Ask any question you want about Physics

Lol you are hilarious. I didn't suggest to turn yourself into a bat and hang yourself upside down to the ceiling. I do find a difference in brightness when you conduct the expt as I suggested.
Heck as I said earlier, what I am convinced of to be a scientific fact will be posted here and
I don't care if its welcome or not. Mate you are learning something new here whether you like it or not.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
When you move the flashlight up, it is travelling a greater dist thru space also its moved into a region where gravity is a wee bit less. Both these will cause its time ( universes own btw ) to be wee bit dilated, that is why its slightly brighter. Besides space is not curved in any way as hypothesized by GR.
GPS receivers correction is empirically applied correction to mans chronometer time. Kind of a thumb rule.
a reply to: dragonridr

So your claim is some how your flashlight increases in intensity where is this extra energy coming from? light intensity isnt concerned with distance unless the flashlight is moving. a satellite has to move at 1400 km/h for us to notice gravitational time delay. So if our flashlight isnt moving relative to us there isnt a frequency shift. So once again enlighten us and tell me where this added energy would come from? Oh just so you know gravitational lensing can cause intensity changes working like a magnifying glass problem is in your flashlight example that isnt going to happen either.

Finally you seem to think you understand some advanced physics and going to enlighten the world so as they say lets see it. ill even make you a deal show us your proof and i will get it in some journals and turn physics up side down and get you a nobel prize.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
When you move the flashlight up, it is travelling a greater dist thru space also its moved into a region where gravity is a wee bit less. Both these will cause its time ( universes own btw ) to be wee bit dilated, that is why its slightly brighter. Besides space is not curved in any way as hypothesized by GR.
GPS receivers correction is empirically applied correction to mans chronometer time. Kind of a thumb rule.
a reply to: dragonridr

So your claim is some how your flashlight increases in intensity where is this extra energy coming from? light intensity isnt concerned with distance unless the flashlight is moving. a satellite has to move at 1400 km/h for us to notice gravitational time delay. So if our flashlight isnt moving relative to us there isnt a frequency shift. So once again enlighten us and tell me where this added energy would come from? Oh just so you know gravitational lensing can cause intensity changes working like a magnifying glass problem is in your flashlight example that isnt going to happen either.

Finally you seem to think you understand some advanced physics and going to enlighten the world so as they say lets see it. ill even make you a deal show us your proof and i will get it in some journals and turn physics up side down and get you a nobel prize.

Lol you too are hilarious.
Flashlight will draw more power obviously supplied by the batteries.
when you raise anything from the surface of the earth, it is travelling thru a greater dist in space, aren't you aware of this?
Now don't you know freq = no of cycles/ time. So time dilation means reducing the denominator, Sigh... So flashlight examples happens everytime you conduct this expt and its simple proof yet elegant.
Gravitational lensing does not exist. The lensing is because of time compression and not because of curving of space because of mass.
Journals as such will not allow science to be turned upside down, just ask podkletnov.
NP Lol.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You mean if they are more than 10 Angstroms apart? They may not. If their kinetic energy is moving them apart, they won't approach each other.

I've bin through the last posts again and see, you are always talking about H2 or what happens after 2H are bond in H2.

NO, they are not moving !
This is a hypothetical scenario like any other thought experiments. There is nothing else except those 2 atoms and the forces, they are not changing the distance between them. The initial condition are like I said. They separated by a distance, and I must add, as this seems to confuse you, they are not in a bond H2.
Will they attract each other and if, by what force ?

If they get close enough because of their kinetic energy, less than 10 angstroms, then the electric charge can attract them but it's not like this:

so less than 0.1nm it is electric... ?
What makes you think 10 angstroms distance is the threshold for the electric force to "switch on", why 40 times the size of H...
(actually it's a range of 20 size of H for each )
is this math that tells you above 10 angstroms distance the electric force is "off" ??

so lets expand this experiment and define more variables in it.
1.
[H]-----1.1nm-----[H]
will this create a bond ?
2.
[H]----0.9nm----[H]
will this create a bond ?
3.
[H]-----1.0nm-----[H]-----1.0nm-----[H]
what happens here if those 3 are at "the threshold" to the next one ?
4.
[H]---0.5nm---[H]---0.5nm---[H]
will this create H3+ and if, what happens to the one electron ?



