SRT* (an another interpretation)

[socratus]

ID say stick with Einsteins 2 postulates until proven wrong.
- the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
- the speed of light in vacuum space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

But I am intrigued by the tachyon hypothesis.

SRT: Einstein's two postulates. / other interpretation/

a) The laws of physics are the same in all material (!) inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference are approximately (!) inertial
reference frame.

b) The speed of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum (T=0K) has
constant speed: c=1

c) All laws of physics change when quantum particles transfer from absolute
vacuum continuum (T=0K) to inertial reference frames. / Lorenz transformations./
=====================

 

[darkbeaver]

This is Feynman answering a question about magnetism. It is obvious he knows nothing about magnetism.

 

[socratus]

SRT: Einstein's two postulates. / other interpretation/

a) The laws of physics are the same in all material (!) inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference are approximately (!) inertial
reference frame.

b) The speed of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum (T=0K) has
constant speed: c=1

c) All laws of physics change when quantum particles transfer from absolute
vacuum continuum (T=0K) to inertial reference frames. / Lorenz transformations./
=====================

SRT: Einstein's two postulates. / other interpretation /

a) The laws of physics are the same in all material (!)* inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference (stars, planets ) are approximately (!)
inertial reference frame.

b) The speed of quantum of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum
(T=0K) has constant speed: c=1 and therefore all laws of physics change
when quantum particles transfer from absolute vacuum continuum (T=0K)
to inertial reference frames (planets . . . ) or vice versa: from planets to vacuum.
/ Lorenz transformations./

=====================

 

[Dexter Sinister]

This is Feynman answering a question about magnetism. It is obvious he knows nothing about magnetism.

Right, sure, a Nobel Prize winning physicist knows nothing about magnetism, and you, with your easily falsified claims about the electric universe that you can't or won't do the mathematics to support, know better. Don't you understand that if the modern understanding of electromagnetic phenomena was wrong your computer would be an impossible device? It is to laugh.

 

[Danbones]

Feynman did not support something even as obvious and simple as "catastrophism" which we now know is true.
He ridiculed it in the book of his that I read.

I lump him in the same class of paid gate keeper that Sagan has proved to have been.


Proof of the Electric Universe Theory is Everywhere

[youtube]bdx5wSKhDfE[/youtube]


An Electric Universe extends the findings of plasma cosmology to the formation and evolution of stars and their planetary satellites. Stars are formed at the intersections of galactic current filaments in dusty space plasma. The size of a star and its color are determined electrically and may change suddenly. Novae and supernovae are the explosive response of stars to a power surge in their galactic circuit.

Wallace Thornhills Electric Universe theory suggests that there are no isolated islands in the universe. All objects in space, from subatomic particles to galactic clusters, are connected by manifestations of the electric force acting in real-time. In the wake of recent discoveries, a new way of seeing the physical universe is emerging. The new vantage point emphasizes the role of electricity in space and shows the negligible contribution of gravity in cosmic events. .
Subscribe to UAMN TV for more new releases in 2017

 

[OmegaOm]

IF you put down Sagan I have to say something. His books opened my eyes to reality.

Sagan was one of the first to challenge religion and show how dangerous religion can be in todays technology world. He showed the ignorant with beautiful metaphors and easy explanations of what science is, how it came to be and how it is very dangerous to have a world full of science and technology in which hardly nobody understands anything about science and technology.
Without a basic understanding of science, people can be swayed towards politicians or ideals that are dangerous to the planet. They can be succumb to fake news, and fake or inaccurate science. With a scientific mind you would have a better idea if the scientists were playing you about global warming for example. You would have a better idea if it is smart to have nuclear power. Basically a better idea how to dismiss all the bullshit that is everywhere.

There are many bad scientists on Earth that either work for the corporation and do whatever the corporations say or they just passed and are not good and do bad science. These people don;t stand out. And there are the good scientists the ones that only care about the truth. These are the ones that stand out and the ones that make science knowledge expand. Carl Sagan was one. He really wanted to show the world you do not have to be a smart person to understand what is going on with science, and that it is a must for everybody to know it or else the Earth is in grave danger.

