Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

Bleeeeep
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Why are photons, or mass-less images/forms, not just strings/waves with their own orbit/convection path? And mass is strings within another string's orbit/convection path?

If the above were accepted you would be able to view mass as the resistance caused by the internal pressure created from a strings' minimum density as governed by the energy of the inner strings.

Then we can solve things easily like:
Gravity is the force caused by the convection paths of strings/waves as they force mass to the center of a larger convection path byway of pressure or the energetic gain of strings around them. This solves for all nuclei, planets, solar systems, sub-atomic particles within particles, and all that.

Charge/magnetism is the convection path created as negative(counter clock wise) and positive(clockwise) convection paths force strings out from between their convection paths thus drawing one another towards themselves, byway of electrical convection paths or an electrons'/proton's convection path and a conductive convection path.

Vacuum/space fabric would be highly energetic exterior strings but low inner-string density, thus causing entropy (the high energy of a person for example) to be transferred to the low inner density strings within higher energetic space strings/wave forms. Think of it like you suck all the air out of a vacuum chamber. You are left with few particles that have high energy convection paths but low density.

And I could go on and on easily explaining things like that if I'm allowed the first 2 sentences and their effect to basically be nothing more than thermoelectric convection or wave-particle duality from wave up to galaxy. Wave is the natural state and particle is energetic waves which succumb to entropy and revert back to wave when possible.

Spiritually, it's the Word of God given energy/will by The Spirit and BEcoming the image of God or Body of Christ or bodies/images and then reverting back to Word/wave form as the spirit that creates Body leaves a Word.

Is this totally impossible?

edit on 9/27/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

You lost me please explain better because either this is making no sense or its to early in the morning. It seems you believe light could be heat transferring? Because photons dont use convection to transfer anything and would mean a very dark planet if that were true. Took a second look still doesnt make sense even after coffee your talking in circles so what strings are you talking about? And wave particle duality isnt what you think it is a wave function is simply the probability of finding a particle at any given location.

reply to post by dragonridr


I believe what we are looking at is thermoelectric convection and that convection is a kind of volumetric transference created by the transfer of energy.

Heat as you're saying it doesn't really exist, not in my mind anyway. I think it is just energy transfer from a more energetic form to a less energetic form(entropy). If you want to call it hot and cold that's fine, but it is more of a sensory thing than a function.

The part about mass-less objects is to say that a photon is a string with no strings within its own convection path. Photons are energetic. That energy transferred to something produces heat, but again, hot and cold is a sense not a function. So photons are energetic and I believe they are strings which have become energetic and have then tried to expand because energy causes expansion/heat/more volume and in doing so, the photon string/wave form, wraps itself into a ball/particle because it is surrounded on all sides by other strings. However, the focus is not on the wave becoming a particle, it is focused on the wave gaining energy and then going into entropy because it wants to lose the energy and revert back to a wave - to do so it must go to an area where there is enough volume for it to become a wave again thus it shoots out from its source of energy gain until it reaches a point of energy transference(the path of convection).

If you are stuck with terms being absolute then I asked the wrong person. I'm not going to be able to create new words just for this conversation, when what I want to do is just redefine old terms. That is, I am redefining terms to what I believe is a more appropriate definition. You say wave-particle is not a thing that exists, but is only a measurement/equated solution, then I have to disagree, and you can disregard what I have said because it relies on pseudo-scientific observations of wave-particle duality. The observations like rings around planets, layers of density, non-mixing of fields/forms etc.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


So your trying to say the universe is filled with a fluid and this causes convection along a given pathway? Seems your confusing fluid mechanics and particle physics there two completely different things.

reply to post by dragonridr


Think of it like aether/strings/waves that gain volume as they increase in energy.

Do you believe there is space with nothing in it?

dragonridr




your saying the same thing just not realizing it relativistic mass is mass at a state of rest. This allows us to calculate potential energy like i all ready said. Mass doesnt increase with speed because we have to balance it out the faster something moves the lower its mass. The reason being is mass is caused by trying to change the speed of a particle. And no the higs field doesnt have mass its virtual particles have no spin. Do you understand virtual particles? These particles pop in and out of existence everywhere problem is particle is not exactly the correct term.A virtual particle is not a particle at all its more a disturbance in a field.