EDIT 7:35, I had to correct it from 0.1nm it was before to 1.1nm ,
because you said 10 angstroms

a reply to: Nochzwei

First, about your GR comments. If you do not think there exists a 'stress energy tensor' of sorts, that is the gravity field, which 'curves' in the presence of mass, how do you think gravity works?

When you hold a flash light =====> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( - - - - - = light)

That is the image they think of as light, at least I think.

So when you move the flashlight up or down, the particles that already left are not effected by your movements.

Unless, and perhaps this if anything would give the idea of entanglement some credence, is if light is not like this - - - - - - - , but more like this ------------ . As in, connected, like a rope, like a rope shaken, a wave. so when you move the flashlight, you can, like a whip, effect the radiation that has already radiated away. But, you cant! Because that radiation is going away from any object at the speed of light, so it is impossible to catch up with it to disturb it. Unless maybe, the universe is split into like infinite zipper 2dish dimensions, and when light waves off one way, by disturbing the light field directly under it, if I were to pull this layer, I could effect the light far away, like if you had a hook in your hand, and a wooden plank with a quarter rolling down it away from you, and you hook your hook in a hole in the plank, and pull the plank towards you, the quarter that was inescapably rolling towards you, can be pull towards you, by effecting the medium its operating on, but I dont know mannnn.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

First, about your GR comments. If you do not think there exists a 'stress energy tensor' of sorts, that is the gravity field, which 'curves' in the presence of mass, how do you think gravity works?

I think I have replied to you earlier on this aspect.

What curves in presence of mass is the time compression which is intrinsically coupled to dark matter and they both reside in the time domain. This is the reason for gravity.


Now about the flashlight I am talking only of 2 positions, above and below your eye level and the reflection on the wall.

Haven't you noticed that the fireworks get brighter as they move up in the sky, would be another good example.
Mannn oh mannn ugh

a reply to: KrzYma

There is no threshold. The electrons obey to their wave function. So the bonding probability will fall off with the distance between the two hydrogen atoms.

imho

originally posted by: Nochzwei
when you raise anything from the surface of the earth, it is travelling thru a greater dist in space, aren't you aware of this?
Now don't you know freq = no of cycles/ time. So time dilation means reducing the denominator, Sigh... So flashlight examples happens everytime you conduct this expt and its simple proof yet elegant.

Yes if you raise the flashlight 1 meter it travels further, but, this isn't something that the human eye can perceive, they are far too crude as measuring devices. The very sophisticated optical atomic clocks in the aformentioned experiment at NIST have difficulty discerning differences in such small distances, and they are perceiving differences that are simply beyond human capacity to perceive without such instrumentation.

So if you're seeing a difference with the flashlight when the height is changed one meter, with your eye, the change is most likely due to something other than what theory predicts which would be too small to notice at a height difference of one or two meters, with just the human eye. If you find the difference in an experimental setup with sophisticated equipment that's another matter (like the NIST scientists did), but that's not what you described with your flashlight experiment.

To put the size of the changes in perspective, look at how large the changes are in orbit versus surface objects:

en.wikipedia.org...


Note even for the GPS satellites orbiting at over 20 million meters altitude, the time dilation effects are measured in picoseconds per second, and I don't think a human stands much of a chance of being an accurate enough measuring device to detect picoseconds per second differences, so to say humans can detect a millionth or less of that at a height difference of say 2 meters is beyond absurd.

originally posted by: KrzYma
so less than 0.1nm it is electric... ?

See this video, which at 0:50 shows the scale in Angstroms on the horizontal axis, versus the potential scale on the vertical axis.

Potential Energy vs. Internuclear Distance (Animated) : Dr. Amal K Kumar

What makes you think 10 angstroms distance is the threshold for the electric force to "switch on", why 40 times the size of H...

Do you know what an asymptote is? That's what this graph with the horizontal scale expressed as a ratio of atomic size to atomic distance shows as the distance increases, the potential energy approaches zero. At some point it gets so close to zero the non-zero value isn't significant. There's no exact cutoff but see the graph and hopefully you get the idea.

www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de...

