Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
With that being said, I think it's fair to assume that the things you want to be proven wrong of have already been proven right by some rather genius minds.

And proven wrong by some other rather careful minds.




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
Hence, it's either you believe in the Aether despite the fact it has been proved experimentally to not exist, or you think Maxwell was wrong. Which one is it and why?

Or either Einstein simply re-invented the concept of aether in an attempt to prove it wrong with his thought experiment.
edit on 4-3-2013 by swan001 because: Typed "einsteins" instead of "einstein". As if one wasn't enough




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
No known interaction... So you can't know for sure.
It's true we don't know what we don't know. However it's also true that in order for something to become an accepted knowledge we need to demonstrate it with observation or experiment. In order to argue your point that redshift is not caused the way mainstream claims, it would probably be necessary to demonstrate the interaction that causes this.



It is shown by the author that if gravitons are super-strong interacting particles and the low-temperature graviton background exists, the basic cosmological conjecture about the Dopplerian nature of redshifts may be false...
Everybody knows about this interaction except those who want to cling to inflation.
Even the author of that paper doesn't know, he is hypothesizing. The graviton is a hypothetical entity. The author even starts the paper with "If gravitons are super-strong interacting particles and the low-temperature graviton background exists..." so even the author doesn't know if these are real entities.

Also, that paper is from 2005 when the origin of the Pioneer anomaly was still unknown and the author cites that in support of his ideas. arxiv.org...

In this approach, every massive body would be decelerated due to collisions with gravitons that may be connected with the Pioneer 10 anomaly.


Since 2005, the cause of the Pioneer anomaly has been determined:


Various theories, both of spacecraft behavior and of gravitation itself, were proposed to explain the anomaly. Over the period 1998-2012, one particular explanation became accepted.
This accepted explanation has nothing to do with what Ivanov hypothesized. I would also add that various other theories unrelated to Ivanov's were also proposed to explain the Pioneer anomaly, some of which included other "new physics". And there is nothing wrong with proposing various hypotheses, that's part of the scientific method.

But until one of the competing hypotheses is proven with evidence, the differing hypotheses are just that, hypotheses. Ivanov will have to come up with better proof of his ideas than the pioneer anomaly because it appears that has been satisfactorily explained without his hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


And Earth people didn't really aged faster. It was just an illusion because of the increased distance (between you and Earth) and the "slow" speed of light, which is "only" about 300 000 km/s.


Thank you. That was my sticking point...



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Having seen your other threads about physics, I honestly think no matter what is posted here you are not going to change your opinion that you are right and everyone else is wrong??


Try dropping all the new age nonscience and your grasp on the Universe will improve!!



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I could be wrong but I thought Maxwell believed in an aether.


By 1856, the issues with 'aether' had Maxwell looking for an EM theory that didn't require it. By the time he wrote 'Dynamical Theory' in 1864, he had abandoned aether. Also, Maxwell's equations do not depend on an 'aether', anyway. Even the original set, despite the yammering of the odder CT sites.



I think modern physicist do too, they just refer to it as the omnipresent EM field. (throw the higgs field in there just for fun too and it sounds like we found the aether)


You're missing what the 'aether' is supposed to be, I think. An 'omnipresent EM field' could not qualify. Neither would the Higgs rigging field.


Ok what is the aether supposed to be? The basic of what I understand it supposed to be is a spatial medium; an invisible all pervasive EM field and Higgs field (the prior aiding with the transport of em radiation, the latter allowing mass to exist, also we can through in the cosmological constant... basically all this that shows vacuum isnt empty.. the lack of nothingness equaling space. to my mind means space equals somethingness(or at leat has qualities beyond nothing) therefore the term aether, was the term used to describe space not being nothing.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


No swann, your wrong again, your jot understanding a flvery fundamental aspect of this, there is no one universal time we are all linked to, it just does not exist, time is realtive only to the observer.

You continue making analogies with outside objects hacing a visual interval that a clock can be synched to by the observer and the traveller, but dont understand, time doesnt give a damn about any outside influence at all, it onky cares about the actions of what is inside the reference frame.

If we both have real time coms with absolutely no lagg at any distance, and we are teleconfrencing, and we both look at a pulsar with a period of exactly 1 second, and you are on earth, and I am on jupiter, and we let the experiment run for a million years, you would record far more pulses than I, even though we were watching eachother in real time, because my soecific situation in a higher gravity woukd be different than yours kn a far lower gravity world, thus your time would move faster than mine.

