Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Imagine looking down at the galaxy and it is so small the planets look like Molecules and Atoms.

If you take a needle and poke the planets and stars around it may be a lot like this:

Moving Atoms: Making The World's Smallest Movie
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4QWwaweWA
www.youtube.com...

You are really stuck on this idea of the planets and suns just being atoms. but as i explained atoms dont look like that at all at there basic level they are just clouds.Protons and electrons dont orbit the nucleus they form it. To be similar suns wouldnt be by themselves they would be grouped together.Then electrons dont actually orbit they pop in and out do to probability. Now you cant mention the atomic movie it then not show the movie so lets fix that.

reply to post by dragonridr


Until they look inside the atom!!

www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/5/29/atom-inside-photographed
www.richarddawkins.net...

Inside Hydrogen Atom photographed:
d2ttfyrfmig6p1.cloudfront.net/uploads/news_article/picture/4451/large_4451.large.jpg_1369845713
d2ttfyrfmig6p1.cloudfront.net...


Galaxy Collisions: Simulation vs Observations
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-0GaBQ494E
www.youtube.com...

Mary Rose
According to Dr. John V. Milewski, there is light, and there is superlight: "Dr. John V. Milewski's Magnetricity"

Dr. John V. Milewski on gravity: "SUPERLIGHT AND GRAVITY":

Gravity is not an intrinsic property of matter, neither is inertia. These secondary forces are both formed by the reaction of matter to the dynamic field of SuperLight. Gravity is not an attraction! It is the result of a universal pressure, exerted by SuperLight as it rains in from infinity, from all directions, onto every object. Materials are not 100% transparent to SuperLight. I estimate, perhaps about 99.99999999% transparent. As a consequence, all material domains, all "matter", experiences an acceleration caused by SuperLight. Every "particle" is affected by a slight drag, or pressure differential, as SuperLight travels past and through them. . . .

dragonridr

Ok first em fields are caused literally by space.An electromagnetic field is the motion of an electromagnetic charge moving through space .It forms from two things if the electric charge stands still we get an electric field.If the electric charge moves through space we get a magnetic field. Remember how i was telling you about points in space transferring information.How space responds depends on the information it gets.Now we combine these two together you get the electromagnetic field.Which is considered as having its own existence in space apart from the charges or currents (a stream of moving charges) with which it may be related.

Ok all my questions pertain to how the EM field, or space as you call it, physically and mechanistically exists. If we could see it and draw it how would we see it and draw it. AKA if we could know exactly what reality was and how it exists, what would we know? An electric charge moves and causes waves in space/em field...How, why? What is space made of that it does this, how does it do this, how does an area of space/em field wave/ripple/photon? You mentioned there being points or particles everywhere in space, is that really the final answer, at every smallest point in space there is a photon, waiting to be disturbed? And how are those photons connected, is there space between them? This is painting an image of the EM field being like water, the photons being like atoms bound to molecules creating the water field, is this an accurate analogy?

Now your misunderstanding the double slit experiment a bit it didnt prove a particle is a wave. In physics a particle is just a cloud of energy. how to explain this with out confusing you ok you know in school they showed you those neat charts with the atom and its Protons Neutrons and Electrons well its wrong. In truth atoms work on probabilities. In the atom Electrons, protons, neutrons are popping in and out of existence constantly. Scientists don't know why, they don't know where they go. They just know they do. This is where theories like string theory comes in. The double slit experiment proved that these particles are poping in and out and only when measured do they behave like a particle. But when we arent looking they can be anywhere.Meaning simply until we observe the particle it is in multiple places and we Refer to this as a wave function. Simply put you can look at this as the particle being in all its possible energy states. The double slit experiment isnt a wave like you were thinking its an analogy used to help people understand interference patterns.And in physics analogies can do as much damage as good if you dont understand the principle.

