Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

False!

Absolutely nothing, is absolutely nothing, it can never turn into something, something can never become it.

FACT! TRUTH! ETERNAL TRUTH! Non sense, falsity, incorrection, wrong, is denying this.

Something.

That which is not nothing.

Is what exists.

Something cannot be created or destroyed.

Something has always existed and always will.

Something moves.

Something moving, is time.

Yay! Truth is fun! Truth is good!

Your analogy is so contrived its ridiculous, because you are starting in such complex situations utilizing items and symbols and transcendent artifacts and concepts. I am making statements about absolutes, about the totality of totality, about all the substance/material energy that exists in the largest most total regard of reality. I am speaking about the most fundamental absolute truths. Your analogy uses concepts of existing in time as complex systems of material, which have knowledge of how to use number systems in relation to perceptions of future times, and abstractions such as negatives.

I do hope you attempt to answer my bowling ball graviton question.

First only a fool believes in absolutes. You think you have the rules figured out you dont. Your making an rudimentary observation yes everything has a beginning. There is always a cause and effect though we're not sure they have to be in order. You have droan on an on Im trying to point out to you just because you can't fathom how something is created doesn't mean it Can't be. Your sole argument is well something has to be there there's something everywhere it's called energy. With this matter can pop into existence.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your analogy, if it was attempting to argue amidst my 'something and nothing' statements, yes, is much more contrived and convoluted, then the purity of the absolutely truest statement that can be made by any intellect at any point in time, the most obvious absolute truth that can be stated that all other knowledge then flows from, is what I stated, and you stated you had a problem with, and then to express why you had a problem, you did not attempt to argue from the ultimate vantage point I was in and stating from, you attempted to use complex orientations of minor but major aspects of tiny parts of the whole, wherein I was only speaking about the nature of the absolute whole, and its unavoidable relationship to the lack of something, or nothing.


In what you know of graviton theory; We drop a bowling ball off of a skyscraper, according to what you know, is it proposed that, the bowling ball falls, because graviton particles push and/or pull it down?

a reply to: dragonridr

TAKE SOMETHING I SAID.

QUOTE IT!

TELL ME EXPLICITLY (OR GENERALLY) IN WHAT WAY IT IS INCORRECT.

AND I WILL PROVE YOU WRONG.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: pfishy

There can only ever be;

That which is exactly nothing

And that which is exactly not nothing

In other words;

There can only ever be;

Something

And; Nothing

And only something is something

Nothing only 'exists' in the fact that it is absence of existence.

Nothing only exists in the fact that;

There is a difference between two particles of something which exist 1 inch apart

And two particles of something which exist 1 mile apart

Therefore the fact that 'not something' exists between them

Is a relevant fact

But nothing cannot itself do anything to something

Because it is nothing

Nothing cannot do anything

Nothing is nothing

If you have details and qualities of nothing

You do not have details and qualities of nothing

unless those details and qualities are only distances of nothing

and nothing more.

I am right.

Math is language.

Reality is language.

Reality is physical logic/reason.

Besides, minds, which transcend pure determinism of physical reality,

by utilizing systems of symbolic simulation.

Reality can only escape determinism, by creating systems which transcend determinism, which requires grouping groups of materials as symbols, and then computing those symbols, to create results, which are not determined strictly by the nature of the physical materials reacting to their existence amongst an environment. Thus the nature of the mind.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you won't suddenly start being correct. You'd do well to preface your comments with 'I think that', or something along those lines. Philosophy is not science. Linguistic manipulation to try to force the universe to look the way you want it to will not work.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

You are confused.

If something exists, but you can not see it taste it or feel it;

I AGREE, it is something, and exists.

Something is something.

Something is what exists.

When have I ever said otherwise.

You are a fool.

2 things:
1) There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for insults or name calling. This is a friendly forum, and I'm sure I speak for others here as well when I ask that you help us to keep it that way.
2) If you're going to disparage the intelligence of someone who has kindly and patiently answered your questions, even the ones that were just one question asked 10 or 20 ways, I may serve you to start citing some evidence to start backing your claims up. These fine people have done that in abundance.

a reply to: pfishy

Take one line I said, and express in what way it is incorrect. If you need to take more than one line at a time, do so. I will prove you wrong. I am right. The way in which your mind computes the symbols it stores in its memory is false. I can prove so, if you attempt to prove my correctness wrong.

a reply to: pfishy

Although it has not been summarized in one 'insulting word' (must the truth be considered an insult?) the way I have been treated is far more insulting then any one word insults that have ever been created and linked together.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: pfishy

Although it has not been summarized in one 'insulting word' (must the truth be considered an insult?) the way I have been treated is far more insulting then any one word insults that have ever been created and linked together.

