It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LightFantastic
I wouldn't call it ok as the values show on the graph correspond with the value in the text, giving the reader a false impression of the amplitude of AC waveforms with respect to the RMS value. But yes, the scaling is the same.
Anyway you needn't have bothered with your post to devino - if you look above I had already given him the same info as you.
I think I will pass on the oscillating neutron electron field though.
OK, I'll bite.
I don't see how that follows. You imply interaction, but that in no way leads to same identity.
Modern physics does not have any problems measuring sizes of protons and neutrons. It also asserts that due to their structure (a sea of quarks and gluons, not unlike an atom) you can't consider it a hard sphere, so the matter is "exact size" is entirely moot.
What circular area? How does "amplitude" relate to it? Why is it electromagnetic wave? None of these assertions make any sense.
Why on Earth should I try to imagine that a neutrino is a trapped electromagnetic wave? What about gluon? Quark?
To the best of our knowledge, the particles you listed here are point-like, there is absolutely no sense in trying to assign a size to them.
Well even I accepted this nonsensical theory of your "harmonics", I'd still have to note that proton and neutron have different masses, hence the above statement is incorrect no matter what.
What is, pray tell, "quantum nature of matter", and how the alleged harmonics explain same?
Huh? A helium balloon is heavier than a lead sinker?
Why do you call simple particle count a "quantum effect"? Just to make it sound scientific?
A nucleus with a larger number of nucleons is heavier than nucleus of the same element, which is a lighter isotope.
Where did you get this notion?
Again, completely false.
JUNK SCIENCE ALERT
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Great! You have shown yourself to be well-versed in present physics theory.
Now, with that in mind, are you denying that matter and energy are different aspects of each other (and thus different aspects of the same thing)?
That equation is a blatant statement that energy and mass are one and the same, and is proven throughout recent scientific history, to a much higher standard than the existence of quarks, gravitons, gluons, or navigable wormholes.
While it is true that we have no way to know if a subatomic particle is indeed a sphere, it would appear to be logical that it would at least resemble a sphere.
The quark theory you speak of is still unproven and purely hypothetical.
I do not yet know of a single case where quarks have been observed coalescing into a neutron, proton, or electron, nor of any cases where such as been 'disassembled' to show quarks.
I believe the simple answers are usually the best and this is certainly true in a cosmological sense.
It is very useful to forget the dark matter/energy idea, it is based on the failings of the big bang theory and does not exist. There is a force that makes everything happen but I don't consider it a force that holds everything together, more like the origin of rotation. This idea is the start of a very simple understanding of matter and energy as far as I can tell (the origin of rotation).
I have a question about this part, I would consider electrons to be a force rather than a little ball. When dealing with atoms I think their size is proportional to their weight, separate water and we would get 4 times more volume of Oxygen than Hydrogen since Oxygen is 8 times heavier yet there are two Hydrogen per water molecule.
I still consider this to be an error. Something else, Math is one of the few things in the Universe that can actually be incorrect.
As you are describing I view electrons (and atoms for that matter) as standing waves and not little balls nor mini solar systems.
Here is another boundary for relative thinking like in the equivalence principle, Objects can accelerate faster than the speed of light but the Observer would never know it. It is like falling into a theoretical black hole. For you, when you fall in, things get bad real fast and quickly your life comes to a crushing end. For me I see you forever on the event horizon and think that this means your still alive. In a way you have become the hologram.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe something similar. I believe the most reasonable answers based on previous, reliable knowledge are the best. These are usually the simplest answers.
Those clouds are not filled with water, but with poisonous sulfur dioxide, meaning Venus is lifeless and barren.
Instead of using mathematics for what it is, a language of physics, it has been used to make predictions and advance hypothesis that are simply illogical.
But think about that a moment: by expelling a 'graviton', a particle actually accelerates in the same direction as the expelled 'graviton'... a clear reversal of Isaac Newton's physical laws.
My calculator says the square root of -1 = Error, this is what I meant by the "Error" in mathematics.
i actually stands for infinity since the concept of Zero is the mathematical event horizon.
I would like to point out another concept that is often missed, the difference between velocity and acceleration from a relativistic view. Inertia is the resistance to acceleration not velocity, so velocity becomes momentum. Inertia becomes mass from the energy of the force that is accelerating it. Inertial mass is mass, length contraction is a crushing force from the resistance to acceleration and time dilation is due to the increase in gravity from the increase in mass. Here again I see the Equivalence Principle, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.
Is 'c' at a right angle to ' v '? In an 'x', 'y' axis the numbers intersect at a right angle which creates orbital or rotational motions.
I think I see an error in this thought, our speed through time is related to three things and you have only represented one of them. They are speed (either in acceleration or velocity), mass and the observer (we have to observe this happen).
I am following your point but I think you might be forgetting something, "inertial frame of reference". This is something that is not taught in math, astronomy nor physics. Some call it a personal perspective, point of view, the "seer", our ego, etc... and is a spiritual or metaphysical part to this equation. The particle would enter a different point of observation, not unlike the one it left, yet we would continue to 'see' this particle as its image would be imprinted in that spot throughout time. It would not disappear but appear to stop "think of a hologram". By the way scientifically this whole "Black Hole" stuff has gotten out of hand, it is a theory that has been described very poorly. What is actually taking place I feel is close but rather quite different.