For his scientific achievements, he discovered why Venus is so hot in the 1970's.
Because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
(What is it,, 2017 and there is still debate about what CO2 does in the atmosphere??)

I might use my last post and make a Carl Sagan thread. Cause one reason why I am here, is to plow though any bullshit, and open peoples eyes to science. Following in my teachers path except a little more sternly. Time is running out. The Earth's ecosystem is literally on the brink. Its not the alarmist talking, its the scientific truth.

Sorry to hijack your thread Socrates. And no offence Bones. I am drunk and just had to get some Sagan in there.

Knowledge is good.
Ignorance is evil.
(even Socrates had it right 2500 years ago)

 

[MHz]

SRT: Einstein's two postulates. / other interpretation/

a) The laws of physics are the same in all material (!) inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference are approximately (!) inertial
reference frame.

b) The speed of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum (T=0K) has
constant speed: c=1

c) All laws of physics change when quantum particles transfer from absolute
vacuum continuum (T=0K) to inertial reference frames. / Lorenz transformations./
=====================

b)A vacuum is 0psi air pressure. It does not mean it is void of mass that you find in a solar system and in galaxies. Perhaps it should be added that light that is bent by gravity (?) does not change speed which is impossible so it is light that travels only in a straight line that has a constant speed. When viewing light from another galaxy why can we not determine it's spin rate by comparing the color of the light that is being emitted by the stars on opposite sides and that should give you that info as well as the direction it is moving and the cgi it to what it would look like today which is far in the future as the light we are viewing took a long time to get here


a) no such place as that would have to be prior to time existing and there is no beginning or end to time. Time as we know it is an abstract as the conditions that existed at that point in time are not the same as it was even a few billion years 'earlier in time'.


c) prior to time there was nothing. Light cannot exist in nothing and time in that place has no constraints. When the universe has expanded over time so that no new starts can be formed because mass is so far apart it's gravity does not attract it so enough of it joins together to be be able to shed light to begin with. Light in that realm would be where the speed is established and with the universe being as old as it is now is there any light that has not had it's speed and direction changed by all the various bodies that exist in the vacuum of deep space.

Does light expand and shrink as it heats up or cools down? Since light contains 'heat' and heat interacts with all other matter based on whether it is hotter or colder than the 'light' that comes into 'contact' with it.

Does the color of light dictate how much heat is carried along and that would be how much that could contain. 1 sq in might raise the temp 1 deg and if it is 20 times larger it will raise the temp 20deg. (over a specified period of time as heat transfer can be rather slow but it can never be stopped as it continues even when no light is present)


Another problem with everything being at rest is you need a force to start the motion that exists these days, all motion could be used to determine how much 'energy' was transmitted at the big bang. (even then motion had to exist) Motion of mass is stored up energy and if it cannot be created or destroyed the energy on display when the big bang happened the combined energy of all the mass that had gathered into that one spot also took a certain amount of time, on a scale that needs to be measured as a multiple of the scale we use in order to see the full scale of our place of where we are in the time the universe will exist. Dust cannot create light just like the asteroid belt can never experience a day/night cycle. (that may change before the sun stops shedding light/heat/gravity)


Here is a planet building question. Does our history allow for the earth/moon complex allow for their combined gravitational force to be combined as far as being able to attract the heavier elements that they contain today?

The earth being slightly heavier ended up getting more than 50% of the incoming mass. Mass that was at a temp that made the elements molten in nature and both had rotation that was in balance. At one point they became heavy enough to start attracting comets of ice as they were on their way to the sun. Because of the heat radiated by the earth/moon the ice was evaporated before any impact took place and the amount of ice is equal to the water we have on earth today. The lower level of the 'clouds' was whatever height the heat from the bodies evaporated the water. The moon would have been exposed to more clouds as it rotated around the earth and the cloud of ice that was at -200C. The more ice was gathered into those clouds the better the earth/moon could transfer heat to the cold of space and the clouds got lower and lower until water could be found on the earths new crust. That process used up first 3.6B years of the earth's last 4B years.

