Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The photon has greater than 0 energy. The photon is not nothing (even though in equation you have set it as being what is equal to 0 mass), the not nothingness that causes the not nothingness of photon to come into existence, must be not nothingness and must come from not nowhere.

That whole no-thing thing you do is yet more proof that visualization or verbalization of the problem has failed you.

Math, my brother, math.

Answer my questions. I have to do that because you are so inane and inept. I have to spell it out for you and be very careful, because the smallest slip of mine will result in your mal function, causing you to pay your attention to minor details that dont have anything to do with the meat and potatoes of the topic.

The photon is something, the photon is not nothing; do you agree? Let me prove you wrong fearful fool.

You are in my trap, and your cognitive dissonance will show.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But if we did the planck by planck step by step, we would come to a frame, where if we go forward one step there are no atoms on the feet touching the rail, and if we go back a step there are.

And in one view, he has not jumped yet, and in the other he has, and in no way can you find "jump" in there, no matter how you dice it.

It's the same with your photon.

False, omg, you foolish creature. Just because we with our optical ontology, devices and optical illusions by the nature of light and perspective, cannot grasp and figure out the objectivity of objectivity, does not mean objectivity is not objective. There is a perfectly true ultimate reference frame that is true and equal to itself at all times. Just because we cannot know it, and therefore not possibly use it to our advantage in organizing our understanding of reality, does not mean it does not exist you dope.

originally posted by: ImaFungi


False, omg, you foolish creature.

Nope, I'm totally right. If he's still got some part of his body on the bridge, it's before the jump.

You've got a before, and an after. But you can't find the "jump" moment.

Same with the photon.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The photon is something, the photon is not nothing; do you agree? Let me prove you wrong fearful fool.

You are in my trap, and your cognitive dissonance will show.

It is something, surely. It's just something with no spatial extent. Like an electron. Only it doesn't see 720 degrees like an electron.

And it always ALWAYS travels at c. No stationary array of photons for YOU, good sir.

Math can be fun, you know, and for the payoff, you reach enlightenment.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi


False, omg, you foolish creature.

Nope, I'm totally right. If he's still got some part of his body on the bridge, it's before the jump.

You've got a before, and an after. But you can't find the "jump" moment.

Same with the photon.

You cant find the jump moment. That does not mean in reality there is no moment. Reality is the constant moment. Time is continuous, even though between quanta it can be calculated in relative manners of discretion. Time is continuous because energy exists and cannot be created or destroyed, so 'time' or the existence of substance which has the potential to change, is a continual aspect of reality.

And this does not mean that in theory, as the reverse engineers of nature, we cannot comprehend what exists first; an electron, and what exists after its movement; a photon, and then theorize and experiment that; there must be a physical reason as to why and how this photon can come into existence. and then figure those reasons out.

originally posted by: Bedlam


It is something, surely. It's just something with no spatial extent. Like an electron. Only it doesn't see 720 degrees like an electron.

It is something surely. And we know that something cannot come from nothing, so I ask you good sir; what is the something that becomes the something that photons are?

Math can be fun, you know, and for the payoff, you reach enlightenment.

You must have swallowed some thermal light bulbs that havent made their way out yet, at least I hope it was swallowed.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You cant find the jump moment. That does not mean in reality there is no moment.

Nope. It's before or after all the way down.

And this does not mean that in theory, as the reverse engineers of nature, we cannot comprehend what exists first; an electron, and what exists after its movement; a photon, and then theorize and experiment that; there must be a physical reason as to why and how this photon can come into existence. and then figure those reasons out.

And that comprehension takes sweet, sweet mathematics. Or you end up tail-chasing such things as when did the photon exist, in the same manner that you can't find when the guy jumped, because English and visualization are poor tools for that sort of job.

But most definitely, you can cut out all the bits that require stationary photon arrays trying to substitute for a luminiferous aether.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
what is the something that becomes the something that photons are?

Nothingness. Vacuum. The lack of a photon at that point before the photon jumped off the bridge.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
what is the something that becomes the something that photons are?

Nothingness. Vacuum. The lack of a photon at that point before the photon jumped off the bridge.

