describe "dressing up" of quarks and creation of hadrons. This happens very quickly after the quarks scatter. It was thought that at RHIC semi-free quarks would exist for a longer period of time due to a phase transition in nuclear matter (the so-called quark-gluon plasma), but we found that the gluon density distribution was not in fact what people guessed. As a result, there is the "perfect fluid" created after a nuclear collision. We can even estimate the lifetime of this object using HBT interferometry (turned out to be small), and measure the kinematic parameters of how things scatter. We detected flow in the nuclear matter. But the topic is way too vast to be discussed in the present format in any meaningful manner, so I recommend you google RHIC and QGP. Also see this page at BNL. There is also a brief video there.

edit on 13-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

Cool thanks... well I was really just asking, how do we detect the locations of these particles and their momentum, and doesnt the detection affect these (uncertainty)... and doesnt this have to do with collapsing the wave function... if we never measured the collisions they would continue on and do other things.. but since we detect them, the means in which we detect them are influencing the experiment. I understand they maybe be using super high tech sophisticated detecting equipment in which that is not the case. Does gravity affect these experiments at all? How are gluons "seen" at all, are all gluons virtual particles? What do you mean by "perfect fluid" created, to me that implies a pure substance/manifestation of "energy" which cannot be classified as this or that particle, but is like the quark-gluon plasma.. and then from there (you said its life time is small) according to its local conditions and I assume mathematical and physical relationships with each point of itself it then splits up into the particles that are measured? or is that completely wrong.. when a collision occurs distinguished particles and trajectories are immediately created and kept (besides them decaying..which really just means losing energy/mass over time (albeit short short time))?

Your post to Arb:

Originally posted by ImaFungi
That explains nothing... You have no idea what EM radiation is. If you did you would be able to tell me from a level of understanding. You cannot do this, because you do not understand.

I find this assertion doubtful. While few people can claim a perfect understanding of some advanced physics, the photon is a concept that's relatively basic, and it relates to quantization of the field. Now, it's 100% true that nobody knows just WHY the field is being quantized. That part of physics is totally Zen. Or Mahayana. Or whatever. It's Tathagata. This is the top level of knowledge we have now. For now.

I do recommend once again that you spend time reading basic physics texts and doing problems. You will be amazed how much insight you will get.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Zen. Or Mahayana. Or whatever. It's Tathagata.

Rishathra? No. I guess not. never mind.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure why you think it sounds reasonable...based on what? This is the filter of yours I don't understand again.

Based on common sense.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The Peswiki article you found helpful explained how the Leedskalnin experiment in the video was completely explainable...and the Earth's rotation is also completely explainable without magnets from the sun.

Mainstream science has a lot of explanations that turn out to be wrong. The Big Bang explanation saying that there was nothing and then a creation event is stupid in my view. So, I trust my gut and the independent scientists who are self-educated more than mainstream science.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If the explanation was posted on Peswiki, would that help?

At least I would know the explanation were probably less apt to be part of an attempt to keep funding coming in for an established livelihood for certain folks.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, I trust my gut and the independent scientists who are self-educated more than mainstream science.

This is not to say that there is not some awesome work being done in mainstream science. There is.

But when it comes to the quest for new energy or energy medicine, the people need advocates to challenge the establishment.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I like this exchange:

. . . I had a thought that might help Sterling. He could sell measurement protocols developed by experts to budding free energy inventors. His NEST group would then screen all claims against whether or not the claims had first been tested using those protocols. I think that there are at least a few experts who would willingly help Sterling get those protocols written up as a favor to help keep this site going.

On January 20, 2013 there was an article on Sterling Allan's website "New Energy Movement launching vetting initiative." The initiative is led by a person by the name of Joel Garbon. The New Energy Movement is a dot org. I hope he succeeds.

reply to post by LawrenceWippler

atoms are composed of n/s monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, it's this particle of matter that determines what element the atom will become.

How did you determine this? It appears to me that you are simply repeating Leedskalnin's beliefs.

Can you please explain HOW this particle of matter determines the element?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Can you please explain HOW this particle of matter determines the element?

There is some information on that on the website under "Energy":

. . . In the core of every atom is a particle of matter, which represents one of the many elements from the periodic table. Each element has its own unique properties that differ from other elements, and no two elements are identical. The unique properties of each element are determined by the amount of magnetic lines of force that element is able to hold and the lines’ relative positions from the core of the element. These are what create the different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, as well. This difference also affects how the elements react with each other and how atoms transform energy from one form to another.

Fig 5.


Elements’ magnetic field lines

Ref A of Fig 5 represents element A and shows what an atom would look like if you were able to see it. Only a small portion of the element is shown in this illustration. Element A has many magnetic lines of force, each of which represents a different frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum and also creates the atom’s magnetic field, resulting in a magnetic dipole.