 

[darkbeaver]

Right, sure, a Nobel Prize winning physicist knows nothing about magnetism, and you, with your easily falsified claims about the electric universe that you can't or won't do the mathematics to support, know better. Don't you understand that if the modern understanding of electromagnetic phenomena was wrong your computer would be an impossible device? It is to laugh.

Gimmee a break Sinister, Obama got a Nobel prize. You;re a person who believes in the virtual creation story of the Big Bang, so while I always appreciate your storys about the universe I sometimes question the validity of your lofty credentials. If you've swallowed the singularity blather how can you possibly be credited with intelligence?

http:///www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/11/a-nobel-prize-for-the-dark-side/

“Science today is about getting some results, framing those results in an attention-grabbing media release and basking in the glory.” —Kerry Cue, Canberra Times, 5 October 2011
​

On October 4, 2011 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astrophysicists for “THE ACCELERATING UNIVERSE.” Prof. Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley, has been awarded half the 10m Swedish krona (US$1,456,000 or £940,000) prize, with Prof. Schmidt of the Australian National University and Prof. Riess of Johns Hopkins University’s Space Telescope Science Institute sharing the other half. The notion of an accelerating expansion of the universe is based on observation of supernovae at high redshift, known as The High-Z SN Search.


Carl Linnaeus in 1758 showed characteristic academic hubris and anthropocentrism when he named our species Homo sapiens sapiens (“Sapiens” is Latin for “wise man” or ” knowing man”). But it is questionable, as a recent (18th August) correspondent to Nature wrote, whether we “merit a single ‘sapiens,’ let alone the two we now bear.” To begin, big bang cosmology dismisses the physics principle of no creation from nothing. It then proceeds with the falsehood that Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe. He didn’t, he found the apparent redshift/distance relationship (actually a redshift/luminosity relationship), which to his death he did not feel was due to an expanding universe.

And the list of questionable winners goes on and on proveing that the Nobel Prize is BS in too many instances. I'll leave you to determine what recipiants are really rewarded for.

b)A vacuum is 0psi air pressure. It does not mean it is void of mass that you find in a solar system and in galaxies. Perhaps it should be added that light that is bent by gravity (?) does not change speed which is impossible so it is light that travels only in a straight line that has a constant speed. When viewing light from another galaxy why can we not determine it's spin rate by comparing the color of the light that is being emitted by the stars on opposite sides and that should give you that info as well as the direction it is moving and the cgi it to what it would look like today which is far in the future as the light we are viewing took a long time to get here


a) no such place as that would have to be prior to time existing and there is no beginning or end to time. Time as we know it is an abstract as the conditions that existed at that point in time are not the same as it was even a few billion years 'earlier in time'.


c) prior to time there was nothing. Light cannot exist in nothing and time in that place has no constraints. When the universe has expanded over time so that no new starts can be formed because mass is so far apart it's gravity does not attract it so enough of it joins together to be be able to shed light to begin with. Light in that realm would be where the speed is established and with the universe being as old as it is now is there any light that has not had it's speed and direction changed by all the various bodies that exist in the vacuum of deep space.

Does light expand and shrink as it heats up or cools down? Since light contains 'heat' and heat interacts with all other matter based on whether it is hotter or colder than the 'light' that comes into 'contact' with it.

Does the color of light dictate how much heat is carried along and that would be how much that could contain. 1 sq in might raise the temp 1 deg and if it is 20 times larger it will raise the temp 20deg. (over a specified period of time as heat transfer can be rather slow but it can never be stopped as it continues even when no light is present)


Another problem with everything being at rest is you need a force to start the motion that exists these days, all motion could be used to determine how much 'energy' was transmitted at the big bang. (even then motion had to exist) Motion of mass is stored up energy and if it cannot be created or destroyed the energy on display when the big bang happened the combined energy of all the mass that had gathered into that one spot also took a certain amount of time, on a scale that needs to be measured as a multiple of the scale we use in order to see the full scale of our place of where we are in the time the universe will exist. Dust cannot create light just like the asteroid belt can never experience a day/night cycle. (that may change before the sun stops shedding light/heat/gravity)


Here is a planet building question. Does our history allow for the earth/moon complex allow for their combined gravitational force to be combined as far as being able to attract the heavier elements that they contain today?