Well, I certainly hope you don't think I am trying to be insulting towards you. I'm only disagreeing with you. Discussion and debate are one of the cornerstones of science. And the only reason I am debating you now is because you seem to be presenting your ideas as absolutes, and dismissing any possibly that you could be incorrect. Because describing the universe in absolutes, and saying you can prove my cognitive symbology wrong, is philosophy.
Ok, you make statements like 'something is something, that which is not nothing', and attempt to divide everything in to neat little catagories that you are comfortable with, while using generalities to 'prove' that you are correct. You asked me to quote anything you've said that is incorrect. Ok. "You are confused." That is entirely incorrect. And how exactly do you even begin to think you know how my mind "computes the symbols it stores in its memory", or claim to know that it is false? I would love for you to take a swing at that one.

originally posted by: pfishy

Ok, you make statements like 'something is something, that which is not nothing', and attempt to divide everything in to neat little catagories that you are comfortable with, while using generalities to 'prove' that you are correct.

If you are honest with your self, do you not see that you have shied away from attempting to discuss any of the actual content of my statements? What does this say about our exchange, and your confidence, that the entire thing I am concerned with, the entire point of all my words, is ignored by you, in exchange for what you may think is a cute and clever highlighting of a petty trifle. You quote something I did say here, which is part of the essence of what I have been saying, which you seem to be scared to agree with, yet this is not what you want to discuss, now that we all have attention and you have the chance to attempt to say why you do not agree with my statement. You are not giving reason.

You asked me to quote anything you've said that is incorrect. Ok. "You are confused." That is entirely incorrect. And how exactly do you even begin to think you know how my mind "computes the symbols it stores in its memory", or claim to know that it is false? I would love for you to take a swing at that one.

I stated statements which I state are correct.

I require someone who does not believe the statements are correct, to state a reason as to why the statement itself is not correct. The statements themselves, not an attack on your or my feelings, or our relationship with science and consumerism and authority. The statements are there. Use statements that you can create, that are the reasons as to why the statements I have stated cannot be true, and/or are not true.

Because you have created statements, which are able to be interpreted, as believing that statements I have stated are incorrect; Is the reason I said your thinking is false, because that is false thinking, because you did not attempt to state reasons as to why my statements are incorrect, you only stated that they are, because I know they are correct and can prove it, I know that your mind computed the data within itself, incorrectly and/or the symbolic data in your mind is in and of itself incorrect, as in not relating to reality, but a purely inventive, original creation of a mixture of elements of reality, in a novel way, which is the subjective objectivity of your mind, but which does not accurately equal reality, of course not to scale, but not scalable.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: pfishy

Ok, you make statements like 'something is something, that which is not nothing', and attempt to divide everything in to neat little catagories that you are comfortable with, while using generalities to 'prove' that you are correct.

If you are honest with your self, do you not see that you have shied away from attempting to discuss any of the actual content of my statements? What does this say about our exchange, and your confidence, that the entire thing I am concerned with, the entire point of all my words, is ignored by you, in exchange for what you may think is a cute and clever highlighting of a petty trifle. You quote something I did say here, which is part of the essence of what I have been saying, which you seem to be scared to agree with, yet this is not what you want to discuss, now that we all have attention and you have the chance to attempt to say why you do not agree with my statement. You are not giving reason.

You asked me to quote anything you've said that is incorrect. Ok. "You are confused." That is entirely incorrect. And how exactly do you even begin to think you know how my mind "computes the symbols it stores in its memory", or claim to know that it is false? I would love for you to take a swing at that one.

I stated statements which I state are correct.

I require someone who does not believe the statements are correct, to state a reason as to why the statement itself is not correct. The statements themselves, not an attack on your or my feelings, or our relationship with science and consumerism and authority. The statements are there. Use statements that you can create, that are the reasons as to why the statements I have stated cannot be true, and/or are not true.