We are not saying the same thing, please look up the definition of relativistic mass, I think you are wrong. Particles have rest mass, judged in their lowest kinetic state or an equal frame of reference I think. Compared to that rest mass, rest frame of reference, when that same particle has its velocity increased, because E=Mc2 there is a proportion to an increase of a particles energy to an increase in the particles mass (increase in energy, increase in resistance to being stopped, and accelerated). I think you are looking at it the wrong way, that if a particle is increasingly increasing its velocity it is getting closer to becoming light, because light has the highest velocity, but this is not the case, we are starting out with non light, and then considering the affects of acceleration. Yes virtual particles, so how can higgs field have potential energy , enough to resist/create mass (before mass resits, what is it? or the higgs field always existed, and energy interacted with it, and from then on energy was mass?) but not have mass? EM field has energy and no mass, why doesnt it cause other energy to turn to mass?

ImaFungi

dragonridr




your saying the same thing just not realizing it relativistic mass is mass at a state of rest. This allows us to calculate potential energy like i all ready said. Mass doesnt increase with speed because we have to balance it out the faster something moves the lower its mass. The reason being is mass is caused by trying to change the speed of a particle. And no the higs field doesnt have mass its virtual particles have no spin. Do you understand virtual particles? These particles pop in and out of existence everywhere problem is particle is not exactly the correct term.A virtual particle is not a particle at all its more a disturbance in a field.

We are not saying the same thing, please look up the definition of relativistic mass, I think you are wrong. Particles have rest mass, judged in their lowest kinetic state or an equal frame of reference I think. Compared to that rest mass, rest frame of reference, when that same particle has its velocity increased, because E=Mc2 there is a proportion to an increase of a particles energy to an increase in the particles mass (increase in energy, increase in resistance to being stopped, and accelerated). I think you are looking at it the wrong way, that if a particle is increasingly increasing its velocity it is getting closer to becoming light, because light has the highest velocity, but this is not the case, we are starting out with non light, and then considering the affects of acceleration. Yes virtual particles, so how can higgs field have potential energy , enough to resist/create mass (before mass resits, what is it? or the higgs field always existed, and energy interacted with it, and from then on energy was mass?) but not have mass? EM field has energy and no mass, why doesnt it cause other energy to turn to mass?

Well for one a particle cant become photon even if its travelling at the speed of light. This is just its natural state everything in the universe would travel at the speed of light if it wasnt for drag caused by the higgs field.Now as far as relativistic mass in general relativity really doesnt have a definition at all. But in particle physics and it does its simply energy at its lowest energy state. Well in special relativity its mass observed by an observer stationary in space time. This is because an observer in motion cannot accurately measure the mass of an object if hes in motion. We right now are bumping heads exactly where relativity and particle physics collide. They dont work well together because of this very reason relativity sees mass as an increase where particle physics sees it as increased drag or resistance caused by fields. In particle physics it agrees e=mc^2 however there is an addition its called gamma which is potential energy to be gained through inertia.

In relativity see figured out your looking at it from that aspect and not dealing with fields. Any way in relativity Einstein figured out that mass increases the closer you get to the speed of light thus requiring more energy to get to the speed of light. Particle physics is all most exactly opposite you dont need extra energy to get to the speed of light all particles are all ready traveling at the speed of light. Its resistance from a field or should i say disruption in the field that slows things down making them appear slower then light. So in particle physics the entire universe can be explained as effects of inertia on particles and interactions of the weak and strong forces. When talking about the Higgs field we have to remain in particle physics because in relativity it doesnt exist. Well not entirely true now that i think about it Einsteins equations led to an addition of a cosmological constant. His equations would take him there but he dismissed this as a mistake were finding out he was right. Einstein used this to counter gravity in his equations and simply was that even empty space has energy which we found to be true.And this extra energy could be used as a mechanism for expansion. So he didnt actually make a mistake that he thought he did. Any way i digress Einstein explained the very big but as we find out when it comes to particles they just dont work the same way for example increased mass doesnt mean the particle gets bigger it cant its still the same particle. And in particle physics mass is directly tied to its inertia the faster the particle moves the lower its mass. Do you get what im trying to explain?