The earth being slightly heavier ended up getting more than 50% of the incoming mass. Mass that was at a temp that made the elements molten in nature and both had rotation that was in balance. At one point they became heavy enough to start attracting comets of ice as they were on their way to the sun. Because of the heat radiated by the earth/moon the ice was evaporated before any impact took place and the amount of ice is equal to the water we have on earth today. The lower level of the 'clouds' was whatever height the heat from the bodies evaporated the water. The moon would have been exposed to more clouds as it rotated around the earth and the cloud of ice that was at -200C. The more ice was gathered into those clouds the better the earth/moon could transfer heat to the cold of space and the clouds got lower and lower until water could be found on the earths new crust. That process used up first 3.6B years of the earth's last 4B years.

Do you see any light between this earth and that Sun? No you don't. Why? It is now and always will be impossible to determine the age of this planet, or the universe and your idea of ice comets has been debunked over and over, water forms on this planet the same as oil does. The universe is not expanding.

“when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn’t stand was a smart-ass.”

No — Gravitational Waves Have Not Been Observed | Space News

The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to three scientists for their contributions to the so-called observation of gravitational waves. In February of last year, a team working with the LIGO gravitational wave detector announced their discovery. We are told that the instruments detected “ripples in space-time,” which …
Continue reading

 

[MHz]

Do you see any light between this earth and that Sun? No you don't. Why? It is now and always will be impossible to determine the age of this planet, or the universe and your idea of ice comets has been debunked over and over, water forms on this planet the same as oil does. The universe is not expanding.

Light comes from many forms, heat is the one thing they have in common. Light from the sun is capable of creating a shadow, that is the point I am referencing as an important event from our past. It may not even be necessary to know the exact year but getting it in the right sequence is necessary or you end up with a flawed version of what happened in the past. That can have an effect on the way things turn out in the future.
Water can be in vapor, liquid, or vapor form. To get here from deep space means it arrived as ice at a temp of about -200C and for argument's sake let's say the average temperature of all the water on the planet is +10C. The volume is known and the formula is know to end up with the energy needed to see that change happen. The final number would be affected by the numbers that come from a molten earth ending up with a rocky crust that also has an average temperature that is less that it was in the distant past so it either heated up the incoming material or it just escaped into space. The earth loses a lot more heat in a day that it gains from the sun and in the past we could come up with a number for the radiation of a molten rocky earth that is about 5/8the size it is now, one with water and the current size and one where the edge of the atmosphere is as that is where the last of the heat transfer process takes place. Different sizes and different exchange rates yet the exchanged totals should be close to being the same. Without that exchange global warming could heat us up 100C in a 100 years.


I'm not sure what was debunked years ago. Water turns to a gas at 100C today at this 'pressure', near space the pressure is close to zero so the boiling point is much lower. Where the black smokers are in the ocean the boiling temp of water would as high as 300C. The heat released eventually makes it to the highest part of the atmosphere. Carbon can exist in molten rock, liquid water cannot, as a vapor covering it would have accelerated the heat transfer and the first layer of 'snow' would have resulted in the highest transfer rate possible as ice acts like a blanket and that would have resulted in the interior getting a lot hotter than it was and when mass gets hotter it expands.


Forget the expanding part for a moment. Are there more stars being created than there are that die? Would that be an indication of getting hotter or colder and what does that mean when the universe is viewed as being a single object??

 

[socratus]

b)A vacuum is 0psi air pressure. It does not mean it is void of mass that you find in a solar system and in galaxies. Perhaps it should be added that light that is bent by gravity (?) does not change speed which is impossible so it is light that travels only in a straight line that has a constant speed. When viewing light from another galaxy why can we not determine it's spin rate by comparing the color of the light that is being emitted by the stars on opposite sides and that should give you that info as well as the direction it is moving and the cgi it to what it would look like today which is far in the future as the light we are viewing took a long time to get here


a) no such place as that would have to be prior to time existing and there is no beginning or end to time. Time as we know it is an abstract as the conditions that existed at that point in time are not the same as it was even a few billion years 'earlier in time'.


c) prior to time there was nothing. Light cannot exist in nothing and time in that place has no constraints. When the universe has expanded over time so that no new starts can be formed because mass is so far apart it's gravity does not attract it so enough of it joins together to be be able to shed light to begin with. Light in that realm would be where the speed is established and with the universe being as old as it is now is there any light that has not had it's speed and direction changed by all the various bodies that exist in the vacuum of deep space.