A particle is a cloud of energy, thats a very confusing statement. So a particle of light, a particle of quark, and a particle of electron, are all clouds of energy, and the only reason they are different is because the energy that is the cloud is moving in a different way? or what? What is the energy that is a cloud, how did so many little clouds of energy become existent and how are they so stable? I have trouble discerning from my own perspective when physicists mistaking what they know about reality, what at this moment in time they can possibly know about reality...and reality itself. So I have no confidence believing you when you say physicists think particles pop in and out of existence, it is more logical and with more confidence for me to assume that their beliefs and discoveries is a product of the limits of experiments and convenient math, because I have yet to hear a plausible physical parallel, and this is physics isnt it. I am only worried with what actually exists, what the heck reality actually is and how it works. Just because the uncertainty principle and our inability to measure particles or energy clouds continually does not mean they pop in and out of existence, that is something a child would infer after playing peekaboo. Maybe I dont understand the double slit experiment but maybe you dont either, can you provide me with a video explanation that shares the same interpretation as the one you have provided...or any source?

As far as the last point you cant get an electromagnetic charge to stand still if you do its no longer an EM charge its an electric charge so no theirs no limit to the amount an area of space can have. I better get to bed but i hope your at least getting some of what im trying to say physics is hard to teaach or learn just through text. Because you lack the ability to brain storm and just shoot off questions until you can piece it together in your head.

The last point was not about getting EM charge to stand still, EM radiation is not charged, it was about getting an area of EM radiation to stay in a centralized area, maybe could be done with a indestructible room of mirrors, and the tiniest of holes to fill it in with EM radiation, just for thought experiment, hypothetical sake. Im all about brain storming and asking questions, I know how successful and smart physicists are of the last 100 years or more, and I know I am not in the mix at the forefront of discussion, knowledge and understanding of the universe, but I have faith that it is understandable, I have faith I am talented at understanding, and I have faith that the smartest physicists on earth dont understand the fundamental nature of the universe well, and I am mad at them, because that is their only job and responsibility, I am mad at the lack of critical questioning in high places and progress in comprehension. This anger of ignorance is the only thing that keeps me interested in this topic, which is beyond man and academia, it is truth itself, and none of us choose to be ignorantly coupled to it, some of us can choose to ignore it, but it stares me in the face and laughs at me, and it is equally laughing at the smartest physicists in the world.

reply to post by dragonridr


That IBM video was quite awesome, looked like BB's. I dont get how visibly they look so solid, when really they are protons and neutrons, which arent solid, because they are quarks, which arent solid because they are... And we cant see electrons in the video, but are the ripples in whatever the material this project was done on the result of electrons? That is an amazing look into the nature of the micro universe, I cant get over the micro size of atoms, such as those, and the macro quantity in which they exist, and the balance and order they default fell into, and we being products somewhere in the middle. Pretty astonishing.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Haven't looked at the link, but does John liweski say that this superlight is dark matter?

Mary Rose

Mary Rose
According to Dr. John V. Milewski, there is light, and there is superlight: "Dr. John V. Milewski's Magnetricity"

Dr. John V. Milewski on gravity: "SUPERLIGHT AND GRAVITY":

Gravity is not an intrinsic property of matter, neither is inertia. These secondary forces are both formed by the reaction of matter to the dynamic field of SuperLight. Gravity is not an attraction! It is the result of a universal pressure, exerted by SuperLight as it rains in from infinity, from all directions, onto every object. Materials are not 100% transparent to SuperLight. I estimate, perhaps about 99.99999999% transparent. As a consequence, all material domains, all "matter", experiences an acceleration caused by SuperLight. Every "particle" is affected by a slight drag, or pressure differential, as SuperLight travels past and through them. . . .

Ok all ill say is might as well say gravity is caused by faeries makes little diffrence when compared to this.

reply to post by ImaFungi



Ok im going to have to explain Heisenberg uncertainty principle to give you a true picture of an atom then piece it together. First lets look at electrons they dont actually orbit the nucleus but pop in and out in locations around the nucleus.Now from school you were probably shown Bors model with electrons orbiting the nucleus this works great for chemistry. But in reality they dont orbit their is just probabilities on where they might be found. There basically called orbitals think of a cloud anywhere within this cloud are electron can beat any moment. The reason behind this is something called wave particle duality i believe i mentioned before so lets define it.