If we synched watches and I accellerated towards the pulsar while you stayed still, we would not see the same thing, you woukd see it pulsing at once a second still as always, but as I approached C, I wiuld see it speeding up at an exponential rate, as my specific time was slowing down, relative to the outside world, and I would see the earth s activities going by at extreme speed, yet if you looked in the ship, we wouldnlook as if we are standing still.


If this is jot the case than explain why gps clocks function as they do, and how they have a different specific time than everyone one earths watches. As before launch, they run slow by our clocks here, in orbit they run oerfect in unison witu their earthbound counterparts, yet when we bring it back down, they run slow again.

Itnis an exact predicted measured and known quantity, thathas never showed a single flaw in almodt 100 years of testing.

So did you visit physlink.com and take their tests or ask the experts yet? I assure you, if you did, we woikdnt be having this conversation right now, and you surely wouldnt be trying to misinform those seeking actual answers to questions abiut physics.

As you would realize how absolutely out of the continent of fact you are.

Please take a few mins, got to the site, take a look, book mark it, and go back later and checknit out further.

Here is the link for any interested in the facts from the horses mouths. Www.physlink.com



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It was an attempt to explain how light propagated in a vacuum, the "long name" for it is luminiferous aether.

Basically, at that time (1850's) they had discovered how sound propagates in air, a longitudinal wave of compression in a medium. So they were convinced that space had to be filled with something similar, in order for light to travel in a vacuum.

It wasn't an EM field, they had no idea about Higgs. There really isn't any EM field as such, in terms of something static - EM would imply a wave such as radio or light. And that's what they couldn't figure out - what was being compressed/rarefied to propagate EM waves in a vacuum? And the answers you have to have for the characteristics of that sort of thing are just insane.

For example, in order to propagate a compression wave at the speed of light as they had measured it (note they didn't have a clue about relativity yet) the 'aether' would have to be far more rigid than steel. Yet it doesn't interact with matter at all, but does with radio and light.

They were bothered by the nonsense characteristics that would be required. But until they discovered that EM was transverse and not longitudinal, they couldn't understand how EM propagates. You can't get transverse waves in a uniform medium. You can get them at the boundary of two dissimilar materials - say the surface of the ocean - but you can't do it in a uniform medium. EM being transverse means that there IS no aether, and you can tell it's transverse because it's polarizable. You can't polarize a longitudinal wave.

edit on 4-3-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Let's say you travel away from Earth at light speed. Let's add a third party: Let's also say the galaxy's core pulsate each seconds. Finally, let's say you accelerate away from Earth at light speed, but you trajectory is parallel to the Core. No matter what speed you'll go at, both you and the Earth will see the same amount of Core pluses. That means both your clock and Earth's clock are synchronized - And Earth people didn't really aged faster. It was just an illusion because of the increased distance (between you and Earth) and the "slow" speed of light, which is "only" about 300 000 km/s.


The thing is. let me change the thought experiment a bit. You have an identical twin in every way, its a clone of you. there are an infinite number of playing cards face down in front of each of you, and you both can turn one over with the same speed, and move onto the next and turn that one over. You are both doing this on earth and that is the constant in the experiment. The star pulses light every second and the experiment is how many cards can each twin flip over in 20 seconds. The trick is one twin will be doing this at constant earth time, and the other twin will be doing this with the power of the speed of light. Im not good at math, but in 20 seconds if the earth twin can flip over maybe 20, then the speed of light twin can maybe flip over a million or so... I think this gets to the heart of the relation between relative velocity and time.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It was an attempt to explain how light propagated in a vacuum.

Basically, at that time (1850's) they had discovered how sound propagates in air, a longitudinal wave of compression in a medium. So they were convinced that space had to be filled with something similar, in order for light to travel in a vacuum.

It wasn't an EM field, they had no idea about Higgs. There really isn't any EM field as such, in terms of something static - EM would imply a wave such as radio or light. And that's what they couldn't figure out - what was being compressed/rarefied to propagate EM waves in a vacuum? And the answers you have to have for the characteristics of that sort of thing are just insane.

For example, in order to propagate a compression wave at the speed of light as they had measured it (note they didn't have a clue about relativity yet) the 'aether' would have to be far more rigid than steel. Yet it doesn't interact with matter at all, but does with radio and light.