Does light expand and shrink as it heats up or cools down? Since light contains 'heat' and heat interacts with all other matter based on whether it is hotter or colder than the 'light' that comes into 'contact' with it.

Does the color of light dictate how much heat is carried along and that would be how much that could contain. 1 sq in might raise the temp 1 deg and if it is 20 times larger it will raise the temp 20deg. (over a specified period of time as heat transfer can be rather slow but it can never be stopped as it continues even when no light is present)


Another problem with everything being at rest is you need a force to start the motion that exists these days, all motion could be used to determine how much 'energy' was transmitted at the big bang. (even then motion had to exist) Motion of mass is stored up energy and if it cannot be created or destroyed the energy on display when the big bang happened the combined energy of all the mass that had gathered into that one spot also took a certain amount of time, on a scale that needs to be measured as a multiple of the scale we use in order to see the full scale of our place of where we are in the time the universe will exist. Dust cannot create light just like the asteroid belt can never experience a day/night cycle. (that may change before the sun stops shedding light/heat/gravity)


Here is a planet building question. Does our history allow for the earth/moon complex allow for their combined gravitational force to be combined as far as being able to attract the heavier elements that they contain today?

The earth being slightly heavier ended up getting more than 50% of the incoming mass. Mass that was at a temp that made the elements molten in nature and both had rotation that was in balance. At one point they became heavy enough to start attracting comets of ice as they were on their way to the sun. Because of the heat radiated by the earth/moon the ice was evaporated before any impact took place and the amount of ice is equal to the water we have on earth today. The lower level of the 'clouds' was whatever height the heat from the bodies evaporated the water. The moon would have been exposed to more clouds as it rotated around the earth and the cloud of ice that was at -200C. The more ice was gathered into those clouds the better the earth/moon could transfer heat to the cold of space and the clouds got lower and lower until water could be found on the earths new crust. That process used up first 3.6B years of the earth's last 4B years.

b) A vacuum is 0psi air pressure.
It does not mean it is void of mass that you find in a solar system and in galaxies.

We cannot reach the T=0K, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We cannot reach the density of T=0K, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We cannot reach the density of ''virtual particles'' in the T=0K, but that doesn't
mean they don't exist. / Dirac/

a) no such place as that would have to be prior to time existing and there is
no beginning or end to time. Time as we know it is an abstract as

Zero vacuum is a continuum where '' is no beginning or end to time.''
Time is result of Gravity effect.
We all live in* gravity-time on gravity- planet Earth.

c) prior to time there was nothing.
Light cannot exist in nothing and time in that place has no constraints.

prior to gravity-time there was zero vacuum.
''virtual particles'' exist in T=0K

Does light expand and shrink as it heats up or cools down?
Since light contains 'heat' and heat interacts with all other matter based
on whether it is hotter or colder than the 'light' that comes into 'contact' with it.

Quantum of light doesn't have ''heat''
''heat'' is result of molecules / particles movement.
Quantum of light can only give motion to particles to create ''heat''

Does the color of light dictate how much heat is carried along and that
would be how much that could contain.

''Colour '' is result of particle's frequencies

Another problem with everything being at rest is you need a force to start the motion
. . .
Motion of mass is stored up energy and if it cannot be created or destroyed

According to Dirac : motion of mass is stored up energy -
-- negative energy: -E=Mc^2
Somehow it can change to positive / active energy of motion.
( Casimir effect, Lamb shift )

when the big bang happened the combined energy
of all the mass that had gathered into that one spot also took a certain
amount of time, on a scale that needs to be measured as a multiple
of the scale we use in order to see the full scale of our place of where
we are in the time the universe will exist.

Ha . . .
Isn't better to go to pub and take a glass of beer ?