Because you have created statements, which are able to be interpreted, as believing that statements I have stated are incorrect; Is the reason I said your thinking is false, because that is false thinking, because you did not attempt to state reasons as to why my statements are incorrect, you only stated that they are, because I know they are correct and can prove it, I know that your mind computed the data within itself, incorrectly and/or the symbolic data in your mind is in and of itself incorrect, as in not relating to reality, but a purely inventive, original creation of a mixture of elements of reality, in a novel way, which is the subjective objectivity of your mind, but which does not accurately equal reality, of course not to scale, but not scalable.

You have been playing word games because you refuse to take the time to learn nit even sure why you bother since you think you have it all figured out and tell us where wrong.That's the main reason I Havnt even gone into spin with you. This would help you understand magnetic fields problem is I have to spend 2 or 3 posts explaining spin just so I can tell you about how it creates a magnetic field.With this you also learn about monopoles everything in the universe is controlled by spin. Including why matter can't occupy the same space. Every question you ask involves spin. Once you realize electrons spin all the time it should start to make sense. They don't vibrate like I've seen you say.

The spin creates a magnetic field In a magnet or a copper wire. But now the fun part ot can only have two orientations in space.once you understand that we can move on to quarks they make up protons. And like electrons carry a charge.Here is where you need to understand spin and charges. For example a proton 2 up quarks and a down quark. Looks like this : 2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3 = 3/3 = 1 meaning our proton has a positive charge of 1. The neutron is a combination of two down quarks and one up quark . Looks like this 1/3 + 1/3 - 2/3 = 0 meaning the charges cancelled out to zero. 99.99 percent of matter is quarks the rest is the electrons. ALL MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS BUILT FROM A SMALL NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTAL SPIN 1/2 PARTICLES. ALL FORCES ARE MEDIATED BY PARTICLES WHICH HAVE INTEGRAL SPIN 0 1 or 2. Graviton are expected to be spin 2 if it exists. Most others are 1


Spin is the main difference between 'force-particles' and 'matter-particles. Spin 1/2 particles have this weird symmetry that one full turn brings them not back into the same state but into minus that state and only a second full turn brings them back to the state they had initially. In other words spinning it 360 degrees give you an opisit charge. Spin it 720 degrees and your back where you started. Particles with integral spin behave in a way which is called 'symmetric'. This is why you have heard us use the term breaking symmetry where talking about spin.

I'll stop here because any further and I have to go into math and you need to know physics. But everything you see is caused by spin from fields to matter itself. EVER principle in Physics is based on spin from for example the PaulI exclusionary principle. The reason why barionic matter can't occupy the same place spin. Spins create charges and these charges attract or repel depending on their number. This is a huge general overview to truly undersrand you need to do some homework.

a reply to: dragonridr

Everything that can be written with the squiggly line symbols of math, can be written with the squiggly line symbols of words.

I spent 3 years or more learning history of physics and the history of modern physics,

with the only intent of attempting to dig and enlighten what is not yet known about the nature of reality,

or what may be incorrectly thought is truth.

I am only on team Truth.

I am not looking to download skills into my brain,

or looking to get a job in physics, or looking to build things,

or looking to teach.

I am only looking for truth.

I am only looking to attempt to correct any errors in the thinking of the humans on earth.

I care more about the totality of humanity,

and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than anything else.

I care more about the totality of humanity and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than medals,

authority figures, the amount of money people and universities have, the amount and sophistication of toys people can build.

I am good and right. I am justified and worthy.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Everything that can be written with the squiggly line symbols of math, can be written with the squiggly line symbols of words.

I spent 3 years or more learning history of physics and the history of modern physics,

with the only intent of attempting to dig and enlighten what is not yet known about the nature of reality,

or what may be incorrectly thought is truth.

I am only on team Truth.

I am not looking to download skills into my brain,

or looking to get a job in physics, or looking to build things,

or looking to teach.

I am only looking for truth.

I am only looking to attempt to correct any errors in the thinking of the humans on earth.

I care more about the totality of humanity,

and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than anything else.

I care more about the totality of humanity and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than medals,

authority figures, the amount of money people and universities have, the amount and sophistication of toys people can build.

I am good and right. I am justified and worthy.

Problem is you can't know what we do know about the nature of reality because you choose not to find out. So Arguing Against What We KNOW When YOU Don't KNOW What We KNOW IS Silly .

a reply to: dragonridr

What didnt you understand about me saying that I spent 3 or more years spending a lot of time during that time obsessively reading and listening to lectures about the history of physics and the history of modern physics and all the concepts related. You think the means I am not familiar with the concepts? You think that means I have no power to think of the concepts? You think if I come across concepts that I can critique, that I cannot critique them? Do you think I am not a genius? I will respond to the edited portion of your above post in a bit.

I did not gain interest in the realm of physics to merely absorb the information as it is into myself.

If everyone only merely absorbed the information that exists into themselves, there would be no progression.

I am a progressive, I am a creator of novelty and progression, I am an advancer and evolver.

I am not concerned with absorbing all that exists to sit quietly and smile.

I am only concerned with absorbing all that exists (as in the state of physics knowledge) to think about what about the state of physics knowledge, might be incorrect, what about it is still unknown, how to think about what is unknown to try and aim towards directions of knowing.

I am not a hardrive. Although the sacred mode of memory is magnificent, necessary, splendid and lovely, I have dedicated my self to cultivating my RAM. My imagination. My mode of creativity. Einstein was an artist. Well, a philosopher. (In my lexicon, Philosophy = thought/thinking, it is impossible to be a human and to not be a philosopher. Truth exists. Scientists and philosophers, are not inventing truth, they are trying to recreate in their minds what exists. The process of science is more a process of cleaning up a mess, then of creating art. Everything is determined but mind (and mind like systems), mind uses its non determination or free will, to access potential. Such as the potential to contain in the mind, truths about reality, that are not determinately given to the mind. The artistry of philosophy and science is then that, the exploration of the realm of potential, to conclude what must be done to corner the truth, what must the mind do amidst its environment, so that in some future state of its existence, it will have more information about the nature of true reality, then it has at the moment, this is history, we are ever in the middle of it and on the cutting edge.)

a reply to: ImaFungi

You have shown no understanding of the concepts involved. We have given you entire lectures and you just go off track. Your problem simple you want to look at the universe as being set with basic laws that you think the universe works by.You want to be able to say this us the rules and this is the outcome. Problem is the universe has shown us it is very much random and it will do what ever it wants regardless of if we humans like it or thinks it's logical. In particle physics everything you think you know is wrong. Hardest thing students have in their 1st year is to let go of what they believe to be true and go with what the experiment tells us.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Problem is the universe has shown us it is very much random and it will do what ever it wants regardless of if we humans like it or thinks it's logical.

There is no such thing as mindless objects being random.

All objects that are not minds, are determined to do exactly what they do.

Do you understand that?

That objects of reality, that are not minds, do not have control of themselves, do not have choices, do you understand that?

Therefore,

objects of reality, or all that is reality that is not minds;

Is absolutely determined by the nature of exactly what all objects that are not minds are;

Absolutely determined

To move at all times according to absolutely exactly what all objects are,

And the inherent unavoidable law that forces all objects to move exactly as they do, according to exactly what they are, according to exactly where they are in relation to all other objects.

In particle physics everything you think you know is wrong.

Nice guess. State one thing; That you, think that I think I know about particle physics, that is wrong.

Your statement presumes I think I know something about particle physics.

State one thing you think

I think

I know about particle physics.

That I am wrong in thinking so.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Everything that can be written with the squiggly line symbols of math, can be written with the squiggly line symbols of words.

I spent 3 years or more learning history of physics and the history of modern physics,

with the only intent of attempting to dig and enlighten what is not yet known about the nature of reality,

or what may be incorrectly thought is truth.

I am only on team Truth.

I am not looking to download skills into my brain,

or looking to get a job in physics, or looking to build things,

or looking to teach.

I am only looking for truth.

I am only looking to attempt to correct any errors in the thinking of the humans on earth.

I care more about the totality of humanity,

and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than anything else.

I care more about the totality of humanity and how perfectly it comprehends reality and the universe, than medals,

authority figures, the amount of money people and universities have, the amount and sophistication of toys people can build.

I am good and right. I am justified and worthy.

I mentioned earlier that it might be helpful to cite some sources for what you claim it correct. And you say that you spent 2 years learn physics to correct the wrong ways we think of it. Ok. Fine. But you cannot insist you are correct without providing some proof. I would very much like to see some, honestly. And not just another rambling philosophical post about the nature of 'not nothing'. Equations, experimentation or observation that agrees with your views, something. You can not claim imagination is truth.

