A New Foundation of Physics

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nova_explored

Guest
what the discussions are reminding me of visually is the difference between a pulsar (for angular momentum) turning out particles at extreme velocities and splicing the atom, hence breaking the bonds of the forces, and releasing the energy (which is at the constant C). angular momentum will try to achieve C but will come up short. Again, unless there were an infinite source to pull from to allow it to cross the barrier and be at C, and that requires infinite energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>energy IS a by-product. Einstein said as much, Feynman said as much. Nuclear physicists say as much. It is bound by the forces directly proportional to the mass. It is a result of these masses. Inertia has little to do with binding energy. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />If you go to church and someone tells you the truth and you believe it without verifying the truth for yourself, it is called dogma. You must accept what others tell you on faith. <br /><br />Use your own reasoning for a moment. What is the force law that binds energy directly proportional to the mass? That doesn't even make sense. <br /><br />"Intertia has little to do with binding energy." What is that supposed to mean? Do you know what inertia is?<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>everything you are describing sounds so much like that mirage, or the need to take what is 'work energy' and make it something more. Angular momentum creates its own force, its own 'work energy', requiring an equal and opposite force to change its state. Sound familiar?? guess what, the mathematics are all the same. Energy is a constant, bound by mass. sorry. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I have heard similar arguments talking to people of varying faiths. We should be talking in arguments of science. I have provided a quantified view of the Aether. Using actual data and real equations I have derived the geometry of the quantum realm. Approach my theory with a discussion of the actual equations. Either show the math is wrong or that the wrong data was used. Show the geometry cannot be derived from the data as I derived it. But don't interject religious arguments for why you place your faith in the words of this person or that person. Can you do that?<br /><br />Don't be afraid to enter a new world based upon equations and data. It is not going to hurt you. You might actually have some fun with this.<br />
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>mass is a dimension, but more aptly put, mass is the amount of matter in a specified system. simply that. i don't recall saying matter is mass. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />If you claim that mass is equivalent to energy according to E=mc^2 and then say the matter of nuclei is converted to energy in nuclear binding according to E=mc^2, then you are saying that matter is mass. It is very simple logic.<br /><br />You are concerned about mirages, and yet you are deceived by one of the most used slight of hand tricks in the past 100 years. <br /><br />Can you respond to this simple point without contradicting yourself?
 