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes I get what you are saying, mass doesnt mean 'getting bigger' though. You said all particles would travel at the speed of light if not for the higgs field, the way I see it is that whatever occurred to send energy flying off in all directions, was not a powerful enough force to cause materialized energy to travel at or anywhere near the speed of light. However it seems in time through interactions and orbits and swirling materialized energy has found ways to travel faster and faster (if that is what accelerated expansion suggests). Radiation and fields seem to be completely different fundamentally then material and particles, why didnt radiation become matter? Why does some matter, electrons, cause radiation? Its as if the EM field played the role of a big stabilizer, because in the early states before matter existed, radiation probably had some nice force, but then some sort of snowball affect of matter getting more mattery, and then a ratio changed between how much the matter was moving with other matter and creating radiation between each other, and that play of radiation, matter, mass, gravity, charge, created this balanced system of galaxies.

Also something weird... the Em field 'has inherent quantity of energy', but its entirely dependent on the existence and movements of electrons? So if the EM field existed, but we took away all charged particles, it would be as if the em field did not exist?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yes I get what you are saying, mass doesnt mean 'getting bigger' though. You said all particles would travel at the speed of light if not for the higgs field, the way I see it is that whatever occurred to send energy flying off in all directions, was not a powerful enough force to cause materialized energy to travel at or anywhere near the speed of light. However it seems in time through interactions and orbits and swirling materialized energy has found ways to travel faster and faster (if that is what accelerated expansion suggests). Radiation and fields seem to be completely different fundamentally then material and particles, why didnt radiation become matter? Why does some matter, electrons, cause radiation? Its as if the EM field played the role of a big stabilizer, because in the early states before matter existed, radiation probably had some nice force, but then some sort of snowball affect of matter getting more mattery, and then a ratio changed between how much the matter was moving with other matter and creating radiation between each other, and that play of radiation, matter, mass, gravity, charge, created this balanced system of galaxies.

Also something weird... the Em field 'has inherent quantity of energy', but its entirely dependent on the existence and movements of electrons? So if the EM field existed, but we took away all charged particles, it would be as if the em field did not exist?

edit on 27-9-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Well i have a weird theory for a while now just cant figure out a way to prove it. But basically were going to find out nothing exists except for field fluctuations. What we perceive as matter will turn out to be field fluctuations as well. This explains why particles can act like waves and have wave functions and are impossible to lock down.Picture overlapping fields of say electromagnetism the photon field the Higgs field. And finally one we havnt found but works exactly like photon field. this field instead of propagating photons propagates quearks for example. It seems to make sense because in physics we keep seeing hints that this is all an illusion. But just for clarification nothing to back this up other then symmetry. And this would explain why properties seem to pop in and out of existence. And can explain how particles can be in 2 places at once.

reply to post by dragonridr


Well that is pretty much the idea of quantum field theories. I just dont get the nature of fields, how do they originally become excited? By mass, by energy, by other fields? I dont get what a field is, how an energy field can exist...what that means, how it exists over any span of space, let alone all span of space, and is connected to itself. But has no components? But has all components?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Well that is pretty much the idea of quantum field theories. I just dont get the nature of fields, how do they originally become excited? By mass, by energy, by other fields? I dont get what a field is, how an energy field can exist...what that means, how it exists over any span of space, let alone all span of space, and is connected to itself. But has no components? But has all components?

Well everything in the universe can be broken down into quantum phenomena. Even macroscopic objects have been shown to be quantum objects as proven by laboratory tests. There is even a fancy new science called quantum cosmology.Not sure if its going to lead anywhere but is interesting. Ok to figure out how all this works we need to start with a definition what is a quantum? Its simply something broken down to its smallest form.An example would be a photon light cannot be broken down any further so a quantum photon is the smallest unit.Now to explain at the beginning of the universe fields were created this is whats important not particles or photons. Particles are not indestructible objects, made at the beginning of the universe and here for ever. They can be created and destroyed. They are, in fact, mostly ephemeral
and fleeting. Notice we can destroy particles but cant destroy energy so obviously energy is the key.

