Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ErosA433

(1) great a real expert on the subject of Astronomy and Dark matter...
(2) for example in the black hole video there "Objects don't radiate internally"...
(3) what he is kind of trying to claim there is that light inside a liquid doesn't exist...
(4) radiation pressure doesn't exist

1 - he made MRI to what it is right now... so give him some credit at least
2 - NO ! he didn't said that, he said the radiation pressure doesn't exist in a gaseous star
3 - NO ! he didn't said that, he said radiation pressure don't exist in a gas, not that there is no radiation at all
4 - NO ! he never said it does not exit, he said it does not exist in gasses... like gaseous star

Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface due to the exchange of momentum between the object and the electromagnetic field.

so... if the radiation pressure holds the star from collapsing, there must be a surface, or surface layers to act on
please.. if you watch a video, listen, and don't turn the words around...

sun cannot be a gas, because the ideal gas law cant be used since you need a real surface for their to be pressure... which is, blatantly quite incorrect, he also states that radiation doesn't transfer energy within objects... also proven to be an incorrect statement.

now you're mixing stuff up, you talking about solids and talking about gasses as the same, they are not !

Ad Hominem attack?

...like this from Arbitrageur ? "He is or was a professor of radiology, not astronomy yet he apparently doesn't know much about astronomy according to astronomers like Dr. Andrew Gould who have reviewed his proposals."

sure Gould doesn't agree with Robitaille, he had to be stupid to do so

i think Ill stick with the actual experts... you know... the people who have been working on useful things for the last few years

...well, doesn't matter if he disagrees with the evolution theory, I don't care... he did improved the MRI a lot, respect to that !
on the end it's a matter of believing..
and believing means not being right or wrong, believe is a mechanism to reject other thinking and claim right per se.

BTW... I think you have overlooked my text, so again...
Big Bang created space and time, right ??
Is time a real physical thing, what is time ??
How do you understand the Einsteins's concept of space-time ?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

HA! , yes, this video is very persuasive.. if it wasn't me, I would totally believe it
it gives one no choice... with all that why and sure and you're stupid altitude... must be made by some PR agency ( PR = propaganda ) making it for a reason..

unfortunately, couldn't watch more than 6 min

what he said...
there is no doubt..., this is the fact..., certainly it is the truth...

best brain washing stuff made so far

are you kidding me ?

so... it is true because of mathematical physics ? ( what is that ?? )
(if there are 3 people in the room and 5 leave the room, 2 have to go into the room so the room is empty ??)

...astronomical observations ??
like what ? and I'm sure you have heard of it.. "massive stars to early", "massive galaxies to early", "massive galaxy clusters to early ? according to the standing theory ???

...particle colliders experiments ?? WHAT ??

...supercomputers simulations ?? ( managing stuff !! )

...irrefutable... the universe is expanding ?? ...THIS IS A STATEMENT not a proof !!

let me correct you on the next statement in this video.. red shift does not come from expanding universe !
light speed is not constant, it is not on the earth as grater gravity is slower speed, less gravity is faster speed.

the most perky manipulation in this video is taking Einstein's theory and manipulating it to make a statement that is pointless !!
let me tell you something.. as an electromagnetic waves propagate through the universe, it stretches due to the density in the electric field. it gets red shifted not because of the speed but because of the distance !

now.. the most funny part is when he said the universe, watching back in time, was a singularity..
( can't even find words for this nonsense !!)
what was outside of this singularity ??

look.. things, whatever it is, exist inside something else.
there can not be something inside of nothing
if you think it can be.. see a doctor !!

good thank nobody believes it... go on...

so... even if the Einstein's evidence is not reasonable, he claims, after some time like 400.000 Years ( how do you measure this ?? ) after the singularity all is all right again and there is a plasma. ?? what ??
and at 3000 Kelvin plasma converted to gas ??

sorry but I have to stop here, this is nonsense !!
plasma is ionized gas, so.. gas converts to gas ??

fu..ck this PR shi...t

but it even gets better...
after the plasma converted to gas, the infrared radiation that was trapped ( trapped by what ?? )

NO... this is nonsense at all..

a reply to: ErosA433


maybe you should watch him experimentally crushing the Kirchchoff's law.. as it is the ground for all the other nonsense..



feel free to see other videos from him

a reply to: KrzYma
I have cited the George Box quote many times in this thread that "All models are wrong, some are useful".

So called "laws" seem to be some of the lowest formulations of accuracy, many based on classical concepts which have since been superseded by a deeper understanding of nature based on quantum mechanics and Kirchoff's law falls into that category which Robitaille himself knows as in his 2006 paper "An Analysis of Universality in Blackbody Radiation" where he references Einstein's treatment of the subject which is a more advanced approach than Kirchoff's law.

Robitaille comes across as extremely ignorant in that youtube video, as if he doesn't even know about the Einstein treatment, but as his 2006 paper shows he clearly does know about that so I'm trying to figure out what he's doing by acting more ignorant than he is. My hypothesis is that his video is targeting a particular audience (including electric universe followers) who are widely known to lack understanding of mainstream science, and which followers appreciate the ego boost that comes with nodding in agreement to anybody saying anything that disagrees with mainstream science so they can feel like they are smarter than all the smartest scientists in the world.

So Robitaille is not as dumb as he appears in that video, but still there are some really dumb things in that video that he may even know are dumb but he's targeting an audience who won't know the difference, just read the comments, which mostly say things like "I don't know much about science, but I'm really impressed with your work. Maybe mainstream scientists will finally wake up now and get as smart as you and me now that you showed them they are all wrong".

Here are a couple of specific points.

Even back in Planck's day we knew that nothing was a perfect blackbody, which was an idealized theoretical model. So what is Robitaille's great discovery here? That when he tests for a perfect blackbody he doesn't find a perfect blackbody, and acts like this is a new discovery? This is nuts, since Planck already wrote about this over 100 years ago, and it's commonly taught, as in these slides about Remote Sensing and its Applications


This is widely known for over 100 years that no real body is a perfect blackbody as explained there by Dr Mani, so why does Robitaille act as if this is something that he just discovered which debunks mainstream science? Again I don't think he's as completely ignorant as he pretends to be in that video, so I think he's playing some kind of games to try to score points with some kind of naive, credulous audience that his videos are targeted at.

As for his experiment, I'm unsure if he is really as ignorant as he pretends to be about that either, but this is the description he gives of Planck's idea, a screenshot from his video.


In his 2006 paper, Robitaille talks about the ideas of Kirchoff and Plank referenceing an "enclosure" and his own screenshot talks about a vacuum which is "bounded".

Dr Manu shows a schematic of such a bounded enclosure as a sphere with a small observation hole:


See the blackbody cavity schematic in the upper right? It looks like an "enclosure" right?
Now I ask you, do the blind holes Robitaille uses in his video look like "enclosures"?
I would think anybody could tell they are not, but apparently I should not assume that, so I can't believe I actually have to say it, that no those blind holes are not enclosures. So if Robitaille really wanted to do an experiment he needs an enclosure with a small observation hole, but not so small it will block radiation of the relevant wavelengths.
Planck also refers to a vacuum, and obviously Robitaille also ignores that and does the "experiment" in air.

Even Robitaille does that experiment the right way, and discovers that the blackbody is not a perfect blackbody, he is only telling us something we've known for over 100 years, but somehow thinking it's something he just discovered that debunks mainstream science.

The topper of all the toppers is his claim that the CMB is coming from Earth's oceans but he doesn't explain how that ends up being closest thing we've seen so far to an ideal blackbody spectrum. By the way the Planck satellite is about 1.5 million kilometers (930,000 miles) away, so I think that's too far to be measuring the oceans and Robitaille never explained how the oceans would give those same measurements anyway.

So what's next for Robitaille? Will he do some other ill conceived experiment that's nothing like what the original author suggested? Then will he claim he found out that a gas doesn't exactly obey the "ideal gas law", as if it's something he just discovered which debunks mainstream science, even though we already teach in textbooks that no gas follows the "ideal gas law" exactly, because no real gas is an "ideal gas", and have done so for many years?

Okay i am going to shoot this one right here. If the mods delete, i totally understand because this is not merely physics. But it has been getting under my skin lately.

If we take the world's finest short distance runner, like an olympic gold medalist from hundred meters run. And then we take world's finest swordsman and the world's sharpest sword.

If the runner accelerates to the full maximum speed he (or she?) can do it, and then the runner's neck is cut off with a sharp sword. Would the headless body continue running for a short short distance or collapse right away?

(yes, i actually contemplate this kind of stuff)

This is totally involved in physics but what i am asking if the "neuroimpulses" (i don't know the correct word) would still be on the way while the transmitter (human brains and head) are gone

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Great! Maybe you're still around to answer this then.

This is in reference to achieving the speed of light, or 299,792,458 miles per second.

Let's just fast forward to where we're already in space where there's no inertia and we've already used the Earth and Mars as a wrap-around to achieve a faster speed.

Part 1:
There's enough fuel aboard to power the thrusters on the spacecraft, for a long time. If you're at the top speed that you can go after shooting around the planets like a slingshot, there's nothing to slow you down, provided you don't hit a random rock in space. Could you use those thrusters in one short burst to gain more speed? Logically you should be able to since there's no gravity or inertia to slow you down. After you've reached the top speed from burst #1, you should be able to give your craft another short burst which should cause you to go faster. This method should be able to be used - IF you have enough boost fuel - until you've achieved light speed.

Part 2:
If you were to achieve the speed of light in your space craft, what would happen if you climbed out of your craft and onto the nose or front of the craft and jump forward, as the final boost is activated, thus causing you to go FASTER than the speed of light? As there is no wind in the void of space, you wouldn't even feel the speed. But to go faster than the speed of light, what would happen to your body?

If you're not here to answer this, I hope another Physicist is.

Thank you for your time.

a reply to: Finspiracy

Interesting question.

a reply to: Finspiracy

continue running for a short short distance or collapse right away?

Some animals can continue rhythmic locomotion for a short time after decapitation. No idea wether this applies to humans though. Afaik the spinal cord does some processing, bust mostly to smoothen motion and handle reflexes.

originally posted by: LSU2018

in space where there's no inertia

Inertia is always there. Maybe you mean friction?

short burst to gain more speed

Sure. You can also use a long burst or a continuous burn.

until you've achieved light speed

Speed is relative. How would you measure your speed? While you continue accelerating. A stationary observer will never see you reaching light speed.

what would happen if you climbed out of your craft and onto the nose or front of the craft and jump forward, as the final boost is activated, thus causing you to go FASTER than the speed of light? As there is no wind in the void of space, you wouldn't even feel the speed. But to go faster than the speed of light, what would happen to your body?

Nothing would happen to your body. You would slowly drift away from the craft, maintaining your relative speed (assuming we ignore any friction and radiation pressure).

A stationary observer will see you and the space craft length contracted and time dilated. The closer your craft will get to speed of light the slower will your jump look, from his point of view.

a reply to: moebius

*slaps forehead*

Yes, of course I mean friction.

But could light speed be achieved by this method? By bursts of speed, I mean until you reach max speed by the thrust. Then shut the thrust off and burst it again. It should boost your speed by the same amount every time. If you had a device to measure your speed, you could see how fast you're going, no?

Would your body age faster being on the outside of the spacecraft instead of inside it?

originally posted by: LSU2018
If you were to achieve the speed of light in your space craft, what would happen if you climbed out of your craft and onto the nose or front of the craft and jump forward, as the final boost is activated, thus causing you to go FASTER than the speed of light?

A few points to add to the excellent reply from moebius:

According to Einstein's relativity, the closest you could get to light speed would be something like 99.99% the speed of light, or pick some number of additional 9s to add to that but you can never get to 100%. So let's use that number and say the spacecraft was going 99.99% the speed of light, and you went outside the spacecraft and went faster than that, maybe add another 9 so 99.999% the speed of light.

Here's a better way to look at the limitation of light speed. I'm not sure if this is an attempt at trolling or a test of ignorance about physics or maybe both, but it's a fake quote from a famous physicist which is NOT TRUE, but I think it's a better example to explore your thought process than the example you gave because unlike the spaceship which can't travel at the speed of light, this one involves light from the headlights which can and does travel at the speed of light:


So the thinking in that fake and wrong image floating around the internet actually seems logical, that velocities are additive, according to Newtonian physics.

And I can see why it took hundreds of years for people like Einstein to come along and figure out that velocities are not additive as our logic might suggest. So the speed of light coming from the car's headlights is always going the speed of light, whether the car is parked, or going 65 mph. How can that be and why doesn't the 65mph speed of the car add to the speed of light from the headlights?

According to relativity theory, when there is relative motion, like 65 mph with respect to the ground, clocks don't run at the same rate, so an observer standing on the ground will see the clock he's holding ticking at one rate, but a similar clock in the car going 65 mph will be going more slowly. This is not very intuitive and it actually took me a while to wrap my head around it when I learned relativity, but experiments with clocks in motion are consistent with predictions of relativity.

As there is no wind in the void of space, you wouldn't even feel the speed.

I can understand why you would say that, since it sounds logical based on space having no atmosphere to create wind. but even though space is really empty, it's not completely empty and the "wind" would kill you long before you reached the speed of light.

In our solar system we have the "solar wind" but even outside our solar system, there's probably 1 or 2 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter. That's pretty empty, but the speed of light is pretty fast, so let's say you're going 99% the speed of light. From your reference frame in the spaceship, you're at rest, and those hydrogen atoms or protons are like little bullets traveling at you at 99% the speed of light. One won't kill you, but how many are hitting you when you go that fast?

Speed kills: Highly relativistic spaceflight would be fatal for passengers and instruments

Unfortunately, as spaceship velocities approach the speed of light, interstellar hydrogen H, although only present at a density of approximately 1.8 atoms/cm^3, turns into intense radiation that would quickly kill passengers and destroy electronic instrumentation. In addition, the energy loss of ionizing radiation passing through the ship’s hull represents an increasing heat load that necessitates large expenditures of energy to cool the ship. Stopping or diverting this flux, either with material or electromagnetic shields, is a daunting problem. Going slow to avoid severe H irradiation sets an upper speed limit of v ~ 0.5 c.

So the implication is, don't go faster than half the speed of light, because going much faster than that will kill you from the "wind", though not exactly wind, but sort of.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: moebius
But could light speed be achieved by this method? By bursts of speed, I mean until you reach max speed by the thrust.

Whether the speed comes from acceleration which is continuous or intermittent, I don't think affects what velocities can be reached either way. A more continuous acceleration is probably more comfortable for passengers. But Project Orion was a proposed spaceship which could travel to another star at 10% the speed of light by exploding bombs behind the spaceship, so each bomb explosion would give additional acceleration. To smooth out the ride and prevent damage to the spaceship, the bombs would explode against a pusher plate that had a "springy" connection to the spaceship to smooth out the acceleration somewhat, but I imagine it would still be a somewhat bumpy ride.

Would your body age faster being on the outside of the spacecraft instead of inside it?

The rate of clock movement is relative to something else, another clock in another reference frame. If an observer from Earth sees the spaceship with two astronauts going at .9c and one astronaut leaves the spaceship going faster in the same direction, say .95c, an earth observer will see the clock of the astronaut going at .95 c going even more slowly than the clock of the astronaut that stayed on the spaceship, but both the astronaut's clocks will be seen moving more slowly than earth based clocks.

But if the astronaut leaving the space ship just does a spacewalk at .9c while tethered to the spaceship going 0.9c, he will age at the same rate as the astronaut inside the spaceship.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for taking the time to reply with great insight. I've posed this question in the past, but I usually get snarky one-liners. I guess this also eliminates travelling into the future by way of light speed.

It makes sense that speeds at that rate would rip you apart, now, considering I wasn't thinking about the fact that even light bends in space.

The meme you posted poses another question. Going 65 mph and turning your headlights on is one thing, but, theoretically speaking, if you were light enough to ride that beam of light (impossible, I know) and as they were almost to the end of their path, you wouldn't be going faster than the light if you jumped in the same direction the light was going?

originally posted by: LSU2018
The meme you posted poses another question. Going 65 mph and turning your headlights on is one thing, but, theoretically speaking, if you were light enough to ride that beam of light (impossible, I know) and as they were almost to the end of their path, you wouldn't be going faster than the light if you jumped in the same direction the light was going?

I usually find that most physicists seem to have pretty good insights into how to model nature from the observations we have made and the experiments we have done. But this is a topic where I see a lot of PhD physicists saying things that I'm pretty sure are wrong, or at least in contradiction to general relativity, where they make assumptions that a photon can have a reference frame in a model like general relativity.

As far as I can tell, this thinking is flawed and there is no such thing as a valid reference frame for a photon in general relativity. So you can't make any statements about how much time would pass for a photon, because there is no valid reference frame for a photon in order to make any calculations.

So even though some physicists will tell you otherwise, I think they are wrong and the only valid reference frames that can be established in relativity are for things which are not traveling at the speed of light. Maybe someday a theory more advanced than relativity can address this better, but for now relativity is the accepted model and trying to answer a question like that is a bit like trying to divide by zero, it's undefined, because we don't have a model in which a photon traveling at exactly the speed of light is a valid reference frame. Or maybe as with dividing by zero, there is no way to give such a concept logical consistency, and it has to remain undefined.

So pick something other than a speed of light photon for a reference frame, and then the question can be answered, but there is no valid answer in relativity to "what does it look like from the photon's reference frame?", in my opinion. Other opinions vary.

When you pick something other than a photon for a reference frame, the relativity model is consistent, where photons always travel at the speed of light and objects with mass don't (except neutrinos which I suspect are traveling such a small amount less than the precise speed of light that we haven't been able to measure the difference...yet.)

a reply to: KrzYma

So the important part i am getting at is that lots of what he said, as a disproof of mainstream science is extremely easy to prove and to show to be true.

I agree completely with Arbitrageur that he appears to be pretending to be ignorant or is putting out statements he knows to not quite be the case because he knows it will make heads nod.

Pressure in a star, he claims doesn't exist because you need a surface for there to be a concept of pressure and he per-ports to solve this by making the region surrounding the core metallic hydrogen.... with a strange justification that this provides the surface required to make the concept of pressure work.

Well much as people ask "well what came before" I say the same, by requiring the Metallic hydrogen he as prevented star formation, as you need high pressure to create the metallic hydrogen for there to be a heated core, but you cant according to him, have pressure without a solid shelled surface... so... round and round we go. Star formation is thus impossible.

When he talks about virtual surfaces and throwing it away, he is being massively ignorant of reality playing it off as though there is no data at all.

Gas flowing through pipes... yes there is pressure at the pipe, though if you are to make probe measurements (yes the surface of the probe is a surface) you will see that there is a pressure differential as you move from the edge to the centre, and from one end of the pipe to the other. Obviously what is going on in the flow example is differentials in the fluid velocity. Though it is possible to create local pockets of high and low pressure depending upon the flow of the gas and the level of turbulence

This is well understood and observed science, namely fluid dynamics. So he is saying that you in a way cannot generate any pressure differentials in a liquid or gas despite that simple examples on earth do not agree with him.

In a star, the concept is that the photons being produced are scattering and being absorbed and re-emitted by the plasma, his argument about same mass object colliding be elastic is kind of irrelevant here because the real situation is one of Photons, Electrons and Protons and Helium all rattling around. A photon, produced by a fusion reaction has enough energy to give an electron a pretty good kick.

If you pick a point outside the core, it will experience a more dominent flux of photons and higher energy electrons etc from the direction pointing at the core than it will from the outside. The result of this is exactly the same as pressure. For him to make the statement and for you to defend it is to completely do what Arbitrageur said and to just not along as though the guy is making some profound discovery and that everyone in the mainstream is a brain dead moron.

SOooo the man did do some great development in the MRI.... Iv built the worlds cleanest noble gas target production skid which ultimately provided the target for a rare event search experiment... but... yeah zero respect for that right and im a moron according to so many of your previous statements.

Okay. Here i go again. This one is simple physics, not vague sauna stuff or a decapitated runner.

Can a perfect circle exist?

I googled and got all kinds of stuff about a band that i like and all kinds of physics forums which i tried to browse through.

A circle is a circle. I bet that an artificial intelligence can create one in nanoseconds. I even bet that i could make one, with my ancient, weak laptop computer.

I got all kinds of answers that went way above my head... about gravitational forces influencing otherwise circle patterns of planetary objects. It is year 2019 and we can't make a perfect circle? Come on!

originally posted by: Finspiracy

Can a perfect circle exist?

What a great question. It has three interesting aspects: atomic size, quantum limits, and the essence of theories of space and time.

First up, atomic size. At a small enough scale, the size of atoms will enter in. Say that your circle is only four atoms in circumference. Then it would look more like a fuzzy square than a circle.

Next, quantum limits. If you are thinking of a circle as a real physical thing, like drops of ink on a piece of paper, then no, a perfect physical circle cannot exist. A physical line or curved line of zero thickness cannot exist. This is because quantum mechanics shows us that there is a relationship between an object's size and its momentum. If you go to zero size for your drop of ink the momentum becomes infinite, and you just can't get the ink to zero thickness, so you can't get to an infinitely thin curved line. It must have some size.

Even if you are thinking just in the abstract the question doesn't have a yes or no answer. In special relativity theory, space and time are relative to motion, and so what is a circle to one observer is not a circle as viewed by another observer. In special relativity, if you set up an ideal theoretical coordinate system and define a circle in that coordinate system, you could define a theoretical circle for you. But if a friend goes by in a space ship wherein your friend sets up their own ideal coordinate system, your friend will say that your defined circle is shorter in the direction of that friend's motion. There is a "length contraction" in the direction of motion.

In general relativity theory gravitation and acceleration effects also enter in to what is meant by space and time, merging into space-time, and this adds further complications.

In absolute theory, a perfect circle can exist theoretically, since in absolute theory space and time are abstract notions wherein pure Euclidean geometry can "exist". However, the atomic and quantum limits still apply, so you can only have a perfect theoretical circle, not an actual physical one.

So a perfect physical circle can't exist. If relativity is adopted even a perfect mathematical circle doesn't exist that all observers can agree is a circle in their coordinate systems. Only if absolute theory is adopted can all observers agree that a perfect mathematical circle can exist.

a reply to: ErosA433
a reply to: Arbitrageur

cool, this is progress ...

let me repeat again.. I'm not an electric universe "moron" believing all they claim, even if I post lots of they ideas..
you guys talking about MS science all the time so if EU proponents are "morons" so are the MS science people..

and no. I don't think you are morons.. I see the talks here more like arguing with people in a bar by some beers..
I read what you say and think about it, hope you read what I say and think about it...
without rejecting the though just because it is outside the box... the MS box in your case

all is a question of believe, believe because it means we don't really know for sure !

yes.. we know 2 stones and another 3 stones is 5 stones. sure.
but quantum mechanics for example is ignoring that principle by using pure mathematical equations to explain stuff.
therefore the outcome is nonsense like negative kinetic energy or creation out of nothing and annihilation into nothing ( well, not nothing, out of equations, time, whatever nonsense...)
hope you see my point

now... I like to shatter Einstein's thoughts..

moving clocks run slower...
SURE !!
but not because time is going slower, the clocks are !!!

time is not a physical thing you can manipulate or collect or do anything to or with..
time is a concept, appearing from counting periodic events, earth rotation, heartbeat or atomic vibrations.
Timeflow is comparison of one count to another.
without background, there is no time at all !!
Universe does not exist in time, time exists in the Universe ! period !!!!

also the reference frame... there in no isolated frame.
the observer of the frame is the new frame. ( here Einstein was always the "God" observing his though experiments )
all that happens has the universe as the background frame and therefor relative is always to the background, the whole Universe, not one frame isolated and another frame isolated.

speed of light is not constant ! what we say speed of C, it is the measured speed in OUR surroundings.
radiation propagation speed is dependent on the density in the electric field ( all the charged particles, Earth, Solar system, Milky Way, Universe ) it is an additive field..
so EM propagates slower in more gravity ( more charged particles )
in matter is even more slower.. because of all the atones it propagates through ( or better said around )

lets continue.. don't want to talk about space-time nonsense at all...
space contraction and all this... sorry, next time about this...

REDSHIFT
so.. how does the frequency change ? propagation is one thing, the length of the wave another...
well... Electric field is instantaneous, magnetic field is the real propagation speed of measured radiation speed.
and this is the thing.. as E changes instantly and B slower, E can change so that B goes "back" at the same point in space, or it stops for an instance if E from one side opposes the directional speed of B.
standing B field is exactly the appearance of this.
constant B field is not propagating at all, right ?? or is it ? a little ??, fluctuating maybe ?

did one ever explained why magnets do what they do ??
not described but explained ?
magnets are made of matter, vibrating charges, right ?

the vibrations of the charges change the E field so that B propagates for and back so quick that B is standing

did I just explained how magnets work ??
I think I did...

you don't think ?
what if we cool the matter down so that the E field gets more resonant ?
stronger B field ? yes...
what if we heat it so the E field gets more chaotic ? B reduces and disperses..
what if we stop all charges from moving so there is no change in E ? not just the outer shells charges but all charges ??
no B at all...

oh... I know, now you may say, an electric wire and any coil is generating an magnetic field..
sure...
but do the electrons in the wire move constantly with the same speed or do the electrons rather jump from atom to atom ??
I think they rather do jump because of the bounding forces..
this "jump" creates the standing B. because moving charges create propagating B not standing B.
the resonance in E creates standing B.


but why EM propagates at all ?
E does not, it is instantaneous, B does

why B is created from displacement of E ??



OK, one more... about gas pressure.
sure you can compress gas, with boundaries is the easiest way.
what happens if the compression is so great the the atoms can not move any more?
temperature goes to 0 and we get a solid as well, coulomb farces prevent it from collapsing to imaginary Black Hole..
wait... this is the so called Black Hole... compressed matter at 0 Brownian motion... a solid, not singularity.
BUT with E field density

1- and 1+ is 2 of 0

Loving this thread. I go by emotions, but from time to time it is good to get some real facts straight and you all seem like clever people.

If we rule out friction, or what it is, anyway that i won't instantly be vaporized or something if i travel at light speed. Then i aim a gun forward and pull the trigger. What happens

originally posted by: Finspiracy
If we rule out friction, or what it is, anyway that i won't instantly be vaporized or something if i travel at light speed. Then i aim a gun forward and pull the trigger.

The answer is only a slight variant of the answer of your nearly identical previous question, except in that one you left the spaceship and went faster, in this one you fire a bullet which goes faster. Conceptually it's not a different question, if the only difference is whether you are an astronaut or you are a bullet. So the previous answer still applies if you make the appropriate substitution.

According to Einstein's relativity, the closest you could get to light speed would be something like 99.99% the speed of light, or pick some number of additional 9s to add to that but you can never get to 100%. So let's use that number and say the spacecraft was going 99.99% the speed of light, and you went outside the spacecraft and went faster than that, maybe add another 9 so 99.999% the speed of light.

The speed of light limitation for objects with mass appears to be a property of the universe, so to avoid that limitation, you'd have to rule out the universe, leaving no place we know about to perform your thought experiment. You could hypothesize another universe with different constants, where maybe the speed of light is about 400 million kps there instead of about 300 million kps like it is here. If the other universe had relativity like this one then you could even apply the same formulas for adding velocities based on "c" except that "c" would have a different value in the other universe. In that universe you could go 300 million kps which would only be 3/4 the speed of light there even though it's a bit over the speed of light here.

Or the other universe could have not just different constants, but different rules, but there's no way I know of to predict what they would be. That reminds me of this quip that some people don't find the laws in this universe philosophically pleasing, so Richard Feynman quipped they might go to another universe where they might find the laws simpler and more philosophically pleasing.

You don't like it? Go somewhere else! by Richard Feynman, the QED Lecture at University of Auckland

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433
a reply to: Arbitrageur

cool, this is progress ...

let me repeat again.. I'm not an electric universe "moron" believing all they claim, even if I post lots of they ideas..

You do have something completely in common with them whether your ideas are exactly the same or not...both you and electric universe drone on and on with lots of words, but never posit quantitative models which can be tested and compared with observation so they can be falsified...or not, which is the foundation of science. So whatever it is, it's not scientific. One thing it might be called is word salad. Take this for example...

time is not a physical thing you can manipulate or collect or do anything to or with..
time is a concept, appearing from counting periodic events, earth rotation, heartbeat or atomic vibrations.
Timeflow is comparison of one count to another.
without background, there is no time at all !!
Universe does not exist in time, time exists in the Universe ! period !!!!

I have no problem with the concept that comparing clock measurements is like comparing counting faster to counting more slowly, but it does seem like NIST can manipulate time experienced by their clocks in their lab when they compare clock speeds at different elevations or clock speeds when a clock is moving compared to when it's stationary. Their results are consistent with the theory of relativity, and yes the theory says things like time and space are relative. But when NIST makes a clock run at a different rate, they are manipulating the time experienced by that clock.

In any case if I were to accept your word salad and try to say how it would make predictions any different from relativity, I have the same problem as with everything else in word salad by you and the electric universe proponents...no mathematical models which can make predictions and be tested.

OK, one more... about gas pressure.
sure you can compress gas, with boundaries is the easiest way.
what happens if the compression is so great the the atoms can not move any more?
temperature goes to 0 and we get a solid as well, coulomb farces prevent it from collapsing to imaginary Black Hole..
wait... this is the so called Black Hole... compressed matter at 0 Brownian motion... a solid, not singularity.

Baryonic matter has a state between regular atoms and a black hole, found in neutron stars, where they are so dense a spoonful of neutron star material has as much mass as a mountain on Earth. A neutron star is mostly just neutrons though maybe not entirely neutrons near the surface where the pressure is lowest.

Black holes are commonly referred to as "baryonic" but this is somewhat of an anomaly in terminology since the idea seems to be "formerly baryonic" in that stars with 10 solar masses or more which are baryonic can form black holes when they die. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity to explain the state of mass in a black hole, so we can say it's not understood, but it can't be made of baryons if the baryons would have too much volume to fit inside the event horizon. So about all we can really say about what's inside a black hole is that it must have a density that allows it to fit inside the event horizon.

If someone develops a plausible theory of quantum gravity, then maybe we could say more about it based on predictions from that hypothetical theory.

a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Finspiracy

originally posted by: Finspiracy
Okay. Here i go again. This one is simple physics, not vague sauna stuff or a decapitated runner.

Can a perfect circle exist?

I see physics as theory, and application of theory to make things as engineering.

What is a sphere but a three-dimensional circle? We made one that's nearly perfect, but I agree with Delbert Larson, that "nearly" is as close as we can get.

A Sphere of Near-Perfection

Using the most perfect spheres humans have ever created, Gravity Probe B just might turn Einstein's theories upside-down.

Or maybe not, but I figured Delbert Larson might like that caption from the link.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433
a reply to: Arbitrageur

cool, this is progress ...

let me repeat again.. I'm not an electric universe "moron" believing all they claim, even if I post lots of they ideas..
you guys talking about MS science all the time so if EU proponents are "morons" so are the MS science people..

False equivalence, the sentance doesn't actually make sense, logically or otherwise. It is not the basis of discussion of reality or science.

and no. I don't think you are morons.. I see the talks here more like arguing with people in a bar by some beers..
I read what you say and think about it, hope you read what I say and think about it...
without rejecting the though just because it is outside the box... the MS box in your case

all is a question of believe, believe because it means we don't really know for sure !

What I see is someone arguing from a standpoint of arrogance and minimal information, but a few ideas or concepts they have latched onto and try their best to believe to be true. We do not argue like people in a bar, we discuss concepts and explain what we know, from the mainstream, and from a standpoint of logic try to explain why the 'out of the box' thinking, does not earn merit for just being the status of 'out of the box' the issue largely is that most out of the box thinkers don't even know what the box is, they are fantasists who more often than no don't appear to be lucid. Some of the arguments made, and indeed some you have made, are so often in absolute ignorance of 100s of years of observational science. Something that we can absolutely show you to be wrong or, the proposed 'alternative' model to be incorrect at a very very basic or fundamental level. The issue is you along with them, choose to willfully ignore it, or just flat out tell us we are wrong or act like we are stupid.

Its not the other way around, at least not at first.

yes.. we know 2 stones and another 3 stones is 5 stones. sure.
but quantum mechanics for example is ignoring that principle by using pure mathematical equations to explain stuff.
therefore the outcome is nonsense like negative kinetic energy or creation out of nothing and annihilation into nothing ( well, not nothing, out of equations, time, whatever nonsense...)
hope you see my point

So here we go, you lecture us on a subject that you clearly don't actually have any grasp of, or the observational proofs for. But because you dont want to believe it, you find some reason to call it nonsense and thats enough for you. This is the issue, this is why we often do not take much of what you say seriously, because your treatment of MS theory is done without any seriousness at all. The argument above is not even wrong, because your assessment is flat out wrong because what you say is not close to being relevant.

Quantum mechanics is more about saying "The outcome of small scale physics processes are relatable by probability density functions, the outcome of which can be several possibilities, however on the large scale, the equations will transition to give you macro scale observations we see."

If Quantum mechanics is non-sense... then... please explain semi-conductors, please explain lasers, please explain how a tunnelling electron microscope works.... please explain how the sun produces energy.

Iv never seen you or anyone else who typically rambles about everything being electric fields etc... ever offer a good model to explain these things when you say "Quantum is crap" from my observation is more often that you guys simply do not want to understand or at all accept that you might be wrong and the reason why you don't think it is works is because you simply don't understand it...

now... I like to shatter Einstein's thoughts..

You do no such thing at all...

I snipped the rest because much of what you wrote below this is franky rambling, poorly constructed and incorrect from 100 years of observation and offers no useful treatment of observations. I also do not have time to go through it all. Im a professional scientist, i like to discuss ideas and concepts, It is my day job, but im not paid to prove to you anything, there are certain things id like the 1.0 human eye ball and a brain to be able to figure out... and some of what you say is a function of out right wanting to ignore reality. At least this is my repeated observation of this discussion.

Intersting example which too less than 2 seconds to find, which shows your model not to be correct is the following
en.wikipedia.org...#/media/Fileensity-nd.GIF

If what you say about gravity being a matter of density of electric charges, you would expect what we model as refractive index to simply be a function of density... this plot shows it not 'ALWAYS' to be, it also doesn't help for objects such as neutrons which have mass but no charge.