V

volantis

Guest
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae534.cfm <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That required class I had to take in nuclear physics (8 AM is a terrible time to take a graduate level course in this stuff), understanding what this curve really means was one of the useful things I got out of it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You seem fond of this topic. The following quote comes from the page you referenced:<br />"For fission of U or P, energies released are around 200 MeV or so. The energy per event is greater (in these examples) in fission, but the energy per nucleon (fusion = about 7 MeV/nucleon, fission = about 1 Mev/nucleon) is much greater in fusion. "<br />The concept of statistics in nuclear physics is a game. It has no bearing at all on the actual reaction that occurs. Naturally the binding energy per nucleon is lower in an isotope with over 200 nucleons than it is in an isotope with 1 to 4 nucleons. <br /><br />It is misleading to suggest that the mass in each nucleon in uranium or plutonium contributes to the fission process. Nobody has ever observed a proton or neutron with less mass than its measured quantum mass. All that has been observed is that the total mass of the nucleon is less than individual, unchangeable proton and neutron masses.<br /><br />It is an error to assume that the mass of each nucleon contributes to the missing mass equally. And if that is not the assumption, it makes no sense to talk about the statistical distribution of missing mass.<br /><br />I will point out that when an electron and proton bind to produce a neutron, just the opposite occurs. There is extra mass in the neutron, beyond the individual masses of the electron and proton.<br /><br />I know the next response to the electron/proton binding is that there is no such thing since HUP proves that electrons cannot exist in a nucleus. But this is an error, too,
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
okay, good point. except one thing, matter of nuclei converted to energy is the physical process in nuclear binding, or the act of conversion of mass with the formula e=mc'2. one is part of the other, not seperate. or am i misreading you?<br /><br />all i am saying is energy is inherent in the binding forces between matter. the conversion of matter to a different form is the act of converting that 'mass.' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
and i am now a comet...<br /><br />alright<br /><br />have to go change my post script now <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>all i am saying is energy is inherent in the binding forces between matter. the conversion of matter to a different form is the act of converting that 'mass.' <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is no question of what you are saying, and I do not deny you the right to say whatever you want. But even within the QM, the binding energy has nothing to do with nuclear binding, it has to do with nuclear *unbinding*. The official explanation of binding energy is that it is the energy required to rip a nucleon from the nucleus. The so-called "binding energy" is not internal to the nucleus, but external to it. That is why a nuclear reaction requires a detonator or radioactive rods to intitiate a controlled reaction. <br /><br />Since the (un)binding energy is external to the nucleus, the mass cannot have been converted to binding energy. In fact, "binding energy" is a misnomer to begin with. Energy does not bind; forces bind. There is a nuclear binding *force*, not nuclear binding *energy*.<br /><br />So now we know that nuclear mass is not converted to energy according to E=mc^2, there is no binding energy, and the so-called measured binding energy is external to the nucleus and only exists when the nucleus is ripped apart.<br /><br />This means the modern interpretation of nuclear reactions is patently false. <br /><br />The Aether Physics Model is fully quantified. It not only quantifies the subatomic particles, but also the space in which the subatomic particles exist. Matter is defined as primary angular momentum, mass is defined as the dimension, that when given a quantity, measures inertia.<br /><br />I have developed actual equations based upon the strong force law I developed, and the subatomic particle's magnetic moment, that calculates the (un)binding energy required for each and every isotope. The equation is not perfected yet, but it does do a remarkable job in its present form. <br /><br />Part of the proble
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
noooooo. thats what i said. for the love....<br /><br />energy is the by-product. YES. inherent in the binding force.<br /><br />another words, what is required to seperate it is the exact same as what is holding it together.<br /><br />you've got to understand that the model of the universe is built on this ebb and flow. you cannot get something from nothing. in order to rip the nucleon off u must have the same, the exact same, that is holding it together. <i>This comes forth in the form of ...energy...</i> <br /><br />the by-product of the event... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
its built on this ebb and flow not because of lack of a better understanding, but because the most basic and fundamental equations of the universe all build off of this precept.<br /><br />another way to look at it, in keeping with your aether model is this: lets say we have a lepton ( or any particle that cannot be divisible any further. for all practicle purposes lets say the lepton is as far as it goes outside the realms of qm, to keep it simple). This particle has absolutely no inherent energy in it and of itself. what it does have is a work force energy attributed to it by...angular momentum. In order to change its direction you must apply a force, or energy to it, equal to that of its momentum.<br /><br />now lets say we have a quark, or some particle that can be divisible, it still has the angular momentum, but in order to rip it apart we must apply the same amount of energy to it, to equal that of the force binding it together. <br /><br />In both cases the mathematics is the same. U most give it the same input to recieve the output. angular momentum, binding force; gravity, centrifugal force. All identical in terms of mathematics of its system. the universe is pretty simple like that. <br /><br />then we step into qm of the same system and it all goes to disorder (for us anyway). it is there these radically different models get introduced, but none of them offers a complete explanation. <br /><br />the whole dark matter and aether is, to me, a means describing a way to achieve that ever elusive C, infinite energy to give a finite system a means of achieving C. (ironically, that being the by-product of the reactions in the stars). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