So now im going to describe a field lets picture throwing a rock in to a lake and you see waves as it propagates though the water.The water is are field and it extends throughout the entire universe its potential energy . And the waves themselves is everything we see around us.Trying to explain this is going to get a little weird so bear with me. Going back to the analogy of the water waves if we create a field at every point in spacetime, one would have to have something oscillating for eternity in the water creating new disturbances.Lets look at the photon field light doesnt create the photon these photons undergoes quantum fluctuations due to the uncertainty principle. Just like our water molecules in the lake propagates the wave there already there there just transferring energy.So this field is field with particles everywhere just waiting to be acted upon this is why particles can act like a wave or a particle depending on the interaction. ill go into more later but its getting late.

reply to post by dragonridr


Ok thanks, but my biggest problem still is how an energetic object, a field, can exist over an area of space and have no components, but qualities. It would be like if an ocean of water existed, but was not composed of molecules composed o atoms composed of subatomic particles composed of quarks composed of (fields?) fields. It would be like if an ocean of water had no components, but was on objective substance, that is what a field is like except instead of being the size of an ocean, it is the size of the universe, including being in or behind all oceans? Well how the heck was that created? And how does it exist? Are the diagrams of how it is theorized fields exist in space (gravity,higgs,photon,quark,electron) if the field nature of the fields could be seen what they would look like, and a diagram of how they exist along with all others and everything, and how they take up space but have no connections to itself?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok thanks, but my biggest problem still is how an energetic object, a field, can exist over an area of space and have no components, but qualities. It would be like if an ocean of water existed, but was not composed of molecules composed o atoms composed of subatomic particles composed of quarks composed of (fields?) fields. It would be like if an ocean of water had no components, but was on objective substance, that is what a field is like except instead of being the size of an ocean, it is the size of the universe, including being in or behind all oceans? Well how the heck was that created? And how does it exist? Are the diagrams of how it is theorized fields exist in space (gravity,higgs,photon,quark,electron) if the field nature of the fields could be seen what they would look like, and a diagram of how they exist along with all others and everything, and how they take up space but have no connections to itself?

Ok trying to figure out how to explain this without all that math that made my head spin in physics. So lets discuss a field this way ill start by saying nothing in the universe can have no energy. This was first proposed by Albert Einstein himself in 1913.This is what we refer to as zero point energy and literally the basis of all fields. Now in physics zero point energy is a tricky term what it actually means is the lowest energy state a thermodynamic system can go before altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.So no matter what you cant reach a lowest energy state because when you do the system changes. This causes something known as negative energy and we can finally discuss are fields. So i need you to picture waves you have a high point and a low point the amount of energy would be the average between the two. So in order to actually get an average of zero energy our wave has to actually go below zero energy in to negative energy. This is why virtual particles pop in and out of existence at the high point of the wave has energy and it exists then goes to the low point of the wave and not enough energy so it no longer exists. The negative energy state of a particle is effectively an anti particle aka anti matter. So now to our field we have particles popping in at the high point and the low point of there wave function meaning lots of particles with positive energy and negative energy. Net result cancel each other out and we have no energy.This is the hyzenberg uncertainty principle comes in but we can talk about that later.

Now lets say we have a different particle traveling through are field it has the ability to interact with these virtual particles before they disappear with either the positive or negative particles. So a Higgs boson which makes up the Higgs field is actually 2 particles one with positive energy and an anti Higgs with negative energy.The interactions of these virtual particles on a quark for example gives it mass. Im not sure if i explained this well but do you at least get the idea?