Wave like properties:
As i said electrons dont orbit a nucleus (dont make orbits like the planets for example) by they are whats called a standing wave meaning you can think of this way and im going to try not to confuse you but we need an analogy. Are you aware you can say remove noise by sending out an mirrored noise just out of phase like noise cancelling head sets they pick up background noise to prevent you from hearing it analyzes pitch and volume then generates a mirror image of the noise that is 180 degrees out-of-phase.The net result is the waves cancel each other out. Well thats a standing wave in a particle two waves cancel each other out only the waves are energy levels. Just like when you pluck a string it vibrates thats stored energy just in wave form.Now remember how i said electrons pop in and out of existence scientists like to use the term virtual but this is misleading. So lets say we have 3 energy levels for simplicity +1 being positive energy 0 being no energy and -1 being negative energy. this wave would keep fluctuating between +1 and -1 to us when you average it you get 0 that is a standing wave. This is also virtual particles at its most basic an energy fluctuation that means its there sometimes and mot others. Electrons are exactly the same way they enter and leave are universe all at random locations in the atom. So electrons are never in a single point location, although the probability of interacting with the electron at a single point can be found from the wave function of the electron (IE probabilities of being at one location over another we call these orbitals this is the clouds i refereed to).

Particle like properties:
well it has a set number of electrons protons and neutrons and this is why Bohrs model is used in chemistry.Also as an atom changes its energy state it jumps orbitals or in other words changes position. And of course each retains its own charge like an electron never turns into a positron.

Now that we got that out of the way and if your still with me will move on you asked is everything a cloud well yes even in the nucleus quarks would work the same way there just in a smaller cloud in the nucleus same with photons. So when im say atoms are energy thats literally all they are. each of these energy states have distinct properties and put themselves together to make an atom.I know it sounds crazy i remember when i first tried to grasp it dont think students dont fight this one its counter intuitive.

Now you asked what is an em field well its photons virtual photons that again fluctuate there energy.When you asked me what is space well virtual photons that is the medium of space sort of. ill let you read this and we can discuss later i have to get up real early for meetings.

www.physics.ox.ac.uk...

reply to post by dragonridr


An electron (cloud of discrete electron energy) exists around a nucleus. You are saying the energy associated with cloud fluctuates, therefor the electron energy is 'popping in and out of existence'? Surely bright minds have come up with alternatively plausible potential possibilities for....for what, what exactly led to the idea that they pop in and out of existence, the uncertainty principle and math equations for standing waves that have a 0 in them? So when we pluck a guitar string say it goes up to +1 to 0 and to -1. When the guitar string is at 0 do we believe that its energy has popped out of existence?

This is from the link you provided: "An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon"

I didnt know the electron gave its energy to the photon/em field, I thought that would imply the em field would have mass, if it could slow down the electron. You call the photons virtual, because when no electrons are around, or when electrons are not accelerated, there is no detected photons, the em field is at equilibrium, but it takes the existence of charged particles to manifest the appearance of the EM field, and bring to light the existence of photons? So where there are no charged particles, how does the nature of the EM field truly appear, lines of force? Infinitely packed equillibriumed photons waiting to be disturbed? The em field is like any material made of the same type of atoms, though instead of atoms it is made of photons?

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


He addresses that in number 5:

Super Light as it Affects Physics and Astronomy

1. It proposes a three dimensional dynamic ether that reacts with all matter and energy causing all forces.

2. Gravity is not an intrinsic property of matter, but only a reaction to an external force. (e.g. SuperLight)

3. Inertia is not an intrinsic property of matter, but only it's reaction to acceleration through the ether of SuperLight's dynamic field.

4. It eliminates the problem of action at a distance.

5. It eliminates the need for dark matter, and solves Dr. Rubins problem of the outer stars in galaxies "traveling too fast". (There is a slight drag causing the stars to fall slowly into the center of the galaxy.)

6. Also, the gravity constant is not constant, but becomes less as one approaches black holes, due to the reduction effect of SuperLight radiating out of the black hole.

7. This also means that the gravity constant becomes significantly less at the edge of the Universe.

8. It also allows black holes to reach an equilibrium state, — matter in SuperLight out — thus preventing one black hole from becoming massive and gobbling up the whole universe.