But, let's discuss some of your principles of reality, in the spirit of fairness. Ok, I agree that something is indeed something, and that nothing is the absence of something. I also agree that everything in reality is made of one variety of something or another. For example, atoms. Their somethings are electrons, protons, and neutrons. Two of those are composed of quarks. The other, electrons, are a fundamental particle in and of themselves. These electrons are the particles which propagate the electromagnetic force.
I'm fairly sure we are still in agreement at this point, correct?

a reply to: pfishy

When a bowling ball is dropped off the top of a skyscraper;

According to modern physics best understanding of reality, and the aspect of reality we term 'gravity';

What physically is forcing the ball to move?



Does EM radiation (which from now on for convenience sake I will refer to as; light) 'created' 'in/as' the sun move as particles from the location of the suns body, to the location of the earths body? As if the sun was 'throwing baseballs towards earth', as an analogy, to the sun 'throwing light towards earth'?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: pfishy

When a bowling ball is dropped off the top of a skyscraper;

According to modern physics best understanding of reality, and the aspect of reality we term 'gravity';

What physically is forcing the ball to move?



Does EM radiation (which from now on for convenience sake I will refer to as; light) 'created' 'in/as' the sun move as particles from the location of the suns body, to the location of the earths body? As if the sun was 'throwing baseballs towards earth', as an analogy, to the sun 'throwing light towards earth'?

Ok, I have to admit that the phrasing of the second part of your question is a bit confusing, but let's go ahead and see where we can get with this. I'll give you my answer, then you give me yours and we can see if they differ.
The bowling ball is acting on potential energy, due to the gravitational field of the Earth exerting a constant pull on it. The forces acting upon it are momentum energy and gravity. Now, I suspect that this answer won't satisfy you, so you can elaborate on your question in your response.
Photons are emitting by excited electrons moving between energy states. The direction in which any given photon moves is determined by the local charge field of the electron. So, as they are generated in the Sun's core, and spend around 10,000 years bouncing off protons and such, they work their way to the surface and travel in whatever direction the ended up leaving the core in. Until they are absorbed or reflected. But no, they are not baseballs. Baseballs are mostly composed of baryonic matter. Photons are not. They are most likely massless. (Current experiments have set an upper limit for the mass of a photon, but have not shown them to have mass. We just know that if they do, it is less than the limits of that our equipment can detect. And it would be so small as to be negligible in pretty much every significant way.)
Ok, I know that you are actually asking about the nature of the photon itself, as well as its creation and direction of travel. Photons are quanta of energy. They have properties of both particles and waves. They travel and act like a wave until interactions with matter collapse their waveform and they isolate as a single particle. When they are emitting by electrons, they are moving a relativistic speed. Slightly less than 300,000 km/sec. Passing through matter can slow this speed, but it resumes full speed in a vacuum. As for the reason behind the constant speed in a vacuum, even after being slowed by matter, I do not have a solid explanation. I'm not a physicist.
But the collapse from wave to particle is evident in the fact that an electron can absorb a photon. Electrons are many times smaller than any wavelength of light. This is why we use electron microscopy. Electrons can provide a resolution that light cannot. But if light were purely waves, the photon would only lose a small amount of energy when it encountered an electron. Much like a wave at the shore of the ocean does not cease to exist because part of it hits the piles supporting a pier, or a person standing in the water.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: pfishy

When a bowling ball is dropped off the top of a skyscraper;

According to modern physics best understanding of reality, and the aspect of reality we term 'gravity';

What physically is forcing the ball to move?



Does EM radiation (which from now on for convenience sake I will refer to as; light) 'created' 'in/as' the sun move as particles from the location of the suns body, to the location of the earths body? As if the sun was 'throwing baseballs towards earth', as an analogy, to the sun 'throwing light towards earth'?

It sounds like you're asking about coronal mass ejections (CMEs)? Here's a paper that takes into account the gravitational force of the Sun (escape velocity) and the Earth. Hope I didn't misinterpret your question.




www.google.com... 2FLow-CMEs.pdf&ei=0gJIVePmJpGTNujmgIAB&usg=AFQjCNGYDjY4CevxA3GIJWuR1RuDfS-IkA&sig2=hIaMrq_vKt9_GvuS3_DuzA