Ref B represents element B. Notice the difference between it and element A in terms of the number of magnetic lines of force that each element has and their relative positions from their atoms’ nuclei. This is why atoms are able to transform energy into different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum; it’s due to the relative positions and the diameters of their magnetic lines of force.

Ref C shows that the closer the magnetic lines of force are to the atom’s nucleus, the smaller their diameter will be. A small-diameter magnetic line of force creates a short wavelength, high frequency, circular polarized electromagnetic wave in the gamma ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The farther the magnetic lines of force are from the atom’s nucleus, the larger their diameter is. These large diameters create circular polarized, low-frequency waves in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Your post to Arb:

Originally posted by ImaFungi
That explains nothing... You have no idea what EM radiation is. If you did you would be able to tell me from a level of understanding. You cannot do this, because you do not understand.

I find this assertion doubtful. While few people can claim a perfect understanding of some advanced physics, the photon is a concept that's relatively basic, and it relates to quantization of the field. Now, it's 100% true that nobody knows just WHY the field is being quantized. That part of physics is totally Zen. Or Mahayana. Or whatever. It's Tathagata. This is the top level of knowledge we have now. For now.

I do recommend once again that you spend time reading basic physics texts and doing problems. You will be amazed how much insight you will get.

Quantization of the field. What is the field? where does it exist? whats it made of? So the entire field is made of a finite number of photons, and when the sun emits a photon, the field collapses via a disturbance of momentum and squirts out its most infinitesimally small amount, which is a photon? I still dont get what it says about atoms and electrons and photons. that they can emit energy from their charge, yet a photon isnt made of a charge particle, it is like the ripple on a wiggling jump rope of a field line (at least what it sounds like), the transfer of energy not matter.. this is done on earth in a bunch of ways i know, but i immediately se the resemblance to sound waves (as ive brought up before), a vibrance which transmits no matter, but energy in the surrounding area... how can two charges interact with one another, lose energy of momentum relative to one another, and that loss of energy from their system, is balanced out, by an oscillating electric and magnetic field that can have a relatively lot of energy and theoretically and experimentally travel forever in a vacuum...

isnt their dust and debris, and particles, and cosmological constant, and dark energy all over the universe? why isnt it that photons from billions of years ago we detect, havent all been smothered out by these things before they are able to reach our eyes?

Do stars and galaxies emit microwaves?


Oh and do you really think, I think the universe is zen or something? Its funny to see you waste time and space writing that when I wrote to you other replies that took me time to write out and questions I thought were important and intriguing, that you have not bothered answering... Or is the calling me zen, and not answering my questions directly correlated. Did my previous reply strike a chord that called for ridicule. I dont think the universe is zen or magical, although it has been said that sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic. I think the universe is so highly advanced and sophisticated technology that you wouldnt be able to figure it out in 1,000 life times. and that makes you nothing more then an ignorant baby. You wouldnt be able to figure it out in a 1,000 life times because there are 1,000 men just like you living right now who are smarter then you who will not figure out all natures secrets and ways.

reply to post by Mary Rose

That says nothing about how these particles of matter differentiate the elements. I want Ed Jr. to explain this:

In the core of every atom is a particle of matter, which represents one of the many elements from the periodic table. Each element has its own unique properties that differ from other elements, and no two elements are identical.
theoryofeverythingsolved.com...

If each element has its own unique particle how can an element be transmuted to another?

I've only been at this science-y stuff for a short while but this just seems silly.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Zen. Or Mahayana. Or whatever. It's Tathagata.

Rishathra? No. I guess not. never mind.

I would have liked to hear your insight on the topics weve been discussing. But I guess there is little need for discussion when you know it all.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Well, your "Ed Jr." sarcasm sounds silly to me. So that makes two of us.

Your participation is not helpful when you resort to a technique like that.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Zen. Or Mahayana. Or whatever. It's Tathagata.

Rishathra? No. I guess not. never mind.

I would have liked to hear your insight on the topics weve been discussing. But I guess there is little need for discussion when you know it all.

Wait, you just told one of your interlocutors that he doesn't know jack about EM radiation, despite being offered quite helpful information by them and by myself - which you declined to peruse with laughable hubris. It is you who rejected the useful discussion then.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Zen. Or Mahayana. Or whatever. It's Tathagata.

Rishathra? No. I guess not. never mind.

I would have liked to hear your insight on the topics weve been discussing. But I guess there is little need for discussion when you know it all.

Wait, you just told one of your interlocutors that he doesn't know jack about EM radiation, despite being offered quite helpful information by them and by myself - which you declined to peruse with laughable hubris. It is you who rejected the useful discussion then.

No you didnt want to discuss. You wanted to show me links to things I have read before.