Thats where, why and how you are wrong.

You cant say that a photon is something (non nothing), but that you can make a photon purely out of nothing. I believe the math would tell you thats a contradiction. Oh never mind, I can write 0 = 9999 lights. We are all good, problem solved.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Thats where, why and how you are wrong.

You're still visualizing it as a little ball. Same as you do with electrons. Give it up.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Thats where, why and how you are wrong.

You're still visualizing it as a little ball. Same as you do with electrons. Give it up.

No I am visualizing it multiple potential ways, I am trying to come closer to a conclusion of how it actually might and must exist, I am able to visualize it any way it might be, that is what I am attempting, I have no bias besides a bias for the truth. How are you visualizing it, I could use a good laugh.

The only way in which you would be correct is if light is actually nothing, which would make darkness light, and light darkness, and light is the negative result of darkness disappearing, or something.

huummmm read a lot of physics, but not seen that one. Cite???
a reply to: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkstar57
huummmm read a lot of physics, but not seen that one. Cite???
a reply to: Bedlam

What's a hydrino? Start there.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The only way in which you would be correct is if light is actually nothing, which would make darkness light, and light darkness, and light is the negative result of darkness disappearing, or something.

Light is a stream of photons. Photons don't collide, because they're points. Points have no dimension. Darkness is no photons. Photons having no dimensional extension doesn't make them nothing, they're just not in any particular place, looking like a little painted wooden ball like you see in old physics labs.

Some photons only count in certain circumstances, these are virtual photons. I guess you could imagine a fuzzy glass ball.

originally posted by: darkstar57
why does the neutron have a half life of 12 minutes?? that is, when not contained in a nucleus within the island of stability.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It's not 12 minutes. Free neutrons have a half life of about 10 minutes and a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes.

I can't tell you why the half life is 10 minutes instead of 12 minutes or any other figure, but the reason they decay is because free neutrons aren't stable. When they are in a stable nucleus, the Pauli exclusion principle puts constraints on their decay which gives them more stability than they have outside the nucleus.

"Island of stability" refers to a hypothetical island of stability which hasn't been experimentally confirmed so I wouldn't use that term the way you did; you could have said "when not contained in a stable nucleus". There may not be an island of stability. We will have to see if it's ever experimentally confirmed.

This probably tells you more about decay than you want to know but it's interesting:

Most Particles Decay — But Why?

a reply to: darkstar57

It's a snarky load of BS referencing a scamming company which has invented the notion of 'hydrinos' which are somehow hydrogen atoms in lower than the ground state that can be created to make "free energy" and destroy gullible investor capital.

Is the angle of the dangle inversely proportional to the heat of the meat?
My calculations have thrown some doubts into this hypothesis.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkstar57
huummmm read a lot of physics, but not seen that one. Cite???
a reply to: Bedlam

What's a hydrino? Start there.

A non existent particle that only crackpots believe exists. See a free floating hydrogen atom is in its ground state. So there isn't any way to get an electron to get any closer in its orbit. see when in physics we say ground state that means this is the least possible energy an atom can have. We could explain why but than I'd have to teach you particle physics and if your talking about hydrinos than you don't have the background for it.

a reply to: dragonridr
The little smiley face emoticon means he was joking.

But if you don't want free energy that leaves more for me!


That emoticon means I'm joking too.

originally posted by: dragonridr
see when in physics we say ground state that means this is the least possible energy an atom can have.

Ah, but Mills says that the hydrino is at less than ground state.

If you take a hydrogen atom, and reduce it to less than ground state, the electron has pretty much got to merge with the proton. Thus, neutrons are hydrinos.

As further evidenced by the fact that if you hit a neutron with an anti-proton, you get an electron, or, conversely, if you hit a neutron with a positron(*), you get a proton. Obviously, a neutron must be a structural combination of an electron and a proton. And, since "establishment physics" says that you can't get that electron to do that at ground state, it fits perfectly with Mills' statement. QED.

We could explain why but than I'd have to teach you particle physics...

Gee, Wally, would you really? I'd LOVE for you to teach me particle physics. Maybe you can teach me some electronics while we're at it.