=========================================================

Light comes from many forms, heat is the one thing they have in common. Light from the sun is capable of creating a shadow, that is the point I am referencing as an important event from our past. It may not even be necessary to know the exact year but getting it in the right sequence is necessary or you end up with a flawed version of what happened in the past. That can have an effect on the way things turn out in the future.
Water can be in vapor, liquid, or vapor form. To get here from deep space means it arrived as ice at a temp of about -200C and for argument's sake let's say the average temperature of all the water on the planet is +10C. The volume is known and the formula is know to end up with the energy needed to see that change happen. The final number would be affected by the numbers that come from a molten earth ending up with a rocky crust that also has an average temperature that is less that it was in the distant past so it either heated up the incoming material or it just escaped into space. The earth loses a lot more heat in a day that it gains from the sun and in the past we could come up with a number for the radiation of a molten rocky earth that is about 5/8the size it is now, one with water and the current size and one where the edge of the atmosphere is as that is where the last of the heat transfer process takes place. Different sizes and different exchange rates yet the exchanged totals should be close to being the same. Without that exchange global warming could heat us up 100C in a 100 years.


I'm not sure what was debunked years ago. Water turns to a gas at 100C today at this 'pressure', near space the pressure is close to zero so the boiling point is much lower. Where the black smokers are in the ocean the boiling temp of water would as high as 300C. The heat released eventually makes it to the highest part of the atmosphere. Carbon can exist in molten rock, liquid water cannot, as a vapor covering it would have accelerated the heat transfer and the first layer of 'snow' would have resulted in the highest transfer rate possible as ice acts like a blanket and that would have resulted in the interior getting a lot hotter than it was and when mass gets hotter it expands.


Forget the expanding part for a moment. Are there more stars being created than there are that die? Would that be an indication of getting hotter or colder and what does that mean when the universe is viewed as being a single object??

Light comes from many forms, heat is the one thing they have in common.

Quantum of light doesn't have ''heat''
Light from the sun is capable of creating movement of atoms/molecules.
Their movement create ''heat''.

Water . . .

There isn't complete theory of water.

=====================================

 

[darkbeaver]

IF you put down Sagan I have to say something. His books opened my eyes to reality.

Sagan was one of the first to challenge religion and show how dangerous religion can be in todays technology world. He showed the ignorant with beautiful metaphors and easy explanations of what science is, how it came to be and how it is very dangerous to have a world full of science and technology in which hardly nobody understands anything about science and technology.
Without a basic understanding of science, people can be swayed towards politicians or ideals that are dangerous to the planet. They can be succumb to fake news, and fake or inaccurate science. With a scientific mind you would have a better idea if the scientists were playing you about global warming for example. You would have a better idea if it is smart to have nuclear power. Basically a better idea how to dismiss all the bullshit that is everywhere.

There are many bad scientists on Earth that either work for the corporation and do whatever the corporations say or they just passed and are not good and do bad science. These people don;t stand out. And there are the good scientists the ones that only care about the truth. These are the ones that stand out and the ones that make science knowledge expand. Carl Sagan was one. He really wanted to show the world you do not have to be a smart person to understand what is going on with science, and that it is a must for everybody to know it or else the Earth is in grave danger.

For his scientific achievements, he discovered why Venus is so hot in the 1970's.
Because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
(What is it,, 2017 and there is still debate about what CO2 does in the atmosphere??)

I might use my last post and make a Carl Sagan thread. Cause one reason why I am here, is to plow though any bullshit, and open peoples eyes to science. Following in my teachers path except a little more sternly. Time is running out. The Earth's ecosystem is literally on the brink. Its not the alarmist talking, its the scientific truth.

Sorry to hijack your thread Socrates. And no offence Bones. I am drunk and just had to get some Sagan in there.

Knowledge is good.
Ignorance is evil.
(even Socrates had it right 2500 years ago)

Your eyes were opened by Sagan? Could you reproduce a list of Sagans notable works? Sagan was a religious adherant to the school of scientific consensus. Sagans CO2 idea was demonstrated to be a non starter many many times already.

Hyperventilating on Venus | Watts Up With That?