They were bothered by the nonsense characteristics that would be required. But until they discovered that EM was transverse and not longitudinal, they couldn't understand how EM propagates. You can't get transverse waves in a uniform medium. You can get them at the boundary of two dissimilar materials - say the surface of the ocean - but you can't do it in a uniform medium. EM being transverse means that there IS no aether, and you can tell it's transverse because it's polarizable. You can't polarize a longitudinal wave.



Ok thanks. How then is an EM wave created from a charged particle? where does the electric and magnetic field and if there is no charged particle involved how can they continuously create the fields? Also if an EM wave is a uniformly oscillating electric and magnetic field how can it be considered a particle? (below are some questions I im curious of the answer to, I know I can read a text book, but if you or someone can answer them, then maybe we can further discuss more questions that arise)

Do electrons travel at constant in vacuum?
what would have to happen to accelerate or decelerate a traveling electron at a specific velocity, you would have to interfere with it with energy in some way? and this is why light is massless and travels at light speed, because you cant accelerate it any more or do anything to accelerate it, and in order to decelerate it you have to interact with it causing it to impart its energy onto whatever you use to interact with it?

Electron traveling alone in free space, what kind of event has to happen for EM radiation to exist in relation to this electron, or is it constantly emitting EM radiation?

copper wire with a current, air surrounding the copper wire; do these air molecules play a role in the magnetic field around the copper, are the electrons in the air molecules oriented following the magnetic field and do they contribute? I magnetic field around a copper wire exists in vacuum, so it is not dependent on the surrounding atoms. but does that mean a magnetic field around copper is a field in the vacuum between atoms if thats possible? a copper wire with a current in the vacuum of space, how are the electrons in the wire exuding a force beyond themselves with no medium, are they just sending bursts of their own matter into space, or their velocity/spin just existing in vacuum, can ...not affect vacuum right to turn the local vacuum into a magnetic field, but ..ok, the electrons in the wire are oscillating back and forth so this means as well as sending energy through the wire they send it all around to as they collide?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Ok thanks. How then is an EM wave created from a charged particle? where does the electric and magnetic field and if there is no charged particle involved how can they continuously create the fields? Also if an EM wave is a uniformly oscillating electric and magnetic field how can it be considered a particle? (below are some questions I im curious of the answer to, I know I can read a text book, but if you or someone can answer them, then maybe we can further discuss more questions that arise)


Wow, field theory and quantum theory in three questions!


Some of these were what bothered Maxwell and his cohorts. Especially the second question, and in fact, in fields I that was one of the first things I asked - Hey, there's no charged particles moving here, what gives?

You really interested? I can try to summarize it, but it's going to be tough to de-mathify clearly, and it's one of those things I'm not good at without having you in front of a white board - I have to draw everything and gesture a lot.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Ok thanks. How then is an EM wave created from a charged particle? where does the electric and magnetic field and if there is no charged particle involved how can they continuously create the fields? Also if an EM wave is a uniformly oscillating electric and magnetic field how can it be considered a particle? (below are some questions I im curious of the answer to, I know I can read a text book, but if you or someone can answer them, then maybe we can further discuss more questions that arise)


Wow, field theory and quantum theory in three questions!


Some of these were what bothered Maxwell and his cohorts. Especially the second question, and in fact, in fields I that was one of the first things I asked - Hey, there's no charged particles moving here, what gives?

You really interested? I can try to summarize it, but it's going to be tough to de-mathify clearly, and it's one of those things I'm not good at without having you in front of a white board - I have to draw everything and gesture a lot.


Of course I would like you to try! If the universe physically exists, as much as math helps describing it and solving its problems, it should be describable in physical terms. When you are doing physics math equations, dont you imagine what all the numbers and letters represent in physical terms, since the universe does? Say there is an entirely constantly empty vacuum, and all that existed was one electron, would EM radiation exist? but yes.. continue if you may



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Of course I would like you to try! If the universe physically exists, as much as math helps describing it and solving its problems, it should be describable in physical terms. When you are doing physics math equations, dont you imagine what all the numbers and letters represent in physical terms, since the universe does? Say there is an entirely constantly empty vacuum, and all that existed was one electron, would EM radiation exist? but yes.. continue if you may


EM radiation doesn't involve electrons flying through space...one way of producing it is to accelerate a charged particle but the wave itself doesn't involve electron flow.

I'm going to have to go to work shortly. Give me a day or two to sort of try to summarize it.