unlearningthemistakes

Guest
this *distinguished* one mr.volantis is not worthy of you educating him. man, he's so great <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />. <br /><br /><br />he's flogging on what he doesn't understand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Prove what you say ULTM, show specifically what mistakes he's made.<br /><br />I think your resistance revolves around not being able conceptualize physics in the new model. I don’t say that as a slight, I say that in the context of seeing things one way for so long, it sort of burns in the neurons, making it hard to re-imagine the subject in a new way.<br /><br />Try to see if Dave has been inconsistent within the framework of his own model, you can’t compare what he says to the old model (because he’s corrected some terms and redefined some things [see page 3 or 4 of the white paper, look at the comparison chart]). Also, if he’s said anything contrary to the empirical data known to you, demonstrate that.<br /><br />When someone makes a blast like you just did, and offers nothing specific to clarify why the slight was made, it leaves the reader (me) with the impression that you just have a bad taste for this in general and don’t really care to examine it closely, which is fine, you certainly don’t have to. But to have an opinion about the model or the quality of Dave’s representations up to now, you have to do the work of studying the model first, else your opinion is just worthless, unqualified blather on the wind.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>energy is the by-product. YES. inherent in the binding force. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No, there is no "thing" called energy that is stored anywhere. Energy is the unit of work. There is force, and in this case it is nuclear binding force. E=mc^2 does not say that mass is converted to force. <br /><br />It is wrong for Einstein and anybody else to count their ergs before they are hatched. When the nucleus binds, it is held together by force, not by energy. It takes energy to change a force. Once the force is changed and stabilized again, the energy is no longer there.<br /><br />But this is all beside the point. If you are now saying that the external energy must be offset by internal energy, then where does the found mass come from after the atom is ripped apart? It takes energy to both restore the nuclei to their normal masses and it takes internal energy to offset the external energy; once again, QM collides with SR.
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
i'm not saying anything of the sort. and you are misreading.<br />i am sorry for that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Then please clerify your point <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
P

pocket_rocket

Guest
Clarify the point that you started this thread making no mention that you know Dave Thompson who miraculously appears here the day after you start this thread. Why did Mr. Thompson not immediately state who he was instead of waiting till he was found out, and why didn't you state from the start that he would be adding to this thread? Ther seems to be some deception on your part as well as Mr. Thompson.<br /><br />Don't bother attacking my post. I won't be reading this thread in the future. If you want honest debate and discussion, I suggest being more up front at the opening post.
 
A

ag30476

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />You just demonstrated that as a layman you don't know the difference between fuel and energy. Fuel is matter, not energy. Gasoline is not energy. Energy is the ability to do work, which means it involves motion. Hence, energy is the unit equal to mass times velocity squared. And since energy is dependent upon velocity squared, it is also dependent upon time.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Keep digging that hole.
 