Carl Sagan and Cement | Principia Scientific International

 

[darkbeaver]

Right, sure, a Nobel Prize winning physicist knows nothing about magnetism, and you, with your easily falsified claims about the electric universe that you can't or won't do the mathematics to support, know better. Don't you understand that if the modern understanding of electromagnetic phenomena was wrong your computer would be an impossible device? It is to laugh.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

I will bet you that is the science fact that the very smart Richard Feynman will be remembered for.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't for a second believe you have any idea what Feynman meant by that, and it was such a poor choice of words that what he meant is far from clear. He was talking about doubt, skepticism, not accepting pronouncements from authority, thinking critically. Something you might try to keep in the front of your mind the next time you dip into Worlds in Collision.

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't for a second believe you have any idea what Feynman meant by that, and it was such a poor choice of words that what he meant is far from clear. He was talking about doubt, skepticism, not accepting pronouncements from authority, thinking critically. Something you might try to keep in the front of your mind the next time you dip into Worlds in Collision.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Feynman was repeating the undeniable fact that todays experts are ignorant of the totality of any area of study and will be thought of as infants by thier replacements in the near future who add more knowledge to those bodies of science.

I do nothing other than what you have suggested Feynman was saying. I always doubt, I am sceptical and I do not accept the pronouncements of authority unless they can demonstrate thier points.

http://https://screenshots.firefox.com/HIo2ARXyX4tp8EjA/arxiv.org

 

[darkbeaver]

Gravity takes its beginning as a heat produced by quantum particles (k)
that were pushed in movement by energy-mass particles (h/2pi )

=====================

The science I read says there are no quantum particles and that gravity is an effect of plasma and that plasma is the foundation of the universe. To date there is not even one small bottle of quantum particles anywhere on earth.

 

[socratus]

The science I read says there are no quantum particles
and that gravity is an effect of plasma and that plasma is the foundation of the universe.
To date there is not even one small bottle of quantum particles anywhere on earth.

a) Quantum theory says:
there are quantum dualistic particles in the universe.

b) Where did particles of plasma come from ?

c) The quantum dualistic particles are ''mysterious'' from modern scientific view
and therefore there are many speculations around their existence, and
what they really are.
(maybe, the quantum dualistic particles are ''string dualistic particles . . ?
because vibrating string is particle and wave simultaneously, as QT demands.)

===============================================

 

[darkbeaver]

a) Quantum theory says:
there are quantum dualistic particles in the universe.

b) Where did particles of plasma come from ?

c) The quantum dualistic particles are ''mysterious'' from modern scientific view
and therefore there are many speculations around their existence, and
what they really are.
(maybe, the quantum dualistic particles are ''string dualistic particles . . ?
because vibrating string is particle and wave simultaneously, as QT demands.)

===============================================

Quantum theory is interesting. Are there particles in a plasma state? My difficulty is, and I'll only mention one, the deviding line between energy and matter and is there a line. For instance, a piece of firewood becomes a hot cup of tea in about twenty minutes. The mass of that stick of wood was after delivery losses now in my tea cup. So is matter always sandwhiched between mass and energy. So the mass is dualistic and not the matter.
Being largely unable to follow much higher physics I have been forced to develope my own theorys about what in hell it all is. I hate particles.

I,ve been a physicist for over fifty years mostly involved with wheels and pumps and engines, I,m an old millwright.

Job Description. Physicists are highly trained scientists who study matter and the universe. They measure and study phenomena from the subatomic to the cosmic level and then use or develop models and theories to explain their observances.

A strange new world of light.
Date:
November 2, 2017
Source:
Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

There's nothing new thing under the sun -- except maybe light itself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171102141857.htm
=============================================================

Can we see light without the interception of matter?

A strange new world of light.
Date:
November 2, 2017
Source:
Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

There's nothing new thing under the sun -- except maybe light itself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171102141857.htm
=============================================================

I was watching light under a ferrocell being bent by a magnet in a utube video a few nights ago. The toroid/doughnut was clearly presented. That magnetic field was clearly visable.

I,ll find the clip and post it.

inertial system. a frame of reference in which a body remains at rest or moves with constant linear velocity unless acted upon by forces: any frame of reference that moves with constant velocity relative to an inertial system is itself an inertial system.

Inertia













Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest.