I want to discuss what wave-particle duality for photons mean. I want to discuss the things I asked above in my reply about how moving charges create EM radiation, and how it can travel the way it does. What this means the vacuum is. what this means energy is. I want you to tell me what quanta of energy means.

when I come to this site to discuss with you guys. I accept links to read and go through. But Id also really like to discuss from our own understandings. Id like to pose questions like I do, receive your answers, and then discuss the significance of these things. That doesnt seem to be happening, because you guys seem to "know", and you seem to think I do not. Im still waiting for a reply to the video I posted, i think it is a very interesting and significant topic brought up. and the reply above about what you told me of your collider experiment. I know i interpreted soe things wrong but unless you are dieing anytime soon, maybe next time before you spend time being mean to someone. we can discuss the questions i brought up.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Can you take off your training wheels and tell me from you own knowledge and comprehension of the model and the universe what EM radiation is?

Let's recap. You said you read the wiki on EM 50 times. One of your questions was whether mass was lost in creating EM energy, and I didn't think a certain factoid which answered your question at least in part was in the wiki on EM, so I tried to politely answer your question thusly:

Originally posted by ImaFungi
When EM radiation is emitted/produced does the system that produced it lose energy and mass?

I saw that and posted this:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for:
Energy Generation in the Solar Interior

every second the Sun converts 600 million metric tons of hydrogen into 596 million metric tons of helium and 4 million metric tons of mass into energy.

Instead of acknowledging the answer, which seems to me to answer at least one of your questions, your reply consisted of this:

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is that what causes the sun to revolve around the black hole at the center of the galaxy? is that what causes all stars to keep stable orbits around the center of the galaxy?

If this is a sincere question, then I have no idea why you would make any inference between the conversion of mass into energy and the galactic rotation. This is a cognitive leap that I can't even begin to understand, and I doubt any explanation anybody can give you will resolve such cognitive leaps if they are actually part of your thinking process.

If however the question is insincere and you are merely trying to disrupt the discussion here, then I can't imagine why you would think anybody would be interested in helping you.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yep sorry bout that, like I already said, I thought you were providing that information regarding my question about stars and galaxies spinning, which is why i responded the way I did to the information you provided.

So what part of the atom loses mass in the sun conversions? Where does the EM radiation come from?

First there is this number of atoms ___ with this number of mass____

after time.... there are less atoms with less mass..

atoms are made of protons,neutrons and electrons..

where did the EM radiation come from? where are the photons before they are photons?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
No you didnt want to discuss. You wanted to show me links to things I have read before.

It is obvious that you don't pay attention to what you read (to put it mildly), and you neglect to make logical connections between the areas of physics involved. For example, you were presented with a reference to the fusion process in the Sun, and how the energy provided this way ends up emitted as EM radiation. Here is what you replied to it:

Oh, so EM radiation is quarks and electrons. quarks and electrons disintegrate into EM radiation.

This is just bizarre. Why did you have to drag electrons and quarks into that? Why do you assume that quarks disintegrate? Is it so difficult to read up on quarks, electrons and physics of the Sun? I agree with you on one issue - indeed, providing links to you does not seem to serve a useful purpose.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
No you didnt want to discuss. You wanted to show me links to things I have read before.

It is obvious that you don't pay attention to what you read (to put it mildly), and you neglect to make logical connections between the areas of physics involved. For example, you were presented with a reference to the fusion process in the Sun, and how the energy provided this way ends up emitted as EM radiation. Here is what you replied to it:

Oh, so EM radiation is quarks and electrons. quarks and electrons disintegrate into EM radiation.

This is just bizarre. Why did you have to drag electrons and quarks into that? Why do you assume that quarks disintegrate? Is it so difficult to read up on quarks, electrons and physics of the Sun? I agree with you on one issue - indeed, providing links to you does not seem to serve a useful purpose.

Oh that was an attempt at ridiculing arbyboi.... For him being unable to explain how EM radiation exists and where it comes from... first there are 2 atoms, they are composed of quarks and electrons... now there is one atom + EM radiation... so I was trying to say, where does the EM radiation come from?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mainstream science has a lot of explanations that turn out to be wrong. The Big Bang explanation saying that there was nothing and then a creation event is stupid in my view. So, I trust my gut and the independent scientists who are self-educated more than mainstream science.

So, scientists are wrong about the big bang therefore the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun because Mary has a gut feeling.

I can't argue with that logic because I don't even understand it

Even if scientists are wrong about the big bang, that seems unrelated. I think we have to examine each piece of evidence and claim on its own merits, unless they are somehow linked which doesn't seem to be the case here.

By the way, I have no objection to the sun causing things to rotate, since this was one of my favorite childhood toys:

"Crooke's Radiometer"


But buddhasystem earlier noted a lack of sufficient dipole asymmetry in the Earth's magnetic field to support Leedskalnin's idea, and it is because of asymmetry that this toy functions (not dipole asymmetry, but the point is that asymmetry enables the rotation).

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If the explanation was posted on Peswiki, would that help?

At least I would know the explanation were probably less apt to be part of an attempt to keep funding coming in for an established livelihood for certain folks.

On the other hand, if a bunch of magnets shooting out of the sun were discovered, they might actually get more funding to explore the newly discovered phenomenon.