Oh, and sometimes it's really friggin' hard to express things verbally in ways that aren't misleading or incomplete, the math is always right, if you do it right. Especially if I can't draw.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The problem though, is that a lot of these concepts have no everyday use or meaning, not of course mentioning it took a long time to develope and evolve language, these are all newish concepts, therefore our labguage hasnt caught up, and we have no syntax in human language to describe this yet, so it is not easily turned from math to words.

It is a lot more complicared than 2+2, as we could describe this as apples pears etc... how does one make quantum physics into words, when we dont even have words to describe these concepts, at best yohr going to get a very bland and too dumbed down generalization, that will not he able to carry, the eesired effect.

Though I am looking forward to his explanation, as this will not be easy at all.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional...at best yohr going to get a very bland and too dumbed down generalization, that will not he able to carry, the eesired effect.

Though I am looking forward to his explanation, as this will not be easy at all.


Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. Especially since I am a white board fiend, and now no math, no drawings, no physical demonstrations by waving things around and making sound effects. I'm crippled here.

At least when I was teaching people to blow # up, I could use clay blocks and dummy fuses for props, and I did all my own sound effects...



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Of course I would like you to try! If the universe physically exists, as much as math helps describing it and solving its problems, it should be describable in physical terms. When you are doing physics math equations, dont you imagine what all the numbers and letters represent in physical terms, since the universe does? Say there is an entirely constantly empty vacuum, and all that existed was one electron, would EM radiation exist? but yes.. continue if you may


EM radiation doesn't involve electrons flying through space...one way of producing it is to accelerate a charged particle but the wave itself doesn't involve electron flow.

I'm going to have to go to work shortly. Give me a day or two to sort of try to summarize it.

Oh, and sometimes it's really friggin' hard to express things verbally in ways that aren't misleading or incomplete, the math is always right, if you do it right. Especially if I can't draw.


Ok sounds good. I know EM radiation isnt electrons, but arent electrons the main producers? Or does it have to do with electrons in atoms, and the difference between the electron and proton, and the action that results after the electron jumps to a lower level is the electron imparting a force on the proton and proton imparting a force on the electron and that force is equal to the photon that comes out of the atom, and equal to the force that caused the electron to jump into a higher energy state in the first place?

when radio waves are sent from an antenna to my radio receiver miles away, does that EM radio wave interact with every atom in its path, and every atom receives the frequency and 'passes it on'? this activity is why light travels slower in a medium?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what would have to happen to accelerate or decelerate a traveling electron at a specific velocity, you would have to interfere with it with energy in some way?


You would have to accelerate it, change its momentum vector. The typical way this happens is by interacting with a magnetic field, which will turn a charged particle, but not by itself change its kinetic energy.

The acceleration of the electron ("acceleration" means any change in momentum vector, including
direction, not just magnitude) results in electromagnetic radiation being emitted. By conservation of energy that will decrease the electron's kinetic energy.

It is typical for quickly charged particles will radiate EM waves and convert its kinetic energy into EM waves when encountering magnetic fields. (and charged particles usually gain their kinetic energy from electric fields)

A particularly spectacular and useful example of this phenomenon is called a "free-electron laser".

en.wikipedia.org...


and this is why light is massless and travels at light speed, because you cant accelerate it any more or do anything to accelerate it, and in order to decelerate it you have to interact with it causing it to impart its energy onto whatever you use to interact with it?


Well, they're connected, but generally people say that light is massless and hence can't be accelerated.



Electron traveling alone in free space, what kind of event has to happen for EM radiation to exist in relation to this electron, or is it constantly emitting EM radiation?


It emits EM radiation if it is in accelerated motion say by being turned with a magnetic field. If it is being accelerated in the same direction, then it gets pretty complicated conceptually because of relativity.

www.mathpages.com...



copper wire with a current, air surrounding the copper wire; do these air molecules play a role in the magnetic field around the copper, are the electrons in the air molecules oriented following the magnetic field and do they contribute?


A tiny amount, but in practice it's insignificant compared to ferromagnetic materials like steel.


a copper wire with a current in the vacuum of space, how are the electrons in the wire exuding a force beyond themselves with no medium, are they just sending bursts of their own matter into space, or their velocity/spin just existing in vacuum,


They create a non-zero value of the magnetic field, which by the laws of the universe, happens to exist everywhere.


ok, the electrons in the wire are oscillating back and forth so this means as well as sending energy through the wire they send it all around to as they collide?


Yes.