In a state of rest speed and direction are non players,rest has no speed or direction untill and if it isn't resting.

But where is unmoving matter in this universe?

It,s all moving, there is no rest.

Quantum theory is interesting. Are there particles in a plasma state? My difficulty is, and I'll only mention one, the deviding line between energy and matter and is there a line. For instance, a piece of firewood becomes a hot cup of tea in about twenty minutes. The mass of that stick of wood was after delivery losses now in my tea cup. So is matter always sandwhiched between mass and energy. So the mass is dualistic and not the matter.
Being largely unable to follow much higher physics I have been forced to develope my own theorys about what in hell it all is. I hate particles.

I,ve been a physicist for over fifty years mostly involved with wheels and pumps and engines, I,m an old millwright.

Job Description. Physicists are highly trained scientists who study matter and the universe. They measure and study phenomena from the subatomic to the cosmic level and then use or develop models and theories to explain their observances.



Can we see light without the interception of matter?



I was watching light under a ferrocell being bent by a magnet in a utube video a few nights ago. The toroid/doughnut was clearly presented. That magnetic field was clearly visable.

I,ll find the clip and post it.

inertial system. a frame of reference in which a body remains at rest or moves with constant linear velocity unless acted upon by forces: any frame of reference that moves with constant velocity relative to an inertial system is itself an inertial system.

Inertia













Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest.

In a state of rest speed and direction are non players,rest has no speed or direction untill and if it isn't resting.

But where is unmoving matter in this universe?

It,s all moving, there is no rest.

Anywhere in the universe, even death moves along in time. Is time only monodirectional?

SRT - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRT


SRT may refer to: Contents. [hide]. 1 Automotive; 2 Science and technology; 3 Transportation; 4 Other uses. Automotive[edit]. Street & Racing Technology, Chrysler high-performance automobile group; Suter Racing Technology, a Swiss Moto2 constructor; Selleslagh Racing Team, an auto racing team in Belgium; Swiss ...

iT SEEMS THE WHOLE THEORY OF SRT has been borrowed from street rod tech

 

[OmegaOm]

Quantum theory is interesting. Are there particles in a plasma state? My difficulty is, and I'll only mention one, the deviding line between energy and matter and is there a line. For instance, a piece of firewood becomes a hot cup of tea in about twenty minutes. The mass of that stick of wood was after delivery losses now in my tea cup. So is matter always sandwhiched between mass and energy. So the mass is dualistic and not the matter.

The mass of that wood is not in your cup of tea. For example using E = mc^2, saying the sticks mass is 1 kg we have.

E = 1 X 300,000,000 m/s ^2 or more simply, E = 1 X 3 X 10^8 ^2
That equals
E = 3 X 10^16 joules
which equals around 7 mega tonnes of tnt

you can see how much energy is locked up inside of mass, and why none of the mass if being converted into energy.

The energy that is heating your cup of tea is the chemical energy locked in the molecules that are broken apart and recombine into different molecules.

If you weigh the ashes from the sticks, they would weigh roughly the same as the original mass, minus the carbon, that has combined with the oxygen to form CO2 and water vapor that drifts away into the atmosphere.

Even Nuclear fission and fussion only convert a small portion of mass into energy.

To convert all of one mass into pure energy you would need another equal amount of antimatter.

 

[OmegaOm]

Continuing off my last post.
That energy is enough to flatten a metropolis city. All condensed safety into 1 kg of matter.

How is this possible? How can enough energy to flatten a city be stored safety inside a few sticks?

Better yet how has nature been able to condense all that energy into such a small mass.
The answer lies with the Higgs boson and the big bang. But this as of yet, I have yet to really understand.

But imagine if we can learn to some how store the suns energy into a mass, and then extract it at our leisure.
basically infinite power and off to the stars we go.

 

[darkbeaver]

To convert all of one mass into pure energy you would need another equal amount of antimatter.

Aren't Mass and Matter not the same?

Better yet how has nature been able to condense all that energy into such a small mass.
The answer lies with the Higgs boson and the big bang. But this as of yet, I have yet to really understand.

Higgs found no boson and the BB is pure invention. What medium did Einstines Bing Bang expand into?