Now finally where did they come from? Well fields are often called condensates much like the mirror in your bathroom when you take a shower a temperature difference between the air and the glass causes water molecules to condense on the mirror. The Higgs field is very similar when these Higgs bosons cooled enough at like 1 billionth of a second after the big bang they began to accumulate together forming a field. This is overly simplistic but you at least can get the idea.If you realyy want some good videos on science and you want to invest the time ill suggest the cassiopeia project. They try to put out videos on science there goal is simple to educate people on science with some high quality videos free to anyone that just once to learn. Ive even used there videos in a class. but mind you these arent 10 min u tube videos they are courses.

www.cassiopeiaproject.com...

reply to post by dragonridr


Yea I kinda see. Though you say the big bang created higgs particles (fieldless particles?) which turned into a field... and then as far as I understand, higgs particles now are only in existence when massive matter interacts with the higgs field (which is really just one subatomic higgs particle? That gets its wholeness interrupted in local areas of mass interaction?). So in reality there are only a handful of fields, which are like giant non component having, fundamental particles, the vibrations of which these medium-like fundamental fields ripple and interact with the other fields, and the points of intersection create harmonic wave patterns, consonance or dissonance, destructive or constructive, stable or unstable, discrete?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yea I kinda see. Though you say the big bang created higgs particles (fieldless particles?) which turned into a field... and then as far as I understand, higgs particles now are only in existence when massive matter interacts with the higgs field (which is really just one subatomic higgs particle? That gets its wholeness interrupted in local areas of mass interaction?). So in reality there are only a handful of fields, which are like giant non component having, fundamental particles, the vibrations of which these medium-like fundamental fields ripple and interact with the other fields, and the points of intersection create harmonic wave patterns, consonance or dissonance, destructive or constructive, stable or unstable, discrete?

Exactly the field less particles condensed in to a field as their temperature cooled.This in tern changed their state and lowered there zero point energy.So everything we see touch and feel is a field fluctuation which gets really weird because that means nothing is really in one point at space time but continually changes because its a wave function. Difficult concept to grasp were basically saying that these fields create patterns much like a hologram uses wave patterns to create an image.

reply to post by dragonridr


So before the fieldless particles were fieldless particles, what were they and why/how did they turn int particles (without fields involved)?

ImaFungi
We are not saying the same thing, please look up the definition of relativistic mass, I think you are wrong.

Please look up what Einstein said: it's not relativistic mass. Why do most people ignore what Einstein said?

physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com...

Einstein's tolerance of E=mc^2 is related to the fact that he never used in his writings the basic equation of relativity theory. However, in 1948 he forcefully warned against the concept of mass increasing with velocity. Unfortunately this warning was ignored. The formula E=mc^2, the concept relativistic mass, and the term rest mass are widely used even in the recent popular science literature, and thus create serious stumbling blocks for beginners in relativity.

dragonridr
Now as far as relativistic mass in general relativity really doesnt have a definition at all. But in particle physics and it does its simply energy at its lowest energy state. Well in special relativity its mass observed by an observer stationary in space time. This is because an observer in motion cannot accurately measure the mass of an object if hes in motion. We right now are bumping heads exactly where relativity and particle physics collide. They dont work well together because of this very reason relativity sees mass as an increase where particle physics sees it as increased drag or resistance caused by fields. In particle physics it agrees e=mc^2 however there is an addition its called gamma which is potential energy to be gained through inertia.

Except if you consider that "in 1948 (Einstein) forcefully warned against the concept of mass increasing with velocity", can you still say "relativity sees mass as an increase"?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Yes until they condense.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I all ready explained that to him. As i said earlier the lighter a particle is the closer it is to the speed of light and mass is merely an increase in resistance nothing actually gains mass.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


But what about the whole concept of energy equivalence, its obviously not that there is more matter being magically added to an object as its velocity increases, but if mass has to do with weight or resistance to acceleration, when an object is accelerated those cases are true. Would a cannonball rolled at you at .00002 mph feel as massive as if one collided at you at 9999 mph? Also does this have any relevance to the possibility of two identical bodies in space, one traveling 999999x faster then the other, does velocity have any affect on the gravity potentials of a body?

reply to post by dragonridr



What were the fieldless particles before they condensed?