If you make electrons move back and forth along the wire in an oscillatory motion, and make them do it all in a big bunch by applying a time-varying voltage, then you will radiate electromagnetic waves. This is known as an antenna. The collisions (which form resistance) aren't what you want here though.

The individual mobile electrons colliding off nuclei and the stationary electrons surrounding them also emit electromagnetic radiation. This is not coherent or organized though because every collision is effectively random. This is known as heat, and the substance will emit "black body radiation" or something like that in a distribution of frequencies depending on the temperature. So if you set the electrons in motion and increase the rate of collisions, you cause kinetic energy of electrons to be transformed into generalized random motion of the whole substance. This is why current through any resistant material causes heat. The randomly oscillating electrons (and protons, but less because they're heavier) emit black body radiation because the substance is warm.
edit on 4-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The problem though, is that a lot of these concepts have no everyday use or meaning, not of course mentioning it took a long time to develope and evolve language, these are all newish concepts, therefore our labguage hasnt caught up, and we have no syntax in human language to describe this yet, so it is not easily turned from math to words.

It is a lot more complicared than 2+2, as we could describe this as apples pears etc... how does one make quantum physics into words, when we dont even have words to describe these concepts, at best yohr going to get a very bland and too dumbed down generalization, that will not he able to carry, the eesired effect.

Though I am looking forward to his explanation, as this will not be easy at all.


Do you think the fundamental nature of the universe is physical? What do you think of it? Should it be surprising that nature is quantum? Would it be weird if that was the last/smallest level of things, or would it be weirder if there were more..a lot more? You would think that any system, reality, universe would have its smallest parts, but then its weird to think about how a massive amounts of small parts are created, are they created from one big part..



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
You really interested? I can try to summarize it, but it's going to be tough to de-mathify clearly, and it's one of those things I'm not good at without having you in front of a white board - I have to draw everything and gesture a lot.
You've got your work cut out for you, explaining it to the guy who told the PhD particle physicist who's worked on experiments at the LHC that the PhD particle physicist doesn't know what a particle is, LOL.

And ImaFungi said he's read the wiki on EM 50 times already, but it does have an excellent animation of the math:


This 3D diagram shows a plane linearly polarized wave propagating from left to right. Note that the electric and magnetic fields in such a wave are in-phase with each other, reaching minima and maxima together

That is one way to "de-mathify" it, though I'm not sure if it's as meaningful to someone who doesn't know the math...but the illustration is the same either way. There's no electron in that animation, just the visual of what the math looks like in a specific case.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel



It emits EM radiation if it is in accelerated motion say by being turned with a magnetic field. If it is being accelerated in the same direction, then it gets pretty complicated conceptually because of relativity.


Cool thanks, ill check the link. Does it emit em radiation just traveling in a constant velocity? If so what causes it to do so? If not, what causes it to do so when changing momentum? Would these same rules apply if there was only one electron in the universe with no other charged particles? Or does EM radiation depend on all charged particles existing with field lines connecting them locally?



They create a non-zero value of the magnetic field, which by the laws of the universe, happens to exist everywhere.

So literally everywhere exists non zero magnetic field? even in most perfect vacuum very far from nearest charged particle?





Yes.

If you make electrons move back and forth along the wire in an oscillatory motion, and make them do it all in a big bunch by applying a time-varying voltage, then you will radiate electromagnetic waves. This is known as an antenna. The collisions (which form resistance) aren't what you want here though.

The individual mobile electrons colliding off nuclei and the stationary electrons surrounding them also emit electromagnetic radiation. This is not coherent or organized though because every collision is effectively random. This is known as heat, and the substance will emit "black body radiation" or something like that in a distribution of frequencies depending on the temperature. So if you set the electrons in motion and increase the rate of collisions, you cause kinetic energy of electrons to be transformed into generalized random motion of the whole substance. This is why current through any resistant material causes heat. The randomly oscillating electrons (and protons, but less because they're heavier) emit black body radiation because the substance is warm.


ok I see, I was kinda trying to ask if that movement of electrons with one another is what creates the magnetic field, but you are saying it only creates heat, is this heat or em radiation synonymous with the magnetic field that surrounds a wire with current? or is there another mechanism which causes a magnetic field to exist a distance away from a material carrying a current besides electron radiation? In a vacuum for instance so the air doesnt confuse me,; you say there is always a non zero magnetic field value, but when we place a copper wire with current in the vacuum, there is a more distinguished magnetic field around the copper wire, and this is due to....?
edit on 4-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join