This sound too much like creating cold or darkness to me. Anti-particles would be the absent of particles so if you were to take away an equal amount of energy that is contained in a particle it would be annihilated and if you were to add an equal amount you would double it. There is still some profound reasoning here but it's more interesting than simply making ice cubes.
Nothing is ever at rest and it is quite possible that the concept of "Anti-Particles" is the point of "at rest" for a particle. To consider this in a more common manner it is the absolute zero of temperatures, absolute darkness of light and absolute void of space. It is the low end limitation of E=MC^2, a point of infinite non-existence.
I understand this as taking the energy of 2 to destroy 1 and you are left with one (or 2 - 1=1).
I think I am beginning to understand how a wave structure can create matter, nice!
However, keep in mind that the only way we could view an anti-particle (or anything else) moving backward in time is if we were to become anti-particles that were moving backward in time. Of coarse if we did that the 'Anti-' and 'Back' would be candled in us both and observation would cease between 'us' and those we left behind.
There are many different 'realities' of time but they might all seem normal to those that are observing inside. Outside observation cannot exist simply because one cannot be in more than one place at a time. Omnipresence is truely ineffable.
I believe that this is beginning to open the understanding of different dimensions but to travel amongst these dimensions could have grave side effects.
Thanks for appreciating that. Truth be told, my physics is rusty compared to what it was 20 years ago.
Ouch. Please don't pile up quarks and navigable wormholes. This is an exercise in demagoguery.
Sorry you are late to the party.
Quarks can not coalesce into electrons, these are fundamental building blocks of the Universe and quite distinct. We observe scattering of quarks which fragment into observable hadrons.
There are numerous cases where "previous, reliable knowledge" turned out to be crap. It's amazing that you would cling to this (to say that in an unPC way) retarded view of the world.
Well there may be (just may be) a different kind of life that thrives in sulphur dioxide atmosphere.
I find it frankly pathetic that you advocate open mind in in one case and then proceed to discredit same two paragraphs down.
I doubt that you completed an honest, Ivy League school level of quantum mechanics. As such, your proclamations of physics being "illogical" are silly at best.
What do you know about the emission of a photon and how it can create an attraction force?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
All of today's present theories and laws of physics began with a simple idea in someone's mind. The experimentation comes next.
I find little if anything to this effect, in this thread.
Two observers traveling towards each other, each at a velocity of 75% the speed of light, both would measure light coming from all directions moving at the same rate. Neither observer would be able to tell if they were moving or their observation was moving without a fixed point to measure from. If we were able to step outside of these "inertial frames of references" we might measure both observers moving at a combined velocity of 150% to that of light but we can't do this. Add any number of observers all moving in different directions and at different velocities and the same thing happens, all measurements of the speed of light are the same.
Above explains the motion of velocity, however, accelerations are a different story. Accelerations result in the "fictitious" forces; Inertia, Centrifugal force and Gravity. All of these are related to accelerations and I think are one of the same. Linear acceleration and rotational motion generate a fictitious force or a force that is opposite to the direction of motion. Since gravity is a fictitious force does that mean it's in the opposite direction to acceleration? I believe that the key is in understanding these "false" forces.
Rotational motion (velocity) and gravity (weight) are both constant accelerations yet do not increase their speed. As an object rotates it is under a constant acceleration, a centrifugal force is created and since inertia resists this then inertial mass is present from this motion constantly. Increase the mass and an increase in the force is needed to keep the same rate of rotation, increase the rate of rotation and we increase the inertial mass. If this is the origin of rotation, a fictitious energy that is creating these fictitious forces, then this should be measurable in the amount of angular momentum.
In other words...Energy is Mass in Motion...Motion creates Mass from Energy...Mass stores Energy in its Motion.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I don't consider such to be 'false' forces, but given that there are not any really good words to describe such alien phenomena, I'm not going to make a big deal out of that. 'Continuum' isn't exactly accurate either; it's just the closest word I could come up with.
Rotational motion (velocity) and gravity (weight) are both constant accelerations...
As indeed it is measurable as such.
The word "Aether" goes back at least 2,000 years...
Galaxies do not rotate correctly under the laws of gravity alone. There is another force accelerating everything and I don't think it is dark or beyond measure.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by buddhasystem
I find little if anything to this effect, in this thread.
I have explained the wave nature of light... the reason some of the more exotic sub-atomic particles exist only momentarily, and the relationship which equates gravity and inertia.
If there is one such harmonic, it stands to reason there would be others, and this would account for the existence of other particles: quarks, muons, neutrinos, electrons, etc. However, some of these harmonic frequencies would be less stable than others, and so we also have an accounting of why certain particles decay more rapidly than others. The main harmonic of the Universe would seem to be the proton/neutron wavelength, with other particles existing sporatically at other harmonics. It also explains the quantum nature of matter, since particles could only exist at these harmonic frequencies.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Inside the nucleus, obviously a neutron is undergoing forces from closely neighboring particles which apparently allow it to exist as stable.
Outside the nucleus, removed from these forces, the neutron decays into a proton and electron.
Yes, this indicates that the actual stable frequency is that of the proton and not the neutron, just as the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron is a temporary difference dependent on the nuclear arrangement.