V

volantis

Guest
For your information, I found out about this thread from my web stats page. I was curious as to where the hits were coming from. I chose to not identify myself straight out to see people's honest views of my theory, without the baggage of trying to please me or insult me. <br /><br />I know Cole's real name but didn't know the handle. I had no idea who Cole was until contacting me in private wondering if I was volantis.<br /><br />Not only is there not a conspiracy going on here, but what would the conspiracy be about?<br /><br />I'm glad to see that Cole likes the Aether Physics Model enough to start a thread on it at a science web site. The enthusiasm Cole has for this model is indicative of what the model has to offer. <br /><br />I am curious as to what Pocket Rocket thinks is so deceptive about remaining quiet about my identity? Did I cause Pocket Rocket some kind of emotional harm? Please, share your feelings and get this off your chest.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
I can answer the very last.<br /><br />If you postulate a theory or set of theories, and use a particular site, document, or what have you as a reference - "proof" if you will - that's one thing.<br /><br />However, if it turns out that the reference(s) are, in fact, <i>you yourself</i>, that's "self-referential" evidence. In short, it's similar to having multiple usernames at a particular site to post in "agreement" with what you say.<br /><br />You would of course needless to say agree with everything you say. So the "proof" is worthless, and the intent disingenuous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Oh, sorry. Addendum: that's not to say that was your intent, certainly. But perhaps you can see how it could be viewed as that way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
I sent pocket_Rocket a personal note to let him know there was no conspiracy. Hope he returns.<br /><br />I did not know Dave was volantis. It was not until several posts that it became apparent that “volantis” was not simply a ZPE enthusiast, as I first suspected, but was intimate with the APM in particular. Volantis had to be either Dave or Jim, so I sent a private message to see which. He is so new here that he did not know that he had a message to read, so the mystery went on. The more he posted the more sure I was that Voalntis was one of the authors of the APM, but which remained a mystery, until he signed a post “Dave.” After that, he found my personal message and told me which author he was.<br /><br />Dave said “The enthusiasm Cole has for this model is indicative of what the model has to offer.” <br />And that is exactly why I started the thread. I believe this model is worth chewing on from the old paradigm point of view that you all represent (because I suspect you have no objections Dave can’t answer rationally [but I am open to a surprise]). Once exposed to this new way of considering the evidence, new avenues and vistas open because the consciousness of all science minded people is seeded with the fruit of “more,” like pollution-less free energy. The ideals are worth the discussion guys, keep playing along.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
you do realize you've just cut out the biggest piece of the puzzle in the model of the universe and completely negated your own words, in the same breath. <br /><br /><i>h*f = E</i><br /><br />every piece of matter has it. not just a photon. <i>feynman, Einstein were not wrong</i>.<br /><br /><br />who is this dave thomson? or who are you volantis? that this commotion got stirred?<br /><br />i just read my post and have to clarify. i said, energy to change direction as an example. and that should have read to change velocity. Sorry. I can see where the misreading comes from. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
<i>But this is all beside the point. If you are now saying that the external energy must be offset by internal energy, then where does the found mass come from after the atom is ripped apart? It takes energy to both restore the nuclei to their normal masses and it takes internal energy to offset the external energy; once again, QM collides with SR.</i><br /><br />it does collide, newtonian physics as well. <br /><br />newton's law- 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.'<br /><br />the same force holding it together must be applied to pull it apart. the process requires energy. right.<br /><br />you've got an individual particle without any energy, but in truth, through frequency and vibration it does actually; through angular momentum it does, through binding forces, it does.<br /><br />in a split an atom releases all the array of smaller particles that were held together by the strong force. To me, that is energy. A force applied, is storing that energy of the system. That energy becomes inherent in the binding force. much like pressure, or gravity, in a neutron star, or any other system, these forces impose on matter, changing its energy, and containing it. The energy is absolutely stored. otherwise, when it splits, there would be no terminal velocity, there certainly wouldn't be a gamma ray emission (which is only quantified as energy). Nothing would happen. It is bound inherently in the binding force. <br /><br />bound by it. bound. those are my words. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

volantis

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>in a split an atom releases all the array of smaller particles that were held together by the strong force. To me, that is energy. A force applied, is storing that energy of the system. That energy becomes inherent in the binding force. much like pressure, or gravity, in a neutron star, or any other system, these forces impose on matter, changing its energy, and containing it. The energy is absolutely stored. otherwise, when it splits, there would be no terminal velocity, <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The nucleus is held together by strong force. The external energy counteracts that force and separates (splits) the atom by imposing a distance on the force between the two (or more) parts. In the APM, the carrier of the strong force is quantified as a different type of charge from the carrier of the electrostatic force. When the two parts become separated by a specific distance, determined by their respective charges, the electrostatic force predominates and accelerates the two parts away from each other.<br /><br />Not only is this consistent with nuclear physics observations, but the APM also demonstrates that these physics are the same physics of GR, except that it is applied to charge tensors rather than mass/energy and space-time curvature tensor. Thus, the APM *unifies* the correct aspects of QM and GR. The reason GR and QM are not presently united is because GR is considered to be inseparable from SR, which is incorrect. Also, QM incorrectly quantifies the strong force with an imaginary force particle. The APM makes corrections to both QM and SR and not only unifies them, but also produces a Unified Force Theory, which Einstein knew had to be possible.<br /><br />If you could just peel off some of the erroneous attitude that QM and GR are infallible, you would be able to see this. And yes, I'm afraid you will have to let go of SR altogether as far as mass equivalence to energy goes. But have heart, the L
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
what corrections?<br /><br />these charge tensors- the fabric of space-time itself? much like string theory proposes? you know where i'm going with this i imagine.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts