Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Nochzwei

I must be a magician then, i do magic everyday underground here sciencing it up like you wouldnt believe/understand?

Is curved time with an angle and 'distance' an impossibility? What would happen to our understanding of physics if this were the case?

a reply to: MoshiachIusDei
In general relativity, space-time is curved around a mass.
If your idea is different from that, you need to define "curved time" as I don't know what that means.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MoshiachIusDei
In general relativity, space-time is curved around a mass.
If your idea is different from that, you need to define "curved time" as I don't know what that means.

Right.

From what I understand 'time' as expressed in physics is generally taken from the set of real numbers, but is used as the 'input' in a linear fashion. The discrete size between two equal 'distances' within the set is also linear so from what I have seen it can't be shown to "curve."

-FBB

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei
Is curved time with an angle and 'distance' an impossibility? What would happen to our understanding of physics if this were the case?

You are on to time compression curves, bravo. Yes it will turn gr and physics upside down essentially.

doppelgaenger

originally posted by: Nochzwei
doppelgaenger

No a duplicate post isn't a doppelganger.

This is your doppelganger, Angelic Resurrection, who posted hoaxes about anti-gravity and probably not so coincidentally was banned about two weeks before your account was created with the name loosely translated from German means "yet two" (second account?) but to me NochZwei is more like "NochEinmal", or "once again" or "yet one more time", since I can't really tell the difference between your hoax and the hoax of this banned member who both claim that general relativity has time dilation backwards and that time speeds up in a gravitational field instead of slowing down, and makes similar claims about antigravity:

Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed (HOAX!)

a reply to: Nochzwei
I suggest you post these type of comments with no supporting evidence in the thread created by your predecessor/doppelganger, which would be fine in the hoax forum, but since you have no evidence to support them they are off-topic here. I notice both you and he had the same aversion to math, but any physicist can tell you that math is the language of physics and without math and the resulting quantitative predictions derived from it, confirmed by experiment or observation, nobody is going to "turn gr and physics upside down".

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

absolutely brilliant

I never ever looked at it from that perspective...

but there would infact be an infinite number of positives, and an infinite number of negative
fractional infinites and so forth and so on
So infinity would be a matter of perspective.

like I said that is an absolutely brilliant way of looking at it

by the way I enjoyed the videos and documentaries about his actual life 
Too bad the poor guy went nuts at the end
But thanks for the info



a reply to: Pirvonen


I get what your saying and you may be correct.
I will definitely look into it further because if I can disprove my own alternative thought experiment then it would support the original idea which seems to be better supported by the math that currently explains this process.

Anyway I put more thought into it last night and came up with the following...

before I begin, let me say I don't understand some of the math that goes into this kind of stuff I do however understand math.
I make that statement because I'm not ignorant of math because I use it everyday.

I design offshore oil rigs and have done so for a very long time, however the majority of the math that I use are things like calculating flow rates, volumes, weights, stress analysis and so forth and so on
However these are all definitives. 

Under normal circumstances the calculations I use on a regular basis really don't deal in things like probabilitys.

I do however like logical thinking, so...

The information given in the video about infiniti actually open my mind to this new understanding.
the video pointed out that a lot of things involve perspectives, and scales.

because of that I reworked the thought experiment.
It goes a little something like this...


I originally viewed it kind of like a comet streaking through our solar system

however that probably is not a good way of looking at it simply because of the difference in size between a comet and a planet

however in my mind when I replaced that comet with something more along the size of a small planet or even a planetoid

which would be closer to the actual size of a photon verses an electrons then the affects are a bit different.

so I then imagined it collideing into another large body.

The large body already exists in one orbit could then be knocked from one orbit to the next and would also eject quite a bit of debris outward that could be viewed as the light seen that reflecting off of an atom.

or imagine that it didn't collide and simply ejected one planet from the solar system due to the fact that it was a larger body

Also because our particular perspective this would be appear to happen almost instantaneously.

meaning that because we are so large that the time scales that this would take place in would seem to happen almost instantly.

I don't necessarily know that this is the proper way to look at it 

...but it makes more sense then the original model I came up with.
I don't know
It does at least in my mind

I don't know about the rest of you but I think that this fits the model of the photo electric affect.

This may also be a bit presumptuous of me but 
...if this is infact right then this would support the argument.