Dragonridr already correctly said that at a great enough distance gravity would attract the two atoms, though this isn't a very realistic scenario in nature given that in nature we have non-zero temperatures in space and everything is moving, so in nature if there's a low density gas cloud of hydrogen in space, I think kinetic energy would be more of a factor than gravity in bringing two hydrogen atoms together. Why would there be electrical attraction between two electrically neutral atoms? At a great distance, there isn't. The electrical attraction only becomes apparent when the two atoms get close enough for their subatomic structures to interact as shown in the video by Dr. Amal K Kumar. This can't happen to any significant extent at a great distance.

so lets expand this experiment and define more variables in it.
1.
[H]-----1.1nm-----[H]
will this create a bond ?
2.
[H]----0.9nm----[H]
will this create a bond ?

See the video, and in particular look at what happens around 0.7 to 0.8 Angstroms, and what happens on either side of that distance.

3.
[H]-----1.0nm-----[H]-----1.0nm-----[H]
what happens here if those 3 are at "the threshold" to the next one ?
4.
[H]---0.5nm---[H]---0.5nm---[H]
will this create H3+ and if, what happens to the one electron ?

Triatomic hydrogen is unstable and lasts for less than a millionth of a second. To understand why this is so you need to consider the quantum mechanics of how chemical bonds form, which in a nutshell, says that two hydrogen atoms can form a stable bond but three cannot.

If Dr. Amal K Kumar were to re-do his video for three hydrogen atoms, you won't see a "valley" of potential energy for triatomic hydrogen like you do with diatomic hydrogen, but I don't think he's made such a video, probably because triatomic hydrogen doesn't form a stable bond.

like I said I perceive a difference in brightness , so nothing is absurd or beyond, but do not have a sensitive light intensity meter handy.
You are talking of mans chronometer time, but I am talking of universes own time.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Nochzwei
Like I said, I tried the experiment and saw no difference, but if I did, the first thing I'd suspect is that since I'm downwind of a busy port running a lot of diesel powered cranes giving off a lot of soot pollution, that some soot had entered my house and formed a soot gradient on the walls, where it's denser closer to the floor and less dense closer to the ceiling.

This might make it possible to observe a difference in brightness of the flashlight experiment, but it would have more to do with the mechanics of soot particle flow which comes in through say electrical outlets or other small leaks, where the soot is likely to deposit on the wall a short distance above the electrical outlet and is less likely to travel all the way up the wall close to the ceiling.

So, I'm not saying it's impossible to observe a brightness difference. I'm saying that if you do, it would more likely be from a cause like that example, and not from gravitational effects on the flashlight beam.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You were pussyfooting around for days instead of answering !
The question was, what attracts two H atoms together at any distance d!

You talked about wave functions and all other irrelevant stuff and on the end you show me video in which electric force is the driving force for the attraction.
And then you present me a text where I can read this

Imagine two hydrogen atoms that are initially very far apart. According to Coulomb's Law, any interactions between them would be very small.
...
The rationalization that chemists have accepted is that as the two atoms approach each other, each nucleus exerts an attractive force not only on its own electron, but also on the the other atom's electron.
...
The mutual attraction of the two nuclei for the two electrons is what chemists call a chemical bond.
The internuclear separation that corresponds to the energy minimum is called the bond length.
The 103 kcal/mol required to separate the atoms from 74 pm to an infinite distance is called the bond strength.

the attraction is electric !
or in other words... the potential difference is responsible for gaining kinetic energy.
All simple and no need for QM to explain it !

why did we had to talk about it for 2 or 3 pages?
why didn't you just said the attracting force is electric force?
you even denied it is in the beginning!


on H3+

The trihydrogen cation, also known as protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, is one of the most abundant ions in the universe. It is stable in the interstellar medium (ISM) due to the low temperature and low density of interstellar space. The role that H3+ plays in the gas-phase chemistry of the ISM is unparalleled by any other molecular ion.

I hope you can imagine what happens to the free electron, right ??



NOW, this having solved

here the configuration for an slightly different experiment,
atoms with "free" electrons, lets have Au in this though experiment
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))

shall we start for another 3 pages on this or will we agree the attracting force is the potential difference, in other words the electric force ?

and when I use much more atoms
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))
(-)(+(Au))------d------(-)(+(Au))
I do not need QM to explain the Casimir Effect

I'm not sure if this counts as physics,but I'll give it a go anyway. If we had no water vapour at all in our atmosphere,would the sky be black instead of blue? In fact would we be able to call it an atmosphere if that was the case,or does the water vapour sort of hold it together and keep it where it is?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
All simple and no need for QM to explain it !

why did we had to talk about it for 2 or 3 pages?
why didn't you just said the attracting force is electric force?
you even denied it is in the beginning!