9. It explains what neutrinos are: they are SuperLight.

10. It allows many new scenarios for the Big Bang and creation. For example: Since gravity and inertia are the result of matter reacting with SuperLight, which did not exist prior to the big bang, or in early times, then, the Big Bang could have been a Little Bang (or a big breath) because any force would cause an infinite acceleration, since there was nothing to hold matter back.

Mary Rose
According to Dr. John V. Milewski, there is light, and there is superlight: "Dr. John V. Milewski's Magnetricity"

dragonridr
Ok all ill say is might as well say gravity is caused by faeries makes little diffrence when compared to this.

As Richard Feynman explains starting at about 5 minutes in this video, it's not because of superlight and not because of faeries, it's because of moogles. He said nobody had ever proved moogles wrong, and as far as I know that's still true today.

The way Richard Feynman explained science was amazing

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

An electron (cloud of discrete electron energy) exists around a nucleus. You are saying the energy associated with cloud fluctuates, therefor the electron energy is 'popping in and out of existence'? Surely bright minds have come up with alternatively plausible potential possibilities for....for what, what exactly led to the idea that they pop in and out of existence, the uncertainty principle and math equations for standing waves that have a 0 in them? So when we pluck a guitar string say it goes up to +1 to 0 and to -1. When the guitar string is at 0 do we believe that its energy has popped out of existence?

I suspect your asking the wrong questions but ill answer them anyway.A string even standing still has potential energy remember energy can not be created or destroyed.

This is from the link you provided: "An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon"

Yes we call this resistance when resistance increases so does the electromagnetic field.Say we have a wire with 0 resistance (this only happens in superconductivity) then that wire will not produce an em field.

I didnt know the electron gave its energy to the photon/em field, I thought that would imply the em field would have mass, if it could slow down the electron. You call the photons virtual, because when no electrons are around, or when electrons are not accelerated, there is no detected photons, the em field is at equilibrium, but it takes the existence of charged particles to manifest the appearance of the EM field, and bring to light the existence of photons?

Ok an EM field doesnt have mass remember what is a photon a mass less particle.As far as virtual photons your right there their but if nothing interacts with them they remain undetected.Physics has virtual particles and to say the pop in and out is an analogy in truth there energy fluctuates from something we can see to something we cant.

So where there are no charged particles, how does the nature of the EM field truly appear, lines of force? Infinitely packed equillibriumed photons waiting to be disturbed? The em field is like any material made of the same type of atoms, though instead of atoms it is made of photons?

As far as how would it look at its most basic packets of energy in truth thats all a photon is.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok im willing to accept the theory of moogle as being equally valid to super light as the cause of gravity point conceded.

Though im still pushing for faeries no one has proven them wrong either.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Ok i think your beating all around the bush but missing the main question your trying to figure out what the fabric of space time is am i right?

reply to post by dragonridr


From that standpoint, faeries is probably a better theory more on par with moogles, because it's hard to prove wrong. I think if you looked hard enough you can find several ways to prove "superlight" wrong, just as I'm sure you can prove the "gravitational ideas" of Mary's admired Ed Leedskalnin wrong (he says magnetism, not gravity, causes the moon to orbit the Earth).

dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Ok i think your beating all around the bush but missing the main question your trying to figure out what the fabric of space time is am i right?

Im trying to figure out what exists. If physicists say the fabric of space time exists and EM field exists I am trying to figure out in what way they exist, how they exist, what they are, how they appear etc. Everything about their nature and essence and existence and physicality and properties.

ImaFungi

dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Ok i think your beating all around the bush but missing the main question your trying to figure out what the fabric of space time is am i right?

Im trying to figure out what exists. If physicists say the fabric of space time exists and EM field exists I am trying to figure out in what way they exist, how they exist, what they are, how they appear etc. Everything about their nature and essence and existence and physicality and properties.

Ok were going to get in to some advanced physics without all the classes you would need to get to this point but ill try to keep it simple. So what is space time well its a vacuum. This is very confusing because when people think of a vacuum they think of a void an area filled with nothing. But a vacuum is different a physics definition is if you remove everything you can remove you have a vacuum. But the problem is you cant remove everything because even a vacuum contains energy.And energy causes work to be done in a system such as an EM field for example.

So what is a vacuum well the other definition of a vacuum would be energy at its lowest energy state.now remember how i explained information is energy and energy is information? Well energy tells everything in the universe what to do.Energy all ways tries to find its lowest energy point. So since we defined a vacuum as the lowest energy state of a system this leads to unusual consequences.So lets say we have a marble on top of a hill we can nudge it and it can roll left or right it will roll down the hill perhaps part way up the next but eventually comes to rest at its lowest energy state. A system can have multiple vacuums some higher some lower then the vacuum we are currently in. So in a physical system you can do things to change its vacuum state it be like hitting our ball it travels over the next hill and we can go in to a new minimum.

So lets look at the universe the big bang was a change in a vacuum state. The big bang wasnt really a bang just energy in motion. As the universe expands it cools as it cools new minimum vacuums open up.Now remeber energy doesnt stand still it fluctuates You cant get energy to stand still much like a photon. A photon is energy we can slow it down but we cant really stop it to do that we have to take away its energy and then its no longer a photon. So are universe is trying to get to its lowest energy state or its new minimum.(ill mention here if the universe isnt in its lowest energy state which it isnt if it keeps going the universe will end in nothing as well everything just disappears) There was some math done on higgs boson that came to this conclusion just as the universe was born from nothing so it will return. Now its time for a further description of a vacuum from quantum physics. So now are vacuum is full of energy not having reached its lowest energy point remember there is lower states. So a vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by specific laws and well structure. I think its time for a video and ill continue later but i want you to see a quantum vacuum. theres a simulation in here i want you to see to help visualize and he also talks about magnetic field he hints on how its related and we can tackle that later. In the mean time watch his video and ill come back later because im sure more questions are coming.And will also go deeper into nothing sorry joke.

Just thought id pop on here and wish everyone a happy mole day.

Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists and chemistry students on October 23, between 6:02 AM and 6:02 PM,[1][2][3] making the date 6:02 10/23 in the American style of writing dates. The time and date are derived from Avogadro's number, which is approximately 6.02×1023, defining the number of particles (atoms or molecules) in one mole of substance, one of the seven base SI units.

reply to post by ImaFungi


You know that Ibm video showing the moving atoms? In the video you just linked it showed how small the nucleus was and that atoms are mostly empty space. So in that IBM video what were we seeing? Were we seeing light reflecting off electron orbital and thats what appeared solid?

Besides ignorance and illogical convenience, why do you like to pretend the universe came from nothing and will return, why do you like to pretend you, your computer, the room your in, the planet and sun, are actually nothing, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU THINK, about the universe being nothing, and then nothing beginning to vibrate, and then everything beginning to be created, but how do you think that makes sense? It is stupid, I want to break something with how stupid that idea is. You are a disgrace to logic and truth, you are a liar to me and yourself. You dont know the fundamental nature, quality and quantity of space, the most primal energy and manifold of reality, but you are calling it nothing, nothing has a pretty specific definition, it is possibly the most well defined and understand idea that can exist, and its definition is true nothingness. Understand this, please understand this... true nothingness, if you want to use the word nothing, CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING, can never be anything, can never ever. It is nothing. Nowwwwwwwwwww if you say, nothing existed, and then it fluctuated and created matter and the universe, you are lying, what you state in that equation as nothing, is not really nothing, so sciences job as a scientist, your job as a physicist or seeker of truth, is to not lie to yourself and/or be stupid, but to discover what you think you thought was nothing, what that really was, what its true nature is, what its composition is, how it works, why it works how it works, what it is, what it is , what it is.

ImaFungi
Understand this, please understand this... true nothingness, if you want to use the word nothing, CAN NEVER DO ANYTHING, can never be anything, can never ever. It is nothing.

I understand that. But if empty space is not really empty, then there is no such thing as "true emptyness".

Similarly, maybe there is no such thing as "true nothingness". I think this is the point you may be missing.