I enjoy doing thought experiments like this and I disagree with the fact that the large doesn't seem to match up to the small I say that because nature seems to work on repetitive patterns

although I'm sure Brian Greene would disagree with me lol

Could mass be a result of purely motion? I just Googled the speed at which the milky way is moving and it turns out to be 1.3 million mph! Wow! So, I was just curious if there is a way to prove this wrong. Especially since Einstein told us mass increases as you go faster. 1.3 million mph is pretty fast... Or maybe it's a partial increase in mass?

originally posted by: disk4
I don't know about the rest of you but I think that this fits the model of the photo electric affect.

I think you may have missed one of the points of the discovery, that energy is quantized, on small scales. It's still quantized on large scales as far as we know but with the same size quanta which are so small that on large scales they are insignificant.

I can't think of any classical analogy that's good, just a very poor one, like climbing stair steps. In that analogy energy can only exist on the stair-step levels, but not in between, and the height of a stair-step is like a quantum of energy. If there's anything like this in the model you just described, I missed it, but I didn't see anything that describes discrete energy states, nor what would prohibit energy levels between those discrete states, nor are you likely to be able to model that classically since it's not a classical phenomenon. It's not really intuitive, because even in the stair-step analogy, you could simply imagine replacing the stair steps with a ramp which would allow you to access "heights" or "energies" between the steps. This doesn't happen in the photoelectric effect since you can't have part of a quantum of energy, which is why infrared light won't eject the electrons no matter how intense it is.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Could mass be a result of purely motion? I just Googled the speed at which the milky way is moving and it turns out to be 1.3 million mph! Wow! So, I was just curious if there is a way to prove this wrong.

It's complicated. If you can watch videos, here's a good explanation of where your mass comes from (If you can't watch videos, let me know and I'll see if I can find a written explanation):

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

Especially since Einstein told us mass increases as you go faster.

No actually Einstein objected to this explanation, but that didn't stop teachers like Richard Feynman from popularizing the idea. You can see Einstein's objection to this explanation here in my other thread.

1.3 million mph is pretty fast... Or maybe it's a partial increase in mass?

It's a small fraction of the speed of light so it might seem fast compared to freeway speeds, but not compared to the speed of light. Protons at the LHC travel a significant percentage of the speed of light so Feynman would have said they gain "relativistic mass" over 7000 times greater than their "rest mass", while Einstein would say no they don't gain any mass at all, they gain momentum and thus energy, but the mass is still the same (rest mass was the only kind of mass according to that explanation by Einstein). Part of the reason for the discrepancy is that E=mc² is not the right formula for objects with momentum. The correct formula is shown in the link to the other thread.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Huh, I didn't know Einstein was against the mass increase. Thanks for that heads up. I can watch videos, thanks for the link. I'll watch it now.

aye because the equation really isn't E=mc^2

it is E^2=m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

Which includes the momentum the whole idea of relativistic mass is basically

E=Ymc^2 where Y is supposed to be a gamma, and is the Lorentz factor which folds it into the equation nice and neat as almost a modifier to the mass. the mass itself IS NOT increased however

originally posted by: [post=20097314]Arbitrageur confirmed by experiment or observation, nobody is going to "turn gr and physics upside down".

its a done deal mate. ms will wise up to it sooner or later. besides if I want advice about what to post, I will ask for it. verstanden

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

So, from my understanding, it sounds like 99% of mass comes from the gluons binding the protons with the nuetrons inside the atom. And these gluons are basically the strong force? Which is many magnitudes greater than gravity?

Could this strong force be used practically somehow? It sounds like an awful lot of energy and it's hidden inside the nucleus.

As I'm writing this, another idea just popped into my head. Could further understanding of this interaction. Lead to an easier form of fission/fusion?

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

frank znidarsic?

trying to better understand this. in quantum dots how do tuned laser beams generate repulsive evanescent electric fields?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I'm surprised you didn't say Lazar. LOL
I'm not familiar with Znidarsic, although I heard he's got something to do with nuclear stuff.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Why would I bring up Lazar? That would just be weird.

Frank Znidarsic believes he has discovered the speed of the quantum transition and when coupled with resonance or something it brings the forces into parity making them all equally accessible or something like that. Hes a NASA EE ( I think not entirely sure)

www.youtube.com...

As for me I have no idea if there is anything to what he's theorizing but it looks interesting and relavent to your post.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I'll have to give it a quick Google search and see what I can find.

And I said lazar (using it losely) because of his claims with the two different kinds of gravity, the second being the strong force. Anyways, I don't want to get too far off of topic.