I never denied it was electrical, I said hydrogen (monatomic or diatomic) wasn't a dipole as shown in your drawing though a water molecule is. Saying it's not a dipole doesn't mean the attraction isn't electric.

Also I don't know how you can explain what happens with three hydrogen atoms versus two without using QM. If you don't need QM to explain it, then explain it without QM.

a reply to: Imagewerx
All the gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor, scatter light via Rayleigh scattering.

So if you removed all the water vapor, I think the sky would still be blue, because there are plenty of other gases to scatter the light.

originally posted by: Imagewerx
I'm not sure if this counts as physics,but I'll give it a go anyway. If we had no water vapour at all in our atmosphere,would the sky be black instead of blue? In fact would we be able to call it an atmosphere if that was the case,or does the water vapour sort of hold it together and keep it where it is?

Its not water why the sky is blue its oxygen When the size of atmospheric particles are smaller than the wavelengths of the colors in visible spectrum, selective scattering occurs-the particles only scatter one color and the atmosphere will appear to be that color. Blue wavelengths bounce off oxygen atoms creating are blue sky.Also the reason our sun appears yellow to us while in space all you see is white light. so to answer your question no atmosphere we get black like the moon.

how does this work ??

a reply to: KrzYma
I can't say for sure how he made it but I can tell you how I'd make it. I'd take two of these which are the secret:


solder one plus up and the other plus down to the magnet which does nothing except connect the batteries.
Snip the coil in the middle so it's not continuous, and put on the fake "antenna" to make it look like it is. Now attach the two coil halves to the tops of the two batteries attached to the magnet, and put some kind of goop over the batteries to hide them.

It will look just like that and act just like that. The 2 three volt batteries will give you about 6 volts which is what he gets.

Most of that is a distraction to hide the two 3v watch batteries, which are what I'd use to power it, and I think that's probably what he used too though maybe a different model number of watch battery.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Imagewerx
I'm not sure if this counts as physics,but I'll give it a go anyway. If we had no water vapour at all in our atmosphere,would the sky be black instead of blue? In fact would we be able to call it an atmosphere if that was the case,or does the water vapour sort of hold it together and keep it where it is?

Its not water why the sky is blue its oxygen When the size of atmospheric particles are smaller than the wavelengths of the colors in visible spectrum, selective scattering occurs-the particles only scatter one color and the atmosphere will appear to be that color. Blue wavelengths bounce off oxygen atoms creating are blue sky.Also the reason our sun appears yellow to us while in space all you see is white light. so to answer your question no atmosphere we get black like the moon.

Ok,so why do we see differing shades of blue in the sky as I thought the oxygen content was more or less constant at 20%?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Yeah... it is always the the explanations that counts and not the physics behind it

in this one he must use some other trick, the wires are insulated

a reply to: KrzYma
In that one I'd put the batteries in that black thing directly under the light which is the perfect size for a couple of watch batteries.

I don't know what physics you're talking about, these videos are just trickery, and I'm telling you how to do them which few people commenting on the video seem to have figured out, though most of them know it's a fake but they don't seem to know how it's done.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are the attractive forces between particles, as displayed in those atomic examples, more;

'particles 'holding' particles'?

Or;

particles having different effects on the local space (melange of fields) which creates geometries and 3d/4d topographies of these space, which either lock particles in place, or repulse them?

If that is what is going on, it seems that that video trying to explain double slit classically, with the silicon bead bouncing on the vibrating liquid surface, may be a very great analogy, more so than 'we are not saying how the field lines physically relate to any kind of real thing that exists in reality', but 'there must be some underlying materilish substanceish structureish thingish thing which is responsible for the interactions between particles, besides particles metaphorically reaching out their hands to alter others at a distance, the particles existence in relation to fundamental background grids of matter/fields, creates the energetic/material subtle geometry which is called 'the force fields' which corrals or kicks out